| Revision as of 15:32, 1 November 2024 view sourceBluethricecreamman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,279 edits →CNN: cleaning up my postTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:48, 17 January 2025 view source Herostratus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,277 edits →RfC: Jacobin: my 2c | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 464 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(5d) | |algo = old(5d) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| {{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 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) === | |||
| == RFC Jewish Chronicle == | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| *: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) | |||
| | status = closed | |||
| *'''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) === | |||
| | result = This was a pretty complicated close, as we were dealing not only with the choices 1-4 but also time periods and topics. Time periods discussed were pre/post 2008/9, pre/post 2015, pre/post 2020, and pre/post 2024. Topics discussed were PIA, Muslims, antisemitism, BLPs, and the British left. Complicating this is that neither specific topics nor timeframes were part of the original RfC, so of course some editors didn’t address these, and because most editors ''did'' address them, that can be hard to parse. In closing when someone indicated they were on the fence, such as saying "3 or 4", unless they clarified with something like "leaning 4", I assessed it as a 3. If someone indicated 2 generally after 2015, I assessed it as being included in 2 on PIA after 2020, etc. | |||
| 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 JC has long been considered (and designated at ]) generally reliable, with multiple previous discussions from at least 2010. A not-insignificant minority of editors supported leaving the assessment at generally reliable, and another not-insignificant minority argued the JC should be at least partially deprecated. There was significant discussion around both of these. The majority of participants thought the designation needed to be much more nuanced than a simple "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable/deprecated", especially with regard to certain topics and with regard to certain time periods. | |||
| * {{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.}} | |||
| One participant asked the closer to consider the previous discussion of dates the JC was designated as generally reliable before but not after. I didn’t feel comfortable doing that as part of a closing, as it felt like a supervote. What I’d suggest is another discussion to settle this ''one particular issue'' without all of the noise from other issues. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| I find consensus that | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #JC should be considered generally reliable until 2015. | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| #JC should be considered as needing caution between 2015 and 2020 on PIA, with not-insignificant concern that related topics may also need caution. | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| #JC should be considered generally unreliable regarding PIA, and needing caution about related topics, after 2020. | |||
| :::::# 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 | |||
| I find no consensus that JC should be considered generally unreliable on topics unrelated to PIA. ] (]) 12:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# 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. | |||
| <!-- ] 10:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1730023269}} | |||
| :::::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== | |||
| The reliability of the ] is: | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | * '''Option 1: ]''' | ||
| Line 44: | Line 81: | ||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | * '''Option 3: ]''' | ||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | * '''Option 4: ]''' | ||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| , ] (]) 09:09, 22 September 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). | |||
| Existing RSP entry is green with the following commentary: | |||
| **NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism. | |||
| ***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects. | |||
| ***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| "There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics." | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| Editors may wish to comment on these issues specifically. ] (]) 09:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| Just a reminder but it's not technically possible to ] a source for a specific are of content and also a deprecated source is not more unreliable than an unreliable source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| :Well, there are clear wording differences between ] and ], beyond the availability of technical means for the latter. ] <small>]]</small> 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| ::I'm just summarising {{tq|Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable.}} ] itself is a short summary of ], but this is better discuss in the discussion section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''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) === | |||
| ===Survey (Jewish Chronicle)=== | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| *'''Option 2 in general, Option 3 for ] area'''. The recent scandal gives rise to significant doubts over editorial control and practices which taken together with the lack of transparency over ownership and recent checkered history suggests we should not consider this source reliable without inline attribution at a minimum and unreliable for matters relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.] (]) 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * 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. | |||
| *:You didn't seem concerned about funding in the case of Al Jazeera; you wrote {{tq|I am not persuaded that any bias produced as a result of Qatari funding}}. Why the different approach here? In this case there could be donors or lenders we don't know about (which isn't uncommon for news orgs), but what could be worse than being owned by an absolute monarchy? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Please take your irrelevancies elsewhere, the discussion section maybe. ] (]) 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It's relevant because holding Jewish publications to a different standard would bias the topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Al Jazeera is somewhat of a special case, as it has complete editorial independence despite being state-funded (a setup similar to the BBC). ] (]) 13:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Almost all news orgs claim editorial independence, including RT for example. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Repeats comment about irrelevancies. ] (]) 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for Muslims, the British left and Israel/Palestine since 2016, '''option 3''' for its entire output since 2020. The JC has had a long history of false reporting on Muslims, the British Left and Israel/Palestine (a complex of topics which frequently intersect). In the post 2010 period the JC frequently libelled individuals and published false information on these topics. Individuals were forced to resort to complaints to IPSO in order to get corrections published. Professor of Journalism Brian Cathcart {{tq|the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years}}. The paper broke IPSO's code , an astounding number for a small weekly paper, and paid out in at least four libel cases. All were against Muslims or people on the British left. | |||
| :IPSO the paper's lack of cooperation with complaints in very strong terms {{tq| The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable.}} Given the difficulty of obtaining corrections from the paper in cases where individuals are named, it is likely a large amount of false information has also been published where nobody is named, so the possibility of libel actions is eliminated, and the chance of IPSO cases is significantly reduced. | |||
| :The 2020 change of ownership, meaning nobody actually knows who owns the paper, combined with the false stories on Gaza, suggest we should not use the paper in any capacity until the question of ownership is clarified.] (]) 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just in addition to this, I feel, having read others' comments, a date of 2010 for the beginning of the qualification on reliability regarding political topics may also be valid, given that marked the period where Stephen Pollard took over. I would certainly consider extending it back that far in terms of BLP. However, the real collapse in standards occurred from 2015.--] (]) 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 in general, Option 3/4 for ] area''' (Option 4 for ] coverage from 2024 going forward, given this year's string of fabrications and widespread concerns about journalistic integrity voiced in both the Israeli and international press). --] <small>]]</small> 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Explanation of Option 2 "additional considerations", as : | |||
| *:The current RSP entry says, ''There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.'' | |||
| *:Per Option 2, in-text attribution should in my view not just be recommended but ''required'' for any topics that are related to "the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians" but do not fall under ]. This should also apply more generally to assertions and allegations of antisemitism that do not fall under ]. ] <small>]]</small> 07:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I also support comments by others that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle appear to have dropped lower and lower over the past 20 years, with step changes in 2008, 2015 and after the change in ownership in 2020. ] <small>]]</small> 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''': major scandal for a prominent newspaper which should be immediately deprecated for the following reasons: | |||
| :1-; | |||
| :2-; | |||
| :3- | |||
| :4- | |||
| :5- who . ] (]) 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::These issues all relate to the period from 2020 to now. If it’s technically possible to deprecate for a specific timeframe only, is it right to assume you would argue for deprecating for this period specifically? ] (]) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can continue mentioning how the JC was bought by right-wing owners in 2008 and how the newspaper played a prominent role in slandering pro-Palestinian voices as antisemitic including UK Labor Party former leader Jeremy Corbyn, and how it promoted the new antisemitism concept which included anti-Zionism. Also notable that JC had too many IPO violations since 2018. ] (]) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was no change of ownership in 2008. ] (]) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My bad, editorship* as mentioned in MEE article. ] (]) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::1. Are there any other sources deprecated because of the suspected political leanings of their owners? If not, are we going to start doing this? I might have some suggestions. | |||
| ::2 & 3. are the points with substance to my mind. However, the JC have retracted the stories and cut ties with the writer, admitted the mistake and said they are reviewing their procedures for dealing with freelance journalists. This is substantially the same procedure as faced with a very similar situation. | |||
| ::4. It's baffling that you think that this has bearing on the Jewish Chronicle's reliability. | |||
| ::5. Columnists resigning is not a criterion of reliability or unreliability. Nor, for that matter, is being "unbalanced". ] (]) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There really is a world of difference between | |||
| :::* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/open-door-column-note-to-readers | |||
| :::and | |||
| :::* https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/conclusion-of-jewish-chronicle-investigation-into-elon-perry-daaqr8b9 | |||
| :::Do please read them both and compare. ] <small>]]</small> 08:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree re no.4. Re no.5, though, I think columnists resigning can be an indicator of unreliability if their reasons for resigning relate to criteria of reliability. Whereas some of the resigners (e.g. ]) have only mentioned a dislike of the editor's politics, most have mentioned being uncomfortable with the lack of transparency about ownership and many have expressed other reliability concerns, as the links already on this page show. ] (]) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] I agree with you that some specific complaints of the columnists are relevant - and ], as far as I see the relevant concerns relate to the identity of the owners (see again point 1). The fact that columnists resigned in and of itself is not. And the complaints brought by @] - that resigning columnists ({{tq|stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced"}} are not germane to this discussion. ] (]) 10:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for ] area since 2020'''. This isn't about the current event, rather the current event appears to be the culmination of issues that have been growing for several years. Multiple external sources have commented on this, as have columnists that have recently ended their association with the paper. Oppose 4 in general. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015'''. It would be insane to deprecate a 183 year old publication, so strongly oppose option 4. I have argued in the talk section above that the IPSO breaches in the 2015-20 period should give rise to caution but not lead to option 3. I would urge those who are swayed by these breaches to read the actual rulings; you will find a couple of serious errors but the majority are fairly trivial and have been more than adequately corrected. I would argue against a generally unreliable status for antisemitism for that period because, prior to Jewish News taking off, the JC was the only UK Jewish paper and therefore the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism. Designating it unusable means the whole topic can only be covered in a skewed way. I would therefore urge a formulation such as: “use with caution and attribution” for that topic in that period. Since 2020, the case for General unreliability, especially on Israel/Palestine, is strong, but even here we should explicitly note that there will be exceptions for authoritative contributors such as those who have resigned (eg Anshel Pfeiffer, Colin Shindler). ] (]) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{quote|the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism}} | |||
| *:The problem is that they make all sorts of highly dubious accusations of antisemitism, many of which appear to be politically motivated (i.e., in order to attack people who criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians). If the "deep coverage" is dishonest, then using it will not improve Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That may be your opinion but there are no RSs saying that as far as I know. If we had restrictions on | |||
| *::BLP and/or ARBPIA in the relevant period, that would address that risk anyway. If we make them generally option 3, then we avoid the risk but also lose a lot of potential to cover antisemitism in UK society. ] (]) 15:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015''' Bobfrombrockley really saved me a lot of typing. I also want to emphasize that we really need to be treating most sources, even our top sources like WSJ, NYT etc as green to yellow anytime we are treading into areas where bias etc could come into play. While fundamental facts (times, dates, etc) typically are objective, even good sources can have some bias in how much emphasis they put into certain aspects of a topic or even that they chose to cover a topic at all. This also applies when we look at how much scrutiny is applied to various sources. Outside of the false reports issue (which is hardly unique to this source) are they under the microscope because they are much different than other sources or because their politics disagree with other sources? As a rule we need to put less stock in "the color of a source" and more thought into what the source is claiming and what evidence they present for the claim. ] (]) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Objectively speaking, they produce far more false reports than other sources. Including sources we deprecate, like the Daily Mail.] (]) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020''' as per ActivelyDisinterested. The Jewish Chronicle has issues stemming from its recent change in ownership, but those issues are much more clearly problematic, and more evidenced in third-party sources, for Israel/Palestine-related issues then issues outside that topic area. ] (]) 18:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area, muslims, and the british left, especially after 2020''' seems they used to do good work tho ive seen the ridiculous scandals in the wake of continuing israel palestine conflict. agree for same reasons as loki, springee, hope the org becomes more transparent soon. ] (]) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 in general, Option 3 for muslims and the British left, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area''' - Based on the provided background and latest developments, and considering JC's longstanding IPSO issues, undisclosed ownership that complicates the evaluation of the publication's impartiality, questionable editorial standards, etc etc. I've been following the gargantuan discussion preluding this RfC. These issues are not recent or limited to their latest scandal. - ] (]) 18:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' from 2015 onwards. No opinion for 2014 or earlier. In answer to queries about the year: 2015 was the year a general campaign of false allegations of antisemitism was launched against the British left and against ] in particular. ] (]) 04:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:What is your source for the JC having "launched" a "general campaign" in 2015? This was not mentioned in the previous discussion. If the JC actually engaged in a campaign at this time, then a secondary source would say so. I do see that a made claims of antisemitism about Corbyn. But an ''editorial'' (even an inaccurate one -- it's an editorial!) is not what means when one says a ''newspaper'' has a "general campaign of false allegations", which suggests misconduct. ] (]) 04:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: It wasn't the JC in particular it was the British press in general. Restricting the Option 3 to 2015 onwards leaves earlier JC journalism able to be used if people familiar with the history of the paper consider it reliable. ] (]) 05:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::To clarify then, Davesaurus, you think the British press in general should be option 3 after 2015? ] (]) 07:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4'''. The unreliability and political bias of the JC has a long history. Their more recent opaque ownership and financing raises yet further concerns. that over the previous 5 years the JC had broke the IPSO code an astonishing 41 times* and had lost, or been forced to settle, at least four libel cases. There have been further cases since. This is all the more remarkable, because it has a relatively small circulation. By that metric the JC is substantially worse than other notoriously unreliable publications such as the Daily Mail which Misplaced Pages deprecated. However, irrespective of the final decision, it needs a strong warning of bias on all politically related, and non-Jewish religious issues. ] (]) 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for 2020 onwards (dating to the change of ownership). Bias and IPSO complaints from earlier are recoverable issues. Mystery owners are not. The chain of accountability is important. ] (]) 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Bias isn't unreliability. A single scandal, with the freelancers dealt with, isn't an indictment of the whole publication. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Andre, this isn't a single scandal, but multiple breaches of the IPSO code, libel cases, opaque ownership and funding, we are drowning in problems. By all means explain why these aren't relevant but please base your view around the evidence presented in the discussion. It's as if you haven't read anything or decided to insert ] fallacy! ] (]) 19:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Libel cases do not impact the publication's reliability unless they end in a judgment or verdict that is damning to the publication. There was an extensive discussion in the above thread about the IPSO and the ownership and my conclusion is that there's a bit of smoke but no fire (since the fire was extinguished by cutting ties and retracting the problematic material) as far as liability for the publication for the recent scandal, but the IPSO is a red herring since ''The Times'' also had a similar number of breaches, and I don't think it matters that it publishes more text, because that's not a metric defined anywhere. The relevant metric is a reputation for upholding accuracy and fact-checking. So long as Al Jazeera, a state-run propaganda outlet owned and operated by Qatar, is generally reliable, I'm not convinced that the ownership standard is one we care about. ] nor ] define this. The concern is whether the org stands by their fact-checking and corrects errors. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No. Policy on this is at ]. The publisher matters. ] (]) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::As it says there, "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It does not mention having to know who owns the publication. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::No. WP:SOURCE says the publisher affects reliability and it even identifies a specific reliable publisher. Also, here we have other sources saying that its unknown publisher is a real problem for the source. Three of its columnists quit because it does not have a reputation for reliability. ] (]) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::That is a misread of the policy. ''Jewish Chronicle'' is the publisher, the question at hand here is whether they are reputable. It doesn't at all mention individuals or groups funding the ownership, that is irrelevant and a reach. The columnists quit due to the recent scandal. The publication has been around for many years, so its reputation is something at hand here for editors to weigh in on. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No. You misread policy. ''Jewish Chronicle'' is the source under discussion. Your contention that it is self-published only makes it unreliable. ] (]) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::It is not self-published, it is a publisher. It is owned by a consortium led by ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::You just said again it is a self-publisher. ''Jewish Chronicle'' is the publication. If as you claim, ''Jewish Chronicle'' is also the publisher, then ''Jewish Chronicle'' is self publishing. ] (]) 21:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Your argument makes no sense. Jewish Chronicle is both the publisher and the publication, just like most newspapers. Or technically the publisher is the consortium that owns it, but is also known as Jewish Chronicle. The New York Times is the publication published by The New York Times Co., also a privately owned and operated organization. Self-published is when an individual publishes their own book or article. Jewish Chronicle is the outlet. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::We have mainstream sources across the board, from to to to , telling us that the identity of the ''actual'' owner is unknown. You can't just sweep this concern under the carpet: it is being voiced by media professionals, including former contributors to the Jewish Chronicle, not Wikipedians. ] <small>]]</small> 21:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Please show me where in the policy the identity of the owner is mentioned as anything pertaining to its reliability. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::You just admitted that with the Jewish Chronicle, the publication and the publisher here are two different things, although you then pass it off as a 'technicality.' You go on to describe the publisher as the owner. ] (]) 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Yes, it's no different than ], published by its namesake owner, The Nation Company, L.P., the Jewish Chronicle is both the publication and an eponymous group that publishes it. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::So, the owner is the publisher. Publisher matters under SOURCE. And the publisher, here has been put in doubt. ] (]) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::Continued . ] <small>]]</small> 22:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Rather than clutter the survey, kindly take this to the discussion section. ] (]) 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would just answer this point simply by reiterating the quote by subject matter expert ]: {{tq|the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years}}. The problem is not bias, though the source is biased like every newspaper, it is consistent and sustained inaccuracy used to support its biases.--] (]) 06:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' with the additional considerations of: generally reliable or at least not noticeably objectionable pre-2009, and "use with caution" from 2009 onwards (Pollard era), most notably with respect to BLPs and politics (the source of almost all the libel cases and other complaints), given its significantly worse track record of inaccuracy and sensationalism in this area, and then '''option 3''' for content related to ARBPIA and related politics (including the intersection of race, religion, etc.) from 2020 onwards (the period of uncertain ownership and further step up in the editorial murkiness/malpractice and political beholdenness). ] (]) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for now. I'm open to changing my !vote if other evidence emerges, but so far I'm only seeing a single story with serious accuracy concerns, which doesn't say much about the broader reliability of the 183 year old newspaper. The other evidence that has been provided against JC's reliability is IPSO complaints. Anyone can file an IPSO complaint, so only the ones IPSO (partially) upheld seem potentially meaningful. As TFD mentioned, there were four of those in the past two years, so I read through those. They all have some kind of merit, but seem fairly minor. One was about the text {{tq|the Islamic Republic has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the Earth}}. Definitely imprecise, but we regularly see worse hyperbole from other biased-but-reliable sources. Another complaint took issue with the text {{tq|Labour banned him from its list of potential council candidates}}, saying the candidate was rejected but not (permanently) banned. Also imprecise, but we see far worse errors from ] sources regularly. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think anyone knows how many complaints the IPSO receives, only changes after a complaint was made. For all publications over the five years 2018 to 2022, only 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the remaining complaints. 1.41% were resolved directly by the complainant with the publisher during the process and 0.43% were resolved by IPSO mediation. For examples of complaints about the JC which the IPSO '''rejected''' ] (]) 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015''' - just gonna second pretty much everything that Bob said. Somewhat lean option 3 for ARBPIA post-2020 but not strongly so, and complete deprecation, especially pre-2015, would be a mistake. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per u:Andrevan. The newspaper handled the latest scandal involving Elon Perry properly by severing the ties with him and removing his articles. Other media outlets have also had similar issues . The IPSO rulings are a nothingburger, other sources like The Times have had multiple IPSO rulings against them as well and others like The Guardian simply choose not to be regulated by IPSO. It would definitely by good to know who owns the newspaper but I'm not sure how it would be relevant. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per the arguments above. I previously had a somewhat lower opinion based on this scandal, but having read into it, it seems to me that the reliability issue has been sufficiently addressed. The political shift to the right is concerning on a personal level, and so is the departure of experienced and skilled journalists, but neither of those impacts the reliability for facts. The IPSO complaints are mostly the process working as intended, and the offending articles for this current scandal seem to have been removed (and are obviously, as any other thing written by such an author, unusable). The JC still has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, and until that changes, it would not be reasonable to consider them unreliable, including in the I/P area. In addition, it has an important role of representing British (and other diaspora) ], and we should be highly cautious not to run out of centrist/right-leaning diaspora sources, including in the I/P area. I also find the argument about ownership entirely unconvincing: I don’t find it likely that there is any plausible ownership even close to comparably problematic to ], with the state in effect (though at least officially indirectly) both and (with to be fair, no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of editorial control) a source we currently consider reliable for I/P. ] (]) 11:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Whoa ... this calls for a bit of context: | |||
| *:* , CNN, 12 December 2023 | |||
| *:* , New York Times, 10 December 2023 | |||
| *:**''Just weeks before Hamas launched the deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting with Qatari officials. For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them. During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue? Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.'' | |||
| *:* , Der Spiegel, 2 November 2023 | |||
| *:**''Qatar is one of NATO's closest allies in the Gulf and has even been designated as a "Major Non-NATO Ally." In 2011, then United States President Barack Obama personally requested that the Emir of Qatar take the leadership of Hamas into his country. At the time, Washington was seeking to establish a communications channel to the Iranian-backed terrorist group. The Americans believed that a Hamas office in Doha would be easier to access than a Hamas bureau in Tehran.'' | |||
| *:*Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel in the ]. | |||
| *:] <small>]]</small> 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::All we need to do here is look at the editors who !voted anything other than 1 in the snow closed AJ RFCs. ] (]) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{u|Selfstudier}} can you explain this comment about our need to look at editors? ] (]) 05:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I think its pretty clear, don't you? If some editors want to go on about AJ in this RFC then pointing to their comments at the AJ RFC makes sense, no? ] (]) 08:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Israel's low press freedom rating probably has to do with its regular involvement in military conflicts, but in any case, why is it relevant here? No Israeli sources are being discussed. Qatar's rating of 58.48 isn't great, and that reflects a mix of state-owned (e.g. Al Jazeera) and independently-owned (e.g. Doha News) news orgs. | |||
| *::Returning to the topic of JC, it seems very speculative to say that there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability. With Al Jazeera, it's hard to prove anything but there are many signs of Qatari influence, such as where US diplomats discussed the use of Al Jazeera in diplomatic negotiations. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I agree it would be speculative for ''us'' to say that "there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability". But we have a wide spectrum of mainstream ''sources'' saying it, from The Telegraph to The Guardian to Haaretz to The Jerusalem Post. We have insiders like Lee Harpin, senior reporter at the JC till 2021, who left after the takeover and now | |||
| *:::* the new owners wanted more views ''"well to the right of the Tory party"'', | |||
| *:::* ''"The current predicament of the @JewishChron does not come as a surprise. Leadership chosen on ideological grounds by those who gained control of the publication. Communal orgs should have been raising concerns months and months ago"'', | |||
| *:::* and ''"The rot is deeper and for regular observers and readers of the paper, its direction over the last few years has been tragic to witness"''. | |||
| *:::You'd have to bring counterarguments published by people with similar standing in equivalent venues, rather than arguing with the people here. ] <small>]]</small> 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Fair point, there is an accusation of owner influence rather than mere speculation. That said, every news org has criticism from disgruntled employees, especially in the past ~20 years when many news orgs had to undergo major changes. Harpin's criticism actually seems much less concerning than, for example, Peter Oborne's ] of ''The Daily Telegraph'', which includes accusations of owner and advertiser influence as well as (frankly more relevant) a focus on clicks over reliability. One can find comparable accusations from disgruntled employees of most major news outlets. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well, at least you know who the owner of The Telegraph is. ;) I take your point about disgruntled employees, but the JC does seem to have had rather a lot of them since the takeover, and the concerns have been echoed very, very widely, both in Israel and the UK, by outside observers. ] weighed in today: Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] I'm confused why you would say that {{tq|Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel}}. | |||
| *::The comparison you're discussing is Qatari state-owned media with a privately held British newspaper. ] (]) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Option 3ers believe this isn't about a single event, yet can't point to evidence of unreliability beyond that event. Meanwhile, substantiated IPSO complaints are at the level of other major newspapers like The Times showing there isn't a pattern of disinformation like the Daily Mail. Al Jazeera is relevant because I'm sure we can all agree holding Jewish publications to a different standard than Muslim ones is wrong and will increase bias on wiki. It's bizarre that this standard is applied here to say that Qatari ownership of Al Jazeera can't impact its reliability but ownership of the JC does. | |||
| :RSN and RSP are a good way to skew article bias by designating sources supporting certain viewpoints as unreliable so as to remove them from articles in contentious areas. Judging publications individually is naïve in such an environment because editors will unconsciously create different standards for their favoured sources. We need to consciously ensure we're holding all sources in the Israel-Palestine conflict area to the same standard. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Chess}}The times has 12 IPSO rulings against it and 5 for its website, which is shared with the Sunday Times, since 2018, publishing 312 editions a year. The JC has 6 for the jc.com, which have not been counted up to now, and 12 for its paper edition. This is over just 52 yearly editions. | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| ::To suggest these numbers are similar is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, given the probability of a the JC publishing an actionable falsehood in a given edition is AT LEAST 6 times higher (we do not know how many of the website stories originated in the Sunday Times). This disparity is further compounded by the fact that the JC is around a third of the length of the times, and so produces many fewer articles. A generous calculation would be that a JC story is ten times more likely to be punished by IPSO than the Times. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::It is also clear from the rulings that the Times' corrections are spread over a range of topics, whereas all of the JC's false stories relate to the British left, Muslims and Palestine. This is more a campaign of disinformation by the JC rather than good faith errors. ] (]) 07:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::For reference, evidence of unreliability comprises points like the following: | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::* Publishing a string of sensational stories described as "wild fabrications" or "wild inventions" in Israeli and British papers | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Failure to vet (or knowing publication of) the falsified résumé of the freelancer writing these stories, who was instantly rumbled by Israeli journalists | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Failure to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal | |||
| ::* Failure to publish a transparent report on what happened (see e.g. for comment) | |||
| ::* Your claim that upheld IPSO complaints are running at the same level as for The Times is false. | |||
| ::**For material published since 2020 The Jewish Chronicle has listed under "v thejc.com", listed under "v The Jewish Chronicle". | |||
| ::**Equivalent numbers for The Times: listed under "v thetimes.co.uk", listed under "v The Times" | |||
| ::**Equivalent numbers for The Daily Mail (deprecated): listed under "v Daily Mail" (incl. "v Scottish Daily Mail, excl. "v ]"), listed under "v Mail Online" | |||
| ::** The Times and The Daily Mail are daily papers, The Jewish Chronicle is a weekly, with far fewer articles per issue. Its collection of upheld IPSO rulings ''per article'' is an order of magnitude greater than for The Times and The Daily Mail. | |||
| ::* Number of lost libel cases seems large relative to the size of the publication. We are writing an ''encyclopedia'', not a gossip rag. | |||
| ::* The owner of Al Jazeera is known. The owner of The Jewish Chronicle is not. This is a unique situation, and the paper has taken a turn to the far right under the new, anonymous ownership. There are multiple mainstream media reports saying this lowers confidence in the paper's reliability. | |||
| ::* Multiple mainstream media reports (some listed in the Background section below) have deplored the loss of journalistic standards at the publication. Half a dozen of the paper's top columnists have left in despair. | |||
| ::] <small>]]</small> 09:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If we're deprecating publications for a single freelancer fabricating stories let's get rid of the New York Times because of ] and ]. Additionally, the New York Times also has anonymous owners as it's publicly traded. We only ban reliable sources based on their ownership if the ownership is negatively influencing the publication. '''Please point me to the cases where a source was banned because its owner was unknown''', because asserting {{tq|this is a unique situation}} because {{tq|the paper has taken a turn to the far right}} means this is because of the views of the Jewish Chronicle. | |||
| :::This is a very high standard for the Jewish Chronicle that we do not hold other reliable sources to. The New York Times has had journalists fabricate content. The result of their investigation was to fire the journalist. This is the same thing the Jewish Chronicle did, so explain why you're not holding the Jewish Chronicle to a different standard when you say they failed {{tq|to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal}}. Or say that the New York Times is unreliable as well. | |||
| :::IPSO complaints are not a way to quantify unreliability. Complaints would only quantify reliability if they all represented the same flaw and were comparable across an entire industry, but IPSO complaints can be made for a variety of reasons and ] publications like ] opt out of them. Your math shows that the Jewish Chronicle is an order of magnitude worse than the Daily Mail and that The Times is (5+8)/(6+11)=76% as unreliable as the Daily Mail. '''If you believed the Jewish Chronicle was 10x worse than the Daily Mail you wouldn't have !voted for "Option 2 in general"'''. If the number of IPSO complaints had any statistical validity The Times would be at ] or below. | |||
| :::RSP is very quickly devolving into a method to enforce groupthink, because declaring a source as unreliable or just ] means one can effectively prevent its viewpoints from being presented on Misplaced Pages. Additionally, because the standard for reliable sources is ''de facto'' "does it agree with other reliable sources?", we end up with a ] that makes it harder to prove a source is reliable as the number of reliable sources that source agrees with goes down. This eventually leads to a corpus of sources that uniformly agree on what the truth is. | |||
| :::The only way to prevent selective exclusion of sources is to consciously question whether our standards are objective. You can't handwave this burden away when it's been brought up repeatedly by other editors. The reason why I !voted '''Option 1''' isn't because I am disputing most of your claims, it's because '''you cannot show why similar evidence would prove unreliability for other publications.''' <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Completely agree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::a) Most people are not suggesting deprecation and b) It's not just about rogue freelancers so lose the strawmen. ] (]) 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::!voters aren't suggesting deprecation because the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. I'm refuting the IPSO complaint counters with a ] that demonstrates why the number of IPSO complaints isn't a meaningful metric to evaluate sources on. | |||
| :::::Rejecting IPSO means '''the rogue freelancer story is the only evidence of false information being published by the source'''. You have provided no other specific cases. | |||
| :::::Columnists resigning due to changes in ownership/political slant can only prove bias on the part of the JC. As the ], {{tq|bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.}} | |||
| :::::The objective standard we should be following is whether a source can be used for citing false information on Misplaced Pages. We rank and categorize sources to prevent false information from entering the encyclopedia. You can write as much as you want, but if you can't give '''specific examples of false information''', then you haven't shown the source is unreliable. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::All of the upheld IPSO cases found problems with ''accuracy'' – typically incendiary, false claims ascribing words to people they had not actually written or said. This sort of thing is apt to cause BLP problems here. I don't understand why you think such inaccuracies are irrelevant for our purposes, or do not qualify as "false information" (and please go a bit more lightly on the bold). ] <small>]]</small> 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Reliable sources also have substantiated IPSO complaints. Our dispute is over whether counting the number is acceptable, because you haven't bothered analyzing their specifics. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::These IPSO rulings seem quite similar to me in nature (in one case, practically identical). | |||
| ::::::::You are proposing that the number of upheld IPSO rulings against a publication (proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations or libels) should be irrelevant to us. That is hardly sensible. | |||
| ::::::::Your previous post was a textbook example of ] – you said, {{xt|"the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once.}} You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean. | |||
| ::::::::The fact that these IPSO rulings generally occurred in a single topic area makes it all the more important to take note of the risk we would take by hosting the JC's truth claims unvetted and unfiltered by other, more reliable publications, here in our BLPs and other articles in that topic area. If the claim is important, another more reliable publication will pick it up, and we can cite that. That is responsible sourcing for an encyclopedia, given the substantial concerns about the JC voiced in the press. ] <small>]]</small> 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{tq|You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.}} | |||
| :::::::::I'm pointing out your absurd double standard where you argue that the Jewish Chronicle is statistically worse than the Daily Mail, but then only !vote for Option 2. It makes it obvious that your !vote doesn't follow from your stated reasoning. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The IPSO and fabrication problems are limited to ''a specific topic area''. The "special consideration" in my Option 2 vote is that Option 3/4 should be applied to ''that topic area'' where there is strong evidence of poor reliability. I would be happy to cite the JC on lots of other topics – music, the arts, film and theatre reviews, biographies of Jewish scientists, etc. ] <small>]]</small> 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Well, have a look what the NYT did when it discovered one of their reporters was guilty of fabrications: | |||
| ::::* , with transparent and exhaustive reporting of what had happened. | |||
| ::::What we got from the JC is this nothingburger: | |||
| ::::* of generalities. | |||
| ::::To claim that this is in any way equivalent to what happened at the NYT is risible. You don't have to take my word for it, because we have journalists pointing this shortfall out in the mainstream press. | |||
| ::::* "Thinnest form of contrition" () | |||
| ::::* "Though Wallis Simons apologised to readers, he offered no explanation for how the deception occurred. Just an assurance that standards will be tightened. This will not do." (). | |||
| ::::The concerns about ownership etc. are voiced in the British and Israeli mainstream press, across the political spectrum. | |||
| ::::Using the Jewish Chronicle for WP:A/I/PIA coverage after this episode is not my idea of due diligence. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." If they sort their operation out, we can always revisit. Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What would writing a longer statement with a more detailed apology do? Elon Perry lied about his identity and his sources. He was caught within two months. The "transparent and exhaustive reporting" of the New York Times is full of florid prose about Blair's travel habits, counselling, and personal problems as he was a full-time employee of the New York Times. | |||
| :::::I don't think the Jewish Chronicle would have any of that information for a freelancer, so most of that article couldn't be written even if the JC wanted to. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He was caught ''instantly'' by Israeli journalists when he made claims that Netanyahu's family then tried to give extra visibility to. (A similar PR effort was simultaneously underway in Germany, with the ] tabloid publishing a related fake news story: ) | |||
| ::::::Perry was caught by the simple expedient of Israeli journalists asking the IDF whether it really had the materials Perry claimed they had (they replied it was a "wild invention"), and then checking whether Perry really was a professor at Tel Aviv University (he was not). If the JC is unable to perform such simple tasks then it lacks basic qualifications for reliable reporting on such matters. | |||
| ::::::The editor should have explained to readers how contact with Perry was established, why they did not fact-check his résumé given that he made some tall and easily disproved claims about himself, why they did not try to contact the IDF to corroborate Perry's stories (standard practice in reliable publications is to require ), etc. This is all basic bread and butter for mainstream outlets, and the JC is simply and evidently out of its league here if they can't or won't apply such basic due diligence. ] <small>]]</small> 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 in General. Option 3 for issues relating to Palestine and the war in Gaza''' Its bias is very clear and overt. But as other editors have pointed out, this does not necessarily mean it deserves depreciation. However, depreciation and considering a source unreliable on a single topic are two very different things. For the same reason why editors are rightfully sceptical of Pro-Russian sources reporting on the war in Ukraine, it is best to be consistent and also treat with some scepticism the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle when dealing with Gaza and issues related to Palestine. ] (]) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' since 2024, '''Option 3''' 2015-2024— the problems with editorial standards at the newspaper have been ongoing for years and are only getting worse. (] · ]) ''']''' 23:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The idea that JC covers antisemitism in the UK is not a good reason to keep the paper when it has lost any reputation for reliability in that area. We should be looking for scholarly sources to cover these controversies anyway. (] · ]) ''']''' 23:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's not possible on a technical level to deprecate a source for a period of time. It has to be all or nothing because the deprecation edit filter can't determine when an article was published. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::] assessments are independent of the presence and feasibility of an edit filter. ] <small>]]</small> 09:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::In every prior subject-area or time-limited deprecation discussion, the technical issues relating to the edit filter has come up. So yes, the feasibility of a subject-area deprecation needs to be addressed if we're going to adopt it. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There are deprecated sources that are not subject to an edit filter (the National Enquirer is an example) – you can have one without the other. But consensus seems to lean towards "generally unreliable" anyway, rather than deprecation. ] <small>]]</small> 06:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think Buidhe makes a very pertinent point. If the JC is frequently libelling people and making false claims around antisemitism, the fact it is the only source reporting on some cases of alleged antisemitism means these claims should generally not be included in our pages. Especially in cases of BLP.] (]) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for ] (including antisemitism) and Muslims, '''option 2''' for other issues, per comments above and below (including mine).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:While it is a legitimate !vote that it be deemed unreliable on antisemitism (I have above argued that this would be a mistake, while Buidhe and Boynamedsue have made the argument for such a ruling), I just want to additionally argue that antisemitism in general should not be covered by AIPIA, only antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine, which I believe was the case in all of the relevant IPSO breaches. Personally, I think it is dangerous to not be able to cite the UK's only Jewish newspaper on the topic of antisemitism in the UK, without any evidence that it is unreliable on this topic in general (as opposed to antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine). At any rate, I think you'd need to present an evidence/policy-based argument rather than use ARBPIA. ] (]) 16:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm confused. Don't any of the other 4+ Jewish newspapers in the UK cover antisemitism? What's this "only XYZ" business about? And if the others don't cover the same incidents as the JC, perhaps that's indicative of the types of incident that have gotten it into libel and defamation territory. ] (]) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Jewish News was basically a local paper until ~2020, at which point it became a better source than JC. Hamodia, Jewish Telegraph and Jewish Tribune are all impossible to use for Misplaced Pages as not web accessible, as well as very parochial. For 2015-20, JC is only source that fully covered antisemitism in the UK. ] (]) 19:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I only had to look as far back as this year to find an IPSO breach without a mention of Israel or Palestine which could be inadvertently interpreted as antisemitism. | |||
| *::. Just from memory I recall only after mediation | |||
| *::I also know that the JC has made similar mistakes as over the IHRA definition, that doesn't excuse the JC ] (]) 12:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well if it is indeed a pattern of unreliability in relation to non-Israel/Palestine-related antisemitism, then this needs to be a separate topic area to the Israel/Palestine topic area, and consensus would need to be established for this. | |||
| *:::The Media Reform Centre report (a terrible piece of research imho) doesn't say anything indicating that JC is unreliable; its only mention is that it reported on Corbyn's Facebook posts long before other media outlets did. If we designate the media outlets that the MRC report indicts unreliable, we'd need to stop using BBC, ITN, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph and Independent, which personally I'd oppose. ] (]) 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020''' per ActivelyDisinterested. As usual in UK media, Private Eye seems to be one of the few places taking any notice of this issue. ] (]) 12:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3 for topics related to Israel, Palestine, Muslims, British left, accusations of antisemitism and BLP claims irrespective of timeframe, option 4 in general since at least 2020'''. As for its reliability concerning other subjects in earlier periods, I don't know the publication well enough to make a clear vote. I think the publication's unreliability during the last few years has been established pretty well by other editors, so I see no reason to elaborate on that. However, I would consider it generally unreliable on these issues irrespective of timeframe; besides the fact that the JC has been openly Zionist since the early 20th century (hence qualifying as a biased source although not necessarily unreliable), the article about it mentions a lot of instances of the JC accusing people with views critical of Israel of antisemitism at least 56 years back, when they were sued for accusing an MP of antisemitic views with no evidence and had to issue an apology, and it also mentions numerous occassions - some of which predate the 2015 threshold - where the JC has posted serious false accusations against people and institutions with an opposing view to the JC's. Among other things, in 2009 the JC falsely accused a peace activist of harbouring suicide bombers, and in 2014 it falsely claimed that the Royal Institute of British Architects had voted for a "ban on Jews" from the International Union of Architects, while what in fact was voted on was a suspension on an Israeli architect association involved in the building of illegal Israeli settlements. Posting such false allegations against people and institutions with opposing views clearly cross the line between biased reporting and pure misinformation/fabrication, and as the above examples show, the paper has engaged in this behaviour long prior to 2015. I find it obvious that a publication engaging in deliberately posting misinformation to promote its views and smear opponents should be labeled as generally unreliable, and as the paper has engaged in this behaviour prior to the 2015/2020 threshold, I don't think it is appropriate to limit this judgement to this limited timeframe. As for other topics, I don't think I have enough background information of its reporting throughout its history to make a statement about its reliability on other topics in earlier years, but I do think that its opaque ownership, along with its history of posting fabricated stories and misinformation, raises serious questions about its reliability on other issues as well. --] (]) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:There was a case 56 years back, when JC published an ''opinion piece'' by one Labour MP calling another antisemitic; this is not disinformation, but opinion. Then there was a 41 year gap and they published ''a letter'' in which what the Guardian called a "peace activist" (and the Press Gazette specificies was an ] activist) was falsely accused of harbouring two British men who he had simply met, who then carried out a suicide bomb in Israel, in a case that doesn't mention antisemitism. That's not a pattern. There's an plausible argument that the 2015+ pattern starts earlier, with the 2009 case (although this case doesn't relate to antisemitism), but considering how much coverage of antisemitism there was in these decades it would be perverse to stop using it on that topic because of the 1968 opinion piece. ] (]) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (A reminder that neither an opinion piece nor a letter to the editor would be considered usable as a source for facts, especially biographical facts, anyway, so these two examples are really irrelevant. ] (]) 16:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)) | |||
| *::However, and received a public apology in the High Court. His argument was that, whilst his comments were anti-Zionist, they were not antisemitic. ] (]) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::OK, but the 41 year gap between that and the next instance doesn't suggest a pattern does it? And would the article by Edelman ever be used on WP as a source for anything apart from this controversy itself? ] (]) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Similarly the 2014 is not a case of inaccuracy; it's a case of articulating a strong opinion. Once again, bias =/= unreliability, and we would not use an editorial as a source for facts anyway. ] (]) 16:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that the architect story is clearly comment, but it is a leader, the official view of the paper, and the nature and way this opinion is presented is pretty indicative of the way the JC's very extreme positions work. The article doesn't mention the fact that the ban was motivated by the participation of members of the Israeli architects' association in the construction of illegal settlements in occupied territory, a warcrime according to the Geneva convention. It also conflates Jews and Israelis, which according to most definitions of antisemitism... is antisemitism. This lack of context and misleading framing is also typical of its news coverage.--] (]) 09:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree an egregiously biased leader reflects more badly on a source than an egregiously biased op ed, and this is indeed evidence of a drift towards hard right positions under Pollard. But these opinions about what constitutes antisemitism are common opinions that we'd see in plenty of reliable sources (e.g. the Wall Street Journal or Telegraph) and not evidence of unreliability. Also important to note that the leader was one para in an edition that included other articles on the topic, a topic it had extensively covered, including the illegal settlement issue that provoked the boycott. E.g: I'd argue that we'd never use this leader as a source for facts, but it'd be fine to use a news article on this issue (like ) as a source for facts in a WP article, while of course better to use alongside other sources. ] (]) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That particular article is much better than some it's published, and could have appeared in any reliable source. The problem is the sheer quantity of unreliable content it has put out means we have a hard job to separate the decent articles (which I assume that one was, doesn't seem to have any obvious howlers) and the dodgy ones.--] (]) 21:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If we look at its extensive coverage of this RIBA boycott (more extensive than any other source) I think we can clearly see that all the news articles are very solid, while the editorials and op eds are extreme. The editorials might become due when other, secondary sources (in this case architecture media) refer to them, but otherwise we’d ignore them and stick with the news articles. This is a good illustration of why designating its news articles unreliable because its editorials are extreme would be a bad idea. ] (]) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2, on I/P since 2019/2020, with ''protest'' of 2015 date''' -- ''please pay attention to sources!'' The ''only RS'' that have been posted for JC's change in reliability have been in the 2019--2021 area (for the IPSO case alerts and owner change) and 2024 reporting scandal. This has been discussed ''extensively'' in the thread immediately preceding the RfC. The first !voter here posted a 2015 date but offered no reasoning, and everyone to follow seems to have parroted that date. As I detailed below, giving opportunity to comment for weeks: the 2015 date, when it was brought up exactly once prior, is an artifact of the fact that IPSO started reporting in 2015 (it was founded 2014/11); the only other controversy that year was an ''editorial'' about Jeremy Corbyn. I am pleading that the closer reads this and gives the cutoff date consideration, and includes the previous thread. ] (]) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you are going by IPSO rulings and the comments of the RS Cathcart, we should date back to 2018 not 2019. The best cut off is 2008, the editorship of Pollard, who was forced out after bankrupting the paper with libel settlements. But he was already committing , falsely accusing an Islamic charity of involvement in terrorism. They (just two months after Pollard took over) again paying damages. It is worth noting that corrections were only published here as part of legal settlements for damages, the JC resisted correcting their lies to the very last. The lower quantity evidence of unreliability prior to 2015 is precisely for the reason you state, IPSO, toothless and incompetent as it is, didn't yet exist to document the JC's abuse and provide recourse to its victims.] (]) 08:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why 2018? What specifically happened in 2018? | |||
| :::I can tell you ''specifically'' what (many) IPSO violations and internal communications regarding JC happened in 2019 and 2020, and further events in 2021. | |||
| :::(Not to get into the, but "being involved in a terrorist bombing" is a complete misreading of the very short article you link. Also just a reminder to everyone that importantly .) ] (]) 04:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, if a paper stares someone has "harboured" or "sheltered" terrorist bombers, I consider that to be an accusation of involvement. It is certainly libellous and false, as shown by the fact the JC were forced to pay 30k for damage to reputation. | |||
| ::::I choose 2018 because that is the date that Professor ] refers to as the beginning of their insane run of IPSO judgments. 2018 was when they by Mike Sivier implying he had denied the holocaust, that Mark Wadsworth had "abused" Ruth Smeeth (you can find the video , there is no way to characterise it as abuse). | |||
| ::::And as for libel law, yes the UK's libel law is tougher than almost any country, but it meshes very well with our BLP policy. If you can't prove it and it damages reputation, don't publish it.] (]) 06:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Sivier case is a really week case for establishing unreliability. The single inaccuracy IPSO found in that case was as follows. Sivier had said “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’ instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know, but the Nazi holocaust involved many other groups as well as Jews, and it seems likely that the SWP was simply being ‘politically correct’ ”. JC summarised this as: “remarks he made about Jews and Zionism, including a claim that he could not comment on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust he said ‘I don’t know’”. After he contacted them saying he didn’t deny the Holocaust, they amended the article to include his response. This is not grounds for a designation of unreliability. ] (]) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The IPSO on that case say: ''The article gave the impression that the complainant had said something which he had not, on a subject liable to cause widespread offence; a clarification was required to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The publication had offered to issue a clarification stating the complainant’s position that he had been referring to why the leaflet made this claim when he said “I don’t know”, and stating his position on the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. This clarification made the complainant’s position clear, and was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).'' | |||
| ::::::The way you've summarised it is apt to leave the same false impression as the JC did, and was slammed for. . ] <small>]]</small> 08:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The former IPSO case was a breach, the latter was not (it was resolved in mediation). Note that ; in looking up again the 2019 memo, I did find a reference on investigation starting as early as 2018 (. As I've said previously I was fine with saying anything in the 2019--2021 area as an approximate cut-off year guidance (precision on that is deceptive), so given this 2018--2021 is appropriate too. All I care about is that these dates remain justifiable to sources, and that when people !vote they know what they are voting on. ] (]) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::To be fair, the 2017 breach is not particularly concerning. It is outside the topic area where the JC's run of bad stories occurs. Distressing and unfair as it was to the individual concerned, it seems to be a kind of "cost of doing business" error that all papers, even the most reliable, suffer from.--] (]) 20:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for ] area since 2020''' A newspapers that refuses to even disclose who owns it (and hence can exert control over coverage) must be treated with caution, and probably not used for sensitive areas. The same applies to media funded by dictatorial regimes, for example Al Jazeera. ] (]) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020''' (or 2019 as mentioned by SamuelRiv), '''Option 2 in general for the same time period''' - given the pattern of IPSO rulings, reliable secondary source coverage of its problems, and evidence of unreliability given by Andreas JN466 (Jayen466). ''']] (])''' 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 === | |||
| *'''Option 3''' It is quite difficult to get IPSO to rule against a newspaper. Breaking the IPSO code IPSO's code 41 times between 2018 and 2023 must mean that this is an unreliable source ] (]) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I will go with no change to the ratings, as the attached notes seem enough. Although I’d tend to evaluate any cite depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without context can be really valid. I do feel that with this small a pub, I'm dubious this even needs a rating unless sources of greater WEIGHT simply do not exist, but would include handling this source as the existing rating of "option 1" as RS per WP:BIASED as mentioned on the WP:A/I/PIA aream seems enough. The 2023-24 change in business are noted so may be a consideration in a specific cite, but this highlights again that CONTEXTMATTERS -- it depends on specifics of what the cite being used is dated and what the intended edit is. Cheers ] (]) 23:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4 for ], Option 3 in general''' The IPSO ruling is damning, and as I said in my comment just now too: the JC has proven itself to be unreliable, and should be deprecated as a source. This true historically, and the latest scandal and the lack of a proper response (merely getting rid of the writer and pretending it was just a minor slip up and moving on) definitively confirms its lack of editorial standards, and that this is systemic with the publication, and not incidental. This marks a qualitative difference between the JC and another outlet like the NYT or Guardian publishing a plagiarist or fantasist: They don't have a long record of this, and when this does happen, it is never because they wrote things that were sought out and published for being in accordance with the editorial political positions of said outlets. Both are the case with the JC, so I support deprecating it as a source. ] (]) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| ::] I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect in saying Guardian and NYT do not have known incidents of plagiarism, biased reporting, etcetera bad enough to have reporters quitting and/or purged over such and that there is a long history of incidents. If your !vote is premised a mistaken belief that others exist without intentional flaws, you may wish to google history to get some of the examples where these or Globe and Mail or some others did sins egregious enough to get coverage, or where London Times and such publicly announce an editorial political POV. No source is perfect, none is free from its limited POV or inherent biases, none is free from human fallibility of an occasional corrupt act by reporter or editor. RS would include considering editorial policy and retractions on such inevitable items as a sign of quality because they just do happen everywhere, and I think should similarly give credit for open announcement of a POV such as pro-Jewish as just being honest. Cheers ] (]) 18:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : '''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) | |||
| :::If the Guardian or NYT had a proven track record of publishing many false stories on a single topic, I would argue we shouldn't use them on that topic. But they don't. The JC does, however. The JC doesn't have a pro-Jewish POV, btw. It has a pro-Israel POV. It's really quite anti-Jewish when the Jewish people concerned don't like Israel.--] (]) 20:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' in general, '''option 4''' for topics related to Israel/Palestine. The opaque ownership structure and IPSO issues rule out that TJC is a reliable source. at this point. ] (]) 08:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' in general, '''Option 3/4 for ] area''' - per ] who has a seemingly infinite amount of patience and AGF in the face of repeated false claims despite having debunked them each time. When other reliable sources are saying that this source was used as part of a , when they discuss its , it beggars belief that anybody can claim that the source is "generally reliable". I sympathize with ]'s concern about deprecating a hundred plus year old newspaper, but in general we shouldn't be using '''news articles''' for things that are not news anyway, at that point we should be looking at books and journals and so on. But fair enough, for material prior to when this source had become "fake news" and participating in a "disinformation campaign" that was based on "wild fabrications" (and those quotes are all from reliable sources), use it to your hearts content. But for material after that point? ] said it best, {{xt|you kidding me or what?}} ''']''' - 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' in general, '''option 4''' for topics related to Israel/Palestine/Islam/West Asia/UK politics. Not sure what else to add that hasn't already been mentioned by others. No one knows who owns the outlet. The outlet has been criticized for being a disseminator of disinformation. The outlet echoes (and sometimes starts) far right rhetoric and is known for spreading Islamophobia. The is around 16,000 per month only half of which are paid which is an even more damning indictment of how the current owners are completely ok with alienating not just their staff (who have quit) but also their readers. My heart goes out to ] when they feel emotional about deprecating a 100+ year old publication. Our decision needs to be grounded in being neutral and not clouded by sentimentality. Misplaced Pages is not beholden to the Jewish Chronicle or any other outlet. When media watchdogs and reputable journalists speak, it's our job to listen and act. ] (]) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's not sentimentality. It's about the simple fact that bad editorial decisions in 2023 don't give us a reason to deem unreliable (let alone deprecate) material published in 2003 or 1973. I find it bizarre that editors are providing arguments for unreliability based on recent missteps but somehow backdating the unreliability to before the current editor was born, which is going to make a difficult job even harder for the closer. Further, given for many of the years in that period, the JC was the only real Jewish newspaper in this country, we'd be wiping out a lot of encyclopedic coverage of the UK Jewish community for very recentist reasons. ] (]) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::This note is used beside the depreciated Daily Mail: 'Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. So a similar note could be attached to the JC to allow restricted use. ] (]) 19:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Something like that may work if some version of option 3/4 is adopted without a specific start point. | |||
| *:::Of course, the Mail's offences stretch back a lot further than the JC's: I would argue for more than "historical" reliability but that most post-digital output is usable with increasing caution from the 2010s on select topics. ] (]) 14:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's a valid point and Andromedean's suggestion seems like a great way to ensure we are mindful of that. Do you agree with option 4 for Palestine/Islam/West Asia/UK politics then, perhaps starting 2010, given those topics are not directly relevant to the UK Jewish community? ] (]) 04:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Not sure if that's directed at me but if so then: not really. | |||
| *:::*I'd oppose deprecation for Palestine and "West Asia" (the latter something nobody else has argued for so far) because that would lose for example analysis by Colin Schindler and Anshell Pfeiffer who recently resigned; I think option 2 and a bit more than the care that ought to routinely be put into ARBPIA topics is enough there (except possibly in the very recent period, relating to the Elon Perry case). | |||
| *:::*I'm not bothered by deprecation for Islam under current and last editors, who are arguably Islamophobic in their editorial positions, although I don't see an evidence/policy-based reason to go past option 2 for on this topic (it was relevant in just a couple of IPSO breaches, a tiny fraction of their coverage related to Islam). | |||
| *:::*Nobody has made an argument for "UK politics" up to now; the UK left is a better frame for extra considerations in the 2015-20 period from the evidence presented so far in this discussion. (Again, I think option 2 could cover that.) | |||
| *:::] (]) 14:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' in general, '''Option 4 for ] area''' - per ], ] (]) 20:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 4''' since 2008. '''Option 1''' before 2008. The decline in quality and in accurate and complete reporting of the facts has been a long and slow one. It probably cannot get much lower. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 16:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| ===Background (Jewish Chronicle)=== | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Mainstream media reports: | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| **]: , '']'', 26 April 2024 | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| **, '']'', 16 September 2024 | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| **, '']'', 16 September 2024 | |||
| :::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. | |||
| **, '']'', 18 September 2024 | |||
| :::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) | |||
| **, '']'', 20 September 2024 | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| *History of ] rulings against ''The Jewish Chronicle'': | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ** --] <small>]]</small> 11:00, 22 September 2024 (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 === | |||
| ===Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)=== | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| *, from The Guardian, should be relevant. At lot of it seems to be from Elon Perry, whose articles they've recently retracted ''en masse''.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I am concerned with, as are several of the reports on this, about their vague, inadequate response. The statement they made is more like a cover-up: 'we won't tell you the details, we've 'memory holed' this so it will go away, just trust us.' As I suggested in the prior discussion, we should expect when something like this happens that the outlet 'reports the hell out of it'. We should know from them who and why touched off the investigation, who was involved, what was false, what can't be confirmed, where it leads, what charges that preceded the investigation and arose during it could be validated, denied, or for which there is no evidence, what was their investigation, what didn't they investigate, why, what processes went wrong in their organization, what the fixes are, etc. etc. etc. We should also expect disciplining of the editors involved. - ] (]) 11:06, 22 September 2024 | |||
| *:For reference, was the statement summarising the investigation, published one day after the that an investigation was underway. --] <small>]]</small> 11:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. I should have linked those in my comment for others' sake. That's what my comment refers to as inadequate, to say the least. Instead, they are 'sitting on the story', not reporting perhaps among the most important news, in the outlet's history. -- ] (]) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' These additional qualfications add nothing, since they already apply to every other news publication. | |||
| :For all green-lighted news media, they are considered generally reliable for news and additional considerations apply for all other information they publish. See ]: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." | |||
| :Also, per ], "Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources." | |||
| :No one has pointed out how this source has caused damage or even that there has been any discussion in articles about specific claims linked to it. | |||
| :] (]) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no doubt we should do a better job of making the policies cabining news clear everywhere (including on the perennial sources page) -- indeed, one of the reasons I think that page may be unclear (despite the extensive introductory hand-wringing), is it likely suggests in its format, news and other types of sources are the same (we should probably breakout news outlets from others, although I don't want us to then suggest all other sources are the same--perhaps sectioning would be better). But "editing notes" is what we should collectively give, and it only makes sense on Misplaced Pages that there would be collective editing notes, especially concerning its most plainly used but also difficult to use source, news. ] (]) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Objection''': There is no cutoff year offered in the RfC, despite many or most in the prior discussion saying that there was a distinct and recent change in JC's reliability, with several sourced dates offered. So voters have added cutoff dates themselves -- but where on earth did the '''2015''' cutoff year come from? It's not been mentioned at all in the previous thread in the context of when problematic behavior actually occurred. All I could find is ]'s 17 Sept comment comparing the total number of complaints since 2015 for the JC and The Times. They do not say why 2015 is the cutoff -- presumably it is because ] began in September 2014, so that's the first year of their reporting. That is ''not'' the first year in which problematic behavior was reported by the JC -- as far as I can tell the first year in which ''secondary sources report problematic behavior'', or report that JC internally was concerned about such behavior, was 2019. This is not the same as picking a year arbitrarily and counting the IPSO violations thenceforth -- we are taking a RS article that cites either internal communications about violations, or a particular violation as a bellweather event, for their own judgement that JC has dropped standards after that particular point. No such source has said 2015. ] (]) 00:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think '''Option 2''' is supposed to cover it case by case after 2015 onwards, especially for non I/P stuff, and Option 3 for PIA after 2020 should be a clear enough point where facts from TJC should not be sourced for I/P issues. ] (]) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As per the discussion above, the 2015 date stems from a time where TJC started to receive a number of IPSO complaints. We are not writing an article here; RS are not specifically needed to make an argument that a source is unreliable for one reason or another. ] (]) 08:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Please see my direct response to your !vote above (but reply here): what is your source -- because it was never said in this thread -- that there were "a number of IPSO complaints" in 2015? What is your source that the number of IPSO complaints in 2015 was significant compared to others? (Compare to the years we have sources for that IPSO complaints ''were'' significant, the years that alerts internal and external ''were'' raised.) ] (]) 12:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have not voted in this poll yet. ] (]) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think 2015 makes sense as a transition from green to yellow status as this is when the run of IPSO complaints began which all relate to the controversy over ] which began that year. This is when Brian Cathcart seems to start with his denunciation (although his main target is IPSO), so ''if'' you see the IPSO complaints alone as grounds for option 3 then it makes sense to start then. But there's also a strong case that 2015-20 was marked, not marked by ''general'' unreliability, but issues that call for additional considerations, e.g. extreme caution on the topics of the British left and Muslims or perhaps Israel/Palestine (although nobody has really given an argument for that specifically). Apart from Cathcart, all other RSs take 2020/2021 as a starting point: the mystery owners, compounded by the appointment of an amateur and highly ideological editor a year later. ] (]) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::As far as I can tell the only direct relationship JC bears to the antisemitism controversy is their front page editorial against Corbyn. While that's significant, it's an ''editorial''. Does that speak to reliability, in ''2015''? (Much less unreliability in ''news coverage'' of the left, Muslims, or I/P in 2015, the year of the editorial?) ] (]) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I think we have a problem here already, because people who are !voting option 2 are often not saying what they mean by it. I would invite them to clarify, or we are giving the closer a bit of a hospital pass. Option 2 covers a lot of ground, my own !vote is effectively option 2 prior to 2020, but the important part is exactly ''what considerations'' users think should apply.] (]) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *:This is a very good point. Quite a few editors have !voted for option 2 for the whole period from 1841 to 2015 without indicating what extra considerations should apply, which isn't a usable conclusion. (For me, the additional considerations that should apply after 2015 is '''attribution and caution on the British left and Muslims, especially for BLP stuff'''.) ] (]) 11:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The previous RFC close mentioned pre 2010 and I chose not to date my comments on the grounds that stuff that old can in all likelihood be sourced better elsewhere and if not, one would have to ask why not. ] (]) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| *'''Comment''' It concerns me deeply that despite the mountain of evidence against the Jewish Chronicle (JC) editors are still attempting to find periods and categories it might be considered reliable so as to grant exemptions. This privilege wasn't granted to the deprecated Daily Mail which has a long history and covers a wider subject range. If exemptions are granted, we need to ensure exclusion of a broader range such as politics and all other religions, not just Israel, Muslims and Labour. With regard to timing the JCs more extreme lurch to the right can probably traced to Stephen Pollard. Only two years before being appointed editor in 2008, like “preserve Western civilisation” from the threat of “Islamists.” and “the Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy” in his blog. Fast forward to today and . This is an endemic problem not a temporary one. ] (]) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Surely the issues with Pollard relate to bias not unreliability? We consider the Telegraph or Wall Street Journal reliable sources, despite plenty of that rhetoric. And despite what he wrote in his blog in 2006, he still published lots of left-wing opinion in the JC. More importantly, it's not a "privilege" if a long-running newspaper that has not been accused of serious improprieties in its close to two centuries is assumed to be generally reliable; it's our default for all legacy media (e.g. regional print newspapers)unless evidence is brought against it. With the Daily Mail, the downgrading decision was based on a massive body of evidence of uncorrected fabrication and plagiarism that went back a long time. It's not comparable. ] (]) 11:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, but I notice that on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources noticeboard a comment is often made regarding bias, notability, sensationalism, propaganda as well as reliability. Isn't this the area to discuss this? ] (]) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I would say no. Pollard heralded in the period of reduced reliability and presided over the initial accumulation of IPSO complaints. It is obviously harder to tell how the publication performed prior to this (the 2014 formation of IPSO), but there is no particular reason to consider that it was likely any better. The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010, and Pollard is synonymous with other woes for the paper. Everything from 2009 onwards deserves a sharper lense. ] (]) 16:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Your citation for "The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010" actually refers to a blogpost he wrote for a different publication, The Spectator, in 2008, prior to his arrival at JC. I guess the point might still stand that this reflects poorly on him as a choice of editor (The Spectator is yellow on RSP) but not in the way being sued for damages would be. ] (]) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Part of that is news especially, "old news", is assumed to have ever-limited shelf life for much of what Misplaced Pages does and wants to do. ] (]) 13:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The first draft of history, as they say. The problem is that for many Misplaced Pages topics that is all there ever is; and even for topics that scholars subsequently do write about, the scholarly sources often don't make it into Misplaced Pages as the article is full already. ] <small>]]</small> 14:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The theory is that merging or updating or replacement should occur to render the long view (not sticking to a first draft). So that, the 'British left in the 1980s' is essentially a differently useful topic than the 'British left today'. -- ] (]) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::] Well the looking at periods may reflect that clearly RSP evaluated it as “option1” initially in 2021 and apparently re-confirmed that in 4 other questions of 2024 that just add cautions of a topic, so the question seems has it gone worse and if so then when. Personally, I could see the ownership change of 2023-2024 as an objective point where one might think that it’s basically a new paper, but the general thread seems re 2015 and if RSP has been wrong for 5 years+. Cheers ] (]) 19:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Whilst I take on the earlier advice that this RfC isn't a simple vote count, it would be highly challenging to assess it fairly due to the multitude of categories editors have inserted. To carry out the analysis fairly and avoid double or partial counting would require a model and qualification in set analysis! Do we need technical or independent assistance or agree to stick with simpler categories? Other RfCs must go through the same difficulties. My view is that there's no need for dates, although I could be convinced to give it a pass prior to Pollard, if only for my sanity!] (]) 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Well, the closer generally looks to see if there is a ] among the vagaries of participants differing expressions of thought, not any mathematical certainty. ] (]) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| * I've placed notifications at the Journalism, Newspapers, Politics of the United Kingdom, and Israel Palestine Collaboration projects to seek further input. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'll notify the WikiProject Judaism and Jewish history as well. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::No objection to additional notifications, the four I chose seemed to be the most generic matches to the issues involved. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll notify the WikiProject ] and ] as well. ] (]) 04:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br> | |||
| Continuing the discussion with ] from above: As ] already mentioned to you, ] explicitly points out that one of the four aspects of a source that can affect reliability is ''the publisher'' and its ''reputation''. An anonymous owner creates the impression of having something to hide. This has impacted the reputation of the Jewish Chronicle, as evidenced by the media reports linked above. --] <small>]]</small> 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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> | |||
| :Yes. Anonymous can have no reputation. ] (]) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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") | |||
| ::If such standard were applied to all sources, we'd have to mark as unreliable any source for whom we don't know all the board members. The sources you provided do list a number of people. A silent partner in any venture is not unusual or a sign of unreliability. {{tq|The Companies House listing for '''Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd''' also suggests no change in its status from a private limited company. Instead, the only change that appeared to have been made was to remove Gibb as a person with significant control, replaced by Jonathan Kandel, a former tax lawyer whose LinkedIn page says he now works as a senior consultant for the Starwood Capital Group, an international private investment firm.}}....{{tq|The Jewish Chronicle’s ownership structure, in which several key figures remain anonymous.... Since 2020, the only shareholder and director was Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street comms director. But he was not bankrolling the loss-making paper, which according to its latest accounts required a loan of £3.5 million. In March, the paper announced it would be becoming a charitable trust. Gibb recently resigned as director, replaced by the Labour peer Lord Austin, Jonathan Kandel, a prominent lawyer, and Joseph Dweck, a senior rabbi. The shareholding was split up, too. But the people ultimately responsible for The JC’s debts remain unknown.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::We should be concerned when sources say it is a concern. ] (]) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is, again, a misread of what it means by "publisher," it means the outlet, not the ownership of the outlet; ownership isn't mentioned. If you find an article that was published in the Jewish Chronicle, that was published by the Jewish Chronicle, and it will be reputable or not based on what we decide here, but nowhere is that extended to mean the reliability of the shareholders of the company. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No you don't understand publisher. The publication is the Jewish Chronicle, either it has a separate publisher or it does not. ] (]) 22:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I just said, it is called "Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd." The fact that we don't know all the shareholders is not relevant. I think we're going around in circles so let's agree to disagree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ownership does matter. It has to matter to the publisher. But more specifically, it matters to the sources that have taken issue with it. As Jayen already pointed out, this problem was not identified by Wikipedians, it was identified by sources. ] (]) 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sources also say, {{tq|Not all of the contributors have resigned. “For me, this incident is not reason enough to give up on a paper that’s been a powerful and essential voice for our Jewish community for 180 years,” says Naomi Greenaway, deputy editor of the Telegraph Magazine and Jewish Chronicle columnist. “But I have a lot of respect for the journalists who have resigned, and I’m glad it’s triggered The Jewish Chronicle to interrogate their editing processes. The shame is that for a paper that does give a platform to those on all sides of the political spectrum, these resignations will ironically mean it loses that balance on the Left. “From my experience, they are a tiny team, juggling a huge amount on a shoestring budget and generally the calibre of content punches way above what would be expected from their resources. But they’ve dropped the ball and they know they have massive lessons to learn from it.”....“The @JewishChron has cut all ties with the freelancer in question and his work has now been removed from our website. Readers can be assured that stronger internal procedures are being implemented.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know what you are responding to. That does not address publisher. It also continues a vagueness, apparently she, an editor, has no idea what went on and what the fixes are or what lessons are learned. ] (]) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The question at hand is whether the publisher, Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd, and its associated publication, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That quote substantiates that in fact, its reputation may still be intact, though that is for editors here to determine. As to whether the company contains, among the named individuals, some anonymous individuals AFAIK is not something discussed anywhere in wiki-policy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. It does not. She is not a reliable source for her own employer in such a matter. ] (]) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It ''had'' a reputation for fact-checking, up until circa 2009, when Pollard took over, it was bankrupted by libel cases, and then taken over. The JC of today is no longer the JC of yester-century, but the shell of a long-cherished brand, and the point of this RFC is to make that very distinction in terms of source quality. ] (]) 04:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Has any RS reported it was bankrupted by its four libel cases or was this speculation? Lot of newspapers suffered financially in the same period, as lots of the RS commentary on this case notes. ] (]) 13:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| An interesting quote from ], part of the consortium that acquired ''The Jewish Chronicle'' in 2020, this weekend in '']''. Ware told ''The Times'': | |||
| * ''"I, and some others, repeatedly asked to be told who the new funders were. We were told that wouldn’t be possible. I was assured that they were politically mainstream and I trusted those assurances because I trusted who gave them. I didn’t want the paper to fold so I allowed my name to be used, having been told it would help. I had zero managerial, financial or editorial influence, control or input, nor ever have had. It was just a name."'' | |||
| Ware stopped writing for ''The Jewish Chronicle'' in February 2024, due to concerns over the publication's new editorial line under Wallis Simons, and defected to the '']''. --] <small>]]</small> 13:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's indeed a damning quote, but note his resignation is not due to reliability issues just editorial political position: {{tq|“To be frank, I became unhappy with the JC’s political drift. Whilst it was doing new and important stuff on extremism, I felt too often it glossed over the fragmentation of Israeli society, which is accelerating and which really matters to the Jewish community here and should matter everywhere. It’s a very big and developing story.”}} ] (]) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The anonymous consortium member quoted a few months ago – who said some remarkably similar things to what Ware has now been saying on the record to ''The Times'' – also declared the JC's editor was "behaving like a political activist, not a journalist", especially in social media, and that coverage of Israel had become a case of "my country, right or wrong". | |||
| ::This may or may not have been a different member of the consortium – after all, the sources are saying several of its members eventually became uneasy about their involvement – but it is clear that even within the consortium that was ostensibly owning and running the JC, concerns arose whether the JC was about propaganda or journalism. | |||
| ::], another consortium member, also confirmed to ''The Times'' that he has had no involvement whatsoever in any oversight structures for the JC. ] <small>]]</small> 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Lee Harpin, a former , left the paper in 2021 and a few days ago published a scathing piece about on his Substack. Alan Rusbridger Harpin as saying that after the new owners took over, he was told they wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party". --] <small>]]</small> 10:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ]: 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> | |||
| *'''Comment''':A few days ago we seemed to be converging on a general consensus (unreliable on certain subjects after a certain date). However, since then the following editors ], ], ], ] have given the JC a clean bill of health. Their arguments are based on one or more of the following opinions: the JC has a long standing service to a minority (what possible relevance is that to post 2010/15 reliability?), unknown ownership and funding isn't as bad as state funding (yet like the BBC, ] claims to be independent and is only partially funded by it's government), the IPSO rulings don't look that bad , by focussing on the latest scandal, and ignoring ]. | |||
| ]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep | |||
| *falsely accusing a peace activist for harbouring suicide bombers | |||
| *disclosing details a family members without good reason | |||
| *reporting false links to terrorist activity | |||
| *making untrue allegations about their own regulator, the IPSO. Note the IPSO considered the JCs conduct during their investigation “unacceptable”. | |||
| *falsely accusing a councillor of a) antisemitic comments, b) launching a vicious protest & c) interfering with a vote | |||
| *falsely accusing someone of a conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists in a meeting, when he wasn't even present. | |||
| *falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth | |||
| *falsely accusing a Rabbi of holocaust denial when they clearly knew in advance this wasn't true. | |||
| :I would be interested to hear a response, particularly if they think these legal cases aren't that bad? ] (]) 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't looked into all of these claims, some seem like fair concerns, but a few points - | |||
| ::* Some it just seems like matters of opinion, like Suarez who takes issue with being called a "Israel hate author" (other sources have made similar claims), or claims about antisemitic comments. At best they show JC is ]. | |||
| ::* Publishing info about family members doesn't relate to reliability. | |||
| ::* {{tq|reporting false links to terrorist activity}} doesn't seem accurate, they stated that ] was listed by the US as a ], which is factually accurate (albeit unbalanced without mentioning Interpal's denial). | |||
| ::We have to keep in mind that JC voluntarily submits to IPSO regulation, which provides a highly accessible venue for complaints, giving them leverage to extract apologies or small payouts. Other outlets like ''The Guardian'' opt out of IPSO regulation, so claims about libel have to go to real court, which is much less accessible and which involves a much stricter legal standard of libel. | |||
| ::JC also receives more scrutiny than most sources due to its controversial positions. If AP or Reuters made a mistake like writing {{tq|banned}} rather than {{tq|rejected}}, in an otherwise uncontroversial report, we'd never hear about it because noone would care. I'm not convinced that JC makes more factual errors than most news outlets. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|However, since then the following editors...The Kip...have given the JC a clean bill of health.}} | |||
| ::I voted virtually the exact same way as ], ], ], ], and ] (and not far off from ] and ]), which was that it was reliable up to a certain point (hence why full-scale deprecation would be a problem) and not so reliable afterwards, especially for ARBPIA. That is very clearly ''not'' option 1 akin to the others listed. What ''in the world'' do you mean by I've "given it a clean bill of health??" ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], forgot to ping in initial response. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough, not option 1 across the board for you, but that brings me back to how difficult it will be for an assessor to make a judgement with all the exceptions to this and that. I also believe that Option 2 could be used with almost any publication on non-political issues. However, it's mainly geopolitics and national politics which dominates references to the JC, and is the motivation behind many of the other controversies. Typically editors are advised to find other sources where they exist in such cases. ] (]) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], I primarily responded to the latest Eylon Perry debacle and the IPSO rulings since these were the main arguments in the ''Background'' section. I'll review the links you've shared and respond here (and possibly amend my !vote). ]<sub>]</sub> 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], I've looked at the lawsuits and rulings section of the wikipedia article. First of all, as you probably know England has rather peculiar ] which put the burden of proof on the defendant and (imho) have been abused by a lot of unsavoury characters. Whatever you think about the merits of this law, this means that the same article would not necessarily be considered libelous if it were published elsewhere where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. | |||
| :::Second, most of the section and most of your examples have to do with IPSO rulings which is again, the system working as it should resulting in the newspaper removing content (amongst other remedies). I agree that they published a number of articles that turned out to be incorrect but since they took appropriate measures following the decision of the regulator, I don't think we need to downgrade them. This definitely confirms their bias, but that's hardly news for anyone here. | |||
| :::Regarding some of the specific examples you've mentioned. | |||
| :::* Publishing {{tquote|details of the family members of the defendant without valid justification}} has no bearing on the reliability. | |||
| :::* {{tquote|falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth}} - it was in an opinion column which we would not use for statements of fact per ] | |||
| :::* {{tquote|reporting false links to terrorist activity}} - if you're referring to ] then it's not obviously false. In spite of the court ruling in the UK this organisation seems to be still designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Australia and Canada. | |||
| :::]<sub>]</sub> 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * by ] is concerning: "{{tq|Therefore, at the time of publication, the allegations against the complainant remained unproven. By reporting these allegations as fact, rather than identifying them as unproven claims made by multiple sources, the articles failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact}}". There are about 12 other complaints of inaccuracy in which IPSO ruled against JC.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The NYT has joined in the reporting round. ] (]) 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. From the NYT article: "To Israeli national security journalists, the reports bore the hallmarks of a ''disinformation campaign'' by sources in the Israeli government. Such stories, one said, are often placed in friendly publications outside Israel ''because their reporters and editors are less likely to subject them to intense vetting''." (My emphases.) | |||
| :The NYT report also mentions that the fabrications stayed up even after the Israeli Defense Forces had debunked them. They were only retracted after columnists quit. ] <small>]]</small> 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand): | |||
| * If we're going to keep pigeonholing publications into a single category, then I think we need to make space for "Biased but doesn't have a history of making things up, so still reliable within the limits of ]" and possibly "Unfortunate incident". For example, ] fabricated a lot of articles at ''The New York Times'', and yet it's still RSP "green". One might wonder why a mass retraction at a general-audience newspaper resulted in no change, but a seemingly similar mass retraction at a Jewish newspaper is treated differently. ] (]) 22:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| *:Seconded ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| *:The difference lies in the sensational nature of the fabrications and their political context, the fact that a very obviously doctored résumé was accepted, the paper's opaque ownership, the wholly inadequate, non-transparent response of the editor to the affair, the walkouts of major, longstanding contributors, and the unanimous verdict of the mainstream press that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle have severely declined. ] <small>]]</small> 23:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| *:I would say that ''all'' sources are biased, although some more intensely so. Israel/Palestine sources are particularly susceptible to bias, it seems, meaning there is really no perfect source on the conflict. There has been a problem with discussions on this noticeboard of editors !voting for unreliability for sources perceived as pro-Israel (Jerusalem Post, JC) ''and'' as anti-Israel (al-Jazeera) simply because of bias ("they're Zionists" or "they're pro-Hamas"). We really need to keep bias out of the conversation. (The best sources might be those perceived as biased against them by both sides...) ] (]) 16:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * (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) | |||
| *:It is your claim that appears false. They are not the same. (Nor does it make sense to believe each reputation of each publication would be exactly the same, no matter what.) Here, the JC has seemingly failed in multiple ways, and it is both the scandal which brought some of it to light, and it is their failures and continuing failures in how they have handled it which makes them doubted across RS (see also, lie by omission). They have failed to even do the job of deeply reporting the matter, and not disciplining editors. For example, among other things this scandal has highlighted that the new post-almost-closure editor is a novelist (see generally, fiction), and it gets worse from there for the JC's seeming reputation. Also, can anyone even begin to draw a comparison, which does not even consider something like ability/resource to do a job.-- ] (]) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ::: I'm unsure if has been mentioned. In 2014 the JC claimed that a PSC Director, had said that demonstrations against the Gaza conflict “had been used by people to ‘peddle hatred and intolerance’ towards Jews”. The Chronicle published the following correction: “Ms Colborne had not said that. In fact, what she had said was: “The Palestine Solidarity Campaign opposes all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and racism directed against Palestinians whether living in the West Bank and Jerusalem, or as citizens of Israel.”” Therefore, there are five publicised pre-2015 cases against the JC, in 1968, 2009, 2012 and two in 2014. ] (]) 13:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| "Does the Jewish Chronicle really matter, though? Nobody reads it anymore – it circulates just under 16,000 print copies, distributing around half of them for free – hence its near-death experience in 2020." ] (]) 13:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| ::Rivkah Brown is a commissioning editor and reporter for ], which for those familiar would indicate her levels of reliaiblity and bias. She gives Pollard period (2008+) for increasingly extreme bias ("fanatical cheerleader"), Wallis Simon period (2021+) for unreliability. ] (]) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 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) | |||
| :In March 2022, a Professor of communications at the University of Westminster and a member of the British Journalism Review editorial board, wrote scathingly about the quality of the JCs journalism and the inability or unwillingness of the IPSO to effectively regulate it. ] (]) 10:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::Barnett would support 2018 as turning point. Beware though of JC as collateral damage in opinion pieces attacking IPSO, which is one of Barnett's main causes. ] (]) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{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) | |||
| :::: I can't find any explicit mention of him agreeing to 2018 as being a 'turning point'. However, he did say "Since 2018, it has been found by IPSO’s complaints committee – which is notoriously reluctant to find fault with member publications – to have breached the Editors’ Code 33 times. Even worse, over the same period it has admitted and paid damages for no fewer than four serious libels." | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::] (]) 10:21, 12 October 2024 (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) | |||
| ::::look at the context of that quote: “Over the last few years, for whatever reason, the JC appears to have suffered a catastrophic failure of journalistic standards which has short-changed its readers, damaged the victims of its serial inaccuracies, and left its reputation in tatters... The JC’s charge sheet is long and depressing. Since 2018, it has been found…” In other words: It HAD a good reputation; that reputation is in tatters after a series of failures over the last few years; the charge sheet starts in 2018. ] (]) 20:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I am very sympathetic to a point by {{u|Unbandito}} made down the page, although I'm not sure it's been how this board has worked for some years: {{tq|I believe these discussions are supposed to take place in the context of a content dispute, so can you provide an example of where Palestine Chronicle is used on Misplaced Pages in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles?}} In this discussion of the Jewish Chronicle, not one editor has mentioned an instance of JC being used on Misplaced Pages in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles (and in fact the evidence being pointed to by option 3 voters focuses on (a) the IPSO issues in a bunch of articles that have all been fully corrected, and (b) the Elon Perry pieces which have all been removed, so it would be pretty impossible for these to be used improperly on WP). ] (]) 09:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:There's no requirement for a RfC to come from a content dispute. Challenging the reliability of a source based on change of ownership, change of editorial policy (e.g. using AI, which some previously reliable sources have been doing) etc. is appropriate. ] (]) 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I agree with Andromedean and others that the JC has proven itself to be unreliable, and should be deprecated as a source. This true historically, and the latest scandal and the lack of a proper response (merely getting rid of the writer and pretending it was just a minor slip up and moving on) definitively confirms its lack of editorial standards, and that this is systemic with the publication, and not incidental. This marks a qualitative difference between the JC and another outlet like the NYT or Guardian publishing a plagiarist or fantasist: They don't have a long record of this, and when this does happen, it is never because they wrote things that were sought out and published for being in accordance with the editorial political positions of said outlets. Both are the case with the JC, so I support deprecating it as a source. ] (]) 11:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Are people truly arguing that RSP is consistently wrong? Clearly RSP rated JC as green or “option 1” in 2021, and in 4 prior discussions of 2024. The concern timing this year matches both a change in ownership 2023-2024, and *ahem* a hot war in Palestine which I have seen in WP edit-warring / POV pushing at other articles. So unless one argues that RSP failed all the prior times, I’m inclined to think JC (a) remains green since the specific concerns match the war topic that was already added is enough, or (b) the quality shift in 2024 is the concern and articles since 2023 get an added note to a still-green JC listing. Cheers ] (]) 19:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *:To be clear, in 2021, there was 'no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians.' ''Edit: Based on the links below, after eliminating sock puppets & those not eligible, those in favour of the JC being generally reliable became 11/23, against 11/23 saying it was generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used.'' However the way subject areas and timescales are divided up is complex, and the quality of arguments and evidence need to be weighted. It must be enormously difficult for an uninvolved assessor to evaluate RFCs. I note some news sources are given two independent ratings to simplify matters. Perhaps that's an option here? However, it's still worrying that a small paper with such a large catalogue of IPSO cases and legal disputes is given the benefit of the doubt in less controversial areas, or dates before regulation was tightened up (ever so slightly). Editors opinions change as regulators highlight issues which were previously unknown, and presumably Misplaced Pages changes as it attracts a more diverse international readership. ] (]) 10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The 2021 RFC was disrupted by 6 socks and the close had to be rewritten. The fact there were so many other discussions only indicates a slow boil, with evidence mounting at each stage, arguably an RFC could have been run much earlier than this. ] (]) 11:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** The IPSO apparently is not concerned, it seems the opinion that the complaints are a lot is just what is voiced by . I’m thinking likely some sensationalising there as natural and by the mention of islamophobia they may have their own bias, plus think that likely *any* paper covering either side can easily have dozens of complaints filed so I still think existing green with caution note about topic of palestinian war is appropriate and there has not been evidence of anything else needed. Cheers ] (]) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *:If I am looking at the discussions correctly, the first two discussion predate RSP's creation in 2018, the ] which lead to most of the current text at ], and the ]. --] (]) 11:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *::Thank you for the link to the fourth discussion, May this year, which I had totally forgotten about and which rehearsed many of the issues we're discussing now. Some useful information there about the IPSO complaints, use by others, and other issues. (Although of course lots of irrelevance to wade through too.) ] (]) 12:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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. — ] <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. ] (] | ] | ]) 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) | |||
| == RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs? == | |||
| <!-- ] 21:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1730581269}} | |||
| ] is entirely deprecated as a ref. But should the text in photos of record labels and album jackets (only) be made an exception? ] (]) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (Discogs images)=== | |||
| *'''Yes'''. Lets think this thru: works are their own refs, and the photos are accurate representations of the actual work to a 99.9% level of confidence. The label text is not user-''generated'' absent an elaborate hoax, so who uploaded it is immaterial. It is as impossible to mislabel these photos as it is for a movie title screen etc (you can't pass off the label of record X as being the label of record Y). The alternative is continue our current practice: assume the article editor has not made a mistake, and to verify the reader has to get a copy on eBay or whatever. This is not better. | |||
| *'''Yes'''. How would anyone ever know that an editor is using Discogs vs. a copy of the album that they own? ] (]/]) 20:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Primary sources are reliable about themselves and users can include courtesy links for the aid of verification. This is true in all case. As to Discog it's not deprecated, it's unreliable as it's user generated. The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts, they are reliable in a ] way even if the rest of ancestry/com isn't reliable. None of this changes anything, the references aren't to Discog they are to the primary object (the album in this case), any link to an image on Discog is just an aid for verification purposes. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I discussed this below. ] (]) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::My points still stand, see my response below. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear I'm not bold voting in this RFC as Discog is not deprecated or prohibited, it's unreliable as it's ]. Nothing in this RFC will change that, and nothing about it being unreliable prohibits the use of a courtesy link to an image of a primary object. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * The source is the physical record itself, so Discogs only has to accurately convey the contents of the records. This isn't something it's guaranteed to do, since anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that Discogs should only be treated as an aid for verification purposes, not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I discussed this below. "not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work" just isn't so, if one thinks it thru. ] (]) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anyone can also upload a scan claiming to be of a book, or upload a picture claiming to be of the subject of the article, and yet that is widely done too. ] (]) 05:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's why in-practice, it's fine to cite it. It's just that a physical copy would take precedence. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes'''. As of now, we rely on some editor just using the information from a copy of the album they presumably have at hand. I support this provided this is limited to actual scans. | |||
| *Is that even making an exception? If you find a photo of an album on ebay, amazon, or Jeff's Music Blog, we don't need consensus that those are reliable sources to use it, right? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This point was repeatedly raised in the discussion prior to this RFC, see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', but as a URL within ]. A point that nobody here has mentioned is that the physical music release is its own reliable source, just like a book. It has a catalog number, a title, a publisher, a date. If we add a URL pointing to a scan of the same material, it would be a welcome convenience, assisting others with verifiability. The likelihood of someone uploading a false scan is very low; we can address such instances as they arise by comparing to other scans of the same release. ] (]) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No'''. Seems like I'm in the minority, but it's unnecessary and a bad precedent. I use Discogs every day--it's riddled with errors. Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations, etc.--thousands of mistakes across the site, I imagine. It's appropriate only as an EL. As mentioned above, the album itself is the source; we don't need an inline citation to "help with verifiability". If an editor really wants an image for an inline citation, they can take the time to find one from a source without Discogs' problems. I'm also not sure that it's necessary to turn something that takes 3 seconds (scrolling to the EL, Googling outright) in to something that takes 1 second. And Discogs as an inline citation is constantly abused, with editors using it for exact release dates, genres, album sequential number, etc. ] (]) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations}} are all relevant to text hosted on the site, not the text legible in images of release packaging. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Exactly. Let's not compound the issue by using such a flawed site for an inline citation when there are much better options. Or again, simply cite the liner notes. ] (]) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What "better options" are there, and what makes their scans preferable? ] (]) 05:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Right, if the Discogs ''photo'' has the wrong songwriter or whatever, the ''actual record label'' is going to have the same error.] (]) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::For what purpose? Again, it's totally unnecessary to use an image to "verify" or "prove" any credits, at all. Cite the liner notes and use Discogs as an EL. Given Discogs' thousands of UG errors and how it's misused as an inline citation, take the second to scroll to the bottom of the article page. No burden whatsoever. ] (]) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes'''. Editors might easily add an edit summary such as "this discogs photo matches the record in my own collection". If the photo is uploaded to Wiki or Commons, that same explanation would also be useful. The textual contents of sleeve notes / liner notes are already permitted as a valid source for album credits, this just adds secondary validation. ] (]) 10:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' - The images only. The images are just an easily accessed record of the primary source, which is usable as a citation for itself. There should be nothing wrong with this, just be careful to keep it limited ONLY to direct images of the primary source itself, not to ''any'' user ''generated'' content. User uploaded primary sources should be fine as primary sources. ] (]) 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No''' If somethings need to be sourced to an image uploaded to an unreliable UGC website then it very likely isn't worthy of inclusion. I don't even understand what exactly is being proposed here, using images of an album to determine who wrote it...? If no reliable sources that Johnny Doe wrote some album then we won't write that Johnny Doe wrote it. ] (]) 09:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Even RS sources don't always give all the information on a label or don't always accurately report it. I'm not sure why any discogs editor would ever want to falsify what's printed on a label e.g. by photoshopping it. Yes, a label image would be a primary source, but it seems it would still be very reliable. ] (]) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, the rule that "works of art are their own reference" is actually horrible and way way outside our usual comfort zone. For obscure works especially we are effectively saying "OK editor, we'll take your word for it". That's not a whole lot better than "something I saw on the internet" as also a usable source. | |||
| :Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But if we didn't -- if we required published reliable secondary sources for material on works of art as we do for most other articles -- our coverage of works of art would be very very much less that we do have. Very few movie and book articles would have Plot sections or would have short incomplete ones, which would leave the reader blind. In fact, most of our movie and many of our book and record articles would have to be destroyed or stubbed -- they don't have any secondary sources. You can't get a cast list etc for most movies, really you can't get anything, if you're sticking to secondary sources. Very few album articles would have track listings. And so on. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::''It's a problem'' and its a big problem. Why pretend otherwise. But what else can we do? Cut our coverage of films and books and novels by 75+%? Not going to happen. | |||
| :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. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean c'mon, a reader saying "wait, I thought that song was written by Smith not Jones" is not going to hunt down a copy of the actual record (which for many would be quite difficult or expensive) to verify that. Get real. For a lot of these records -- 78's and records from 1930 etc -- there is, basically, no way for the reader to verify the text. Unless they to go to Discogs or someplace like that -- which I guess they shouldn't -- they'll have to be like "oh well, I'll never know I guess". | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::], 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. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::::::::without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;) | |||
| :::::::::::::::And this makes sense thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::::{{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) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| : |
: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) | ||
| ::::The reader can verify that if they've got a copy of that record in their collection. Classic ], of course. But I'll try and "get real". Thanks. ] (]) 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can you show me a notable album that cannot have this key information sourced elsewhere? ] (]) 18:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not sure. Just albums, or singles also? ] (]) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Either or ] (]) 00:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If this were anything else, the obvious point here would be: if it's not sourceable in an RS, <em>then it is not key information for the purposes of our encyclopedia!</em> Why are we treating this area of information totally differently? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why do we need to know what is on the label? If you cannot find a reliable source to cover who wrote/performed it then the work is almost certainly not notable unless it is notable for something non-typical. ] (]) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why not allow an editor to use this resource to reference this ''easily sourced'' information? Yes, the information could be sourced elsewhere if the target is notable, but why disallow something that makes life easier for editors, and ALSO... and this is more important... make things easier for someone who wants to USE the reference. References aren't a game we play here at wikipedia, there's a purpose to citations and referencing everything. They are to provide the references to users who want to use the information themselves. Referencing the album art for information about itself can be USEFUL to users, and this website has them online for easy viewing. ] (]) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Then it can be an external link. I still don't see any album being notable enough for an article but not notable enough to have basic information on unable to be sourced. ] (]) 04:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It is able to be sourced—in the liner notes of the album. Compare to referring to the copyright page on a scanned book to source information about publication. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] You're failing to consider that non-notable musical works that are covered in other articles. In the ] article, I included albums in the discography section that were not covered by the AllMusic reference using {{t|cite AV media notes}}. I did not add the eBay links where I viewed the liner notes, but I should have, since that is more honest to anyone verifying the article than implying I actually own the physical CD package. It seems straightforwardly ridiculous to argue that albums the musician played on (and one he released under his own name) are undue for inclusion in their own discography section. ] 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We're not a database. If there is no source beyond the actual material itself it won't merit inclusion. ] (]) 22:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: Jacobin== | |||
| *No. You don't need an exception (nor should we give one), you just need to treat the pictures as authentic, we have a very low (almost non-existent) standard for treating images as authentic, something along the lines of the 'good faith uploader reasonably believed it was a picture of the thing and so does the good faith editor'. But the citation then is not and never should be to the picture, it is to the label/record/album/cover itself. ] (]) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}} | |||
| * <del>'''No'''{{snd}}I'm pretty baffled. User-generated sources are not reliable by their very nature—for any other area of the wiki, the fundamental idea is that information that cannot be reliably sourced is not considered for inclusion in our encyclopedia! No one has provided a logical justification, only a pragmatic one that I resent strongly. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</del> <ins>See replies. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 20:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</ins> | |||
| {{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}} | |||
| *:The point is that a ] reference would be reliable:<br><syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |publisher=Record Label}}</syntaxhighlight><br>So why would a primary reference with a curtesy link be less reliable:<br><syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |url=courtesy.url |publisher=Record Label}}</syntaxhighlight><br>There's no need for an exception, as this is already allowed. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''? | |||
| *::Oh, so it seems the terms of the discussion have shifted somewhat from earlier then. I'm going to strike my !vote in that case, since I'm indifferent to this as the operative question. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 20:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| *:::I'm not sure what the exact question of the RFC is, I've already pointed out that Discog isn't deprecated it's unreliable as it's UGC. Reading through the comments editors have bold voted both '''No''' and '''Yes''' while agreeing that it can be used as a courtesy link, so good luck anyone who closes it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| *'''Yes'''. Editors should feel free to link to Discogs or eBay or Amazon or any other source normally considered unreliable in {{t|Cite AV media notes}}, because the reason those sources are considered unreliable have nothing to do with false/mislabeled scans, the way some publishers may be considered unusable for what would normally be considered ] interview quotes if they have a history of manipulating them. ] 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| *:It's incredibly lazy to cite a purely commercial vendor like eBay or Amazon--one just isn't trying very hard. I always remove those links; any information on those sites can be found through much better sources. I can only conclude that editors want to link to Discogs solely for the pretty pictures; again, citing the AV notes is enough. We don't need to link in the body of an article to a site that is full of thousands of errors and typos, even if it's just the image. If there's disagreement over something like, did ] play bass on track two or three of ''Album Example'', and the AV notes are cited, then it's a matter of edit warring, and you can involve an admin. Discogs is only appropriate as an external link. All the text in this thread so far has not made the case that it's necessary--or even helpful--to cite in the body. ] (]) 16:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Can someone explain to me how it's not a ] issue? I feel like I must be misunderstanding the situation to have so many people say "yes" so far. ] ] 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:See my earlier , Discog isn't being cited it's being used as a courtesy link. Also my even earlier as to why I don't think this RFC is even necessary. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm inclined to agree with your comment then. ] ] 00:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', as long as it is solely album jackets and liner notes being cited directly as primary sources. Discogs itself, as mentioned, is unreliable per ] (see its entry on RSP at ]), but as long as it is the images being cited and not the user-generated text that supplements them, I don't see a problem. ] (]) 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Needs a strong caveat, but yes for 'what is written on the record'''' The images faithfully reproduce the records and their covers. The sources in this case are the records themselves and their covers (the {{tlg|Cite AV media notes}} template is relevant). The images on discogs merely provide verifiability. They are often (but not always) primary sources. For ''what is written on the record and its cover'' the images are reliable. The reliability of the records/covers for external facts depends on the label/publisher/artist of the record. If we fail to include this caveat in e.g. a RSP entry, we may give the impression that every liner note or song attribution etc. can be used as a reliable source. They absolutely cannot. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 16:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Discogs images)=== | |||
| N.B.:earlier discussion was here: ] Headcount was 3-2, maybe 4-2. | |||
| N.B.:The RfD is not proposing that these photos be ''required'' to ref, just that the editor is ''allowed'' to use them if she wants to without another editor deleting them as disallowed. | |||
| * We kind of do this already a lot, we include a link to Discogs in the "External links" section, in fact we even have {{tl|discogs release}} etc. to facilitate this. Problem is this removes the link down away from the the material being ref'd -- bit less than excellent. And if the editor doesn't include that, the reader is usually going to go to Discogs anyway if she wants to verify; it's just more work. Second, c'mon: hella editors are using Discogs to get their info anyway (I know I do) and that can't be stopped. So the current situation is kind of kabuki, and that also is sub-excellent. ] (]) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| ::NB: if an editor provides a ''proximate'' link to a Discogs photo -- attached directly to a line of data-- just as a courtesy, whether as a bare URL or using a citation template, it will be indistinguishable from a ref. Other editors will see them as refs, and possibly tag them for {{tl|better reference}}, but far more probably delete them, and perhaps the material also as being now unref'd while they're at it I believe we can count on this. (it still wouldn't be unreffed, but it might seem so to the casual editor not knowing the rule for works). And in fact since using Discogs as a ref is clearly prohibited at ], you might be in for a scolding. So I wouldn't do it. | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards, | |||
| :::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I said, an external link at the bottom of the article is extra work for the user and just more mediocre. Why do that. But that is currently the only use allowed by ]. | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear. | |||
| :Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias." | |||
| :I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small> | |||
| *::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it. | |||
| :It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure. | |||
| ::Re "anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record" and " a guaranteed accurate representation of a work", that just isn't true. A photo of the label for "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" can't actually be a photo of the label for "Love Me Do". It's flat impossible. Of course, as anywhere in the 'pedia, we are indeed subject to be fooled by an elaborate hoax using photoshop skills. But we assume no elaborate hoaxes absent some indication of such, and to do so regularly would be kind of paranoid... And for instance photos (putatively) taken and uploaded without modification by Misplaced Pages editors are far likelier to to hoaxes or just wrong and for good or ill we accept those. I guess we would accept a photo of a record label taken by an editor to be shown in an article to be sufficiently reliable, why can't she upload to Discogs and use it as a ref. | |||
| :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. | |||
| ::Re "The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts". I did not know that birth certificates or whatever that Ancestry hosts are considered unreliable, that is a different issue -- I suppose the birth ertificates for two different Joe Smiths might be indistinguishable etc. This doesn't apply to the matter at hand. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Vetting reliable sources is tricky if you drill down. Most sources are reliable for some things, and not others. But if the ''Daily Unreliable'' were to host material that -- by some magic -- we were certain was true to 99.99% confidence, yeah we could use it I'd think. The label photos are 99.99% sure of being accurate, n'est-ce pas? | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| ::Sure our rules have to be blunt instruments ("Do not use the ''Daily Unreliable'', period"), we can't get overly nuanced. but ''if it is possible to make a rule less blunt'' by logical proof of an reasonably broad exception, and an editor has bothered to do it, it would be mediocre to just be like "enh whatever nah". ] (]) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainlyleaves 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) | |||
| :::How will this RFC change this in anyway? Discog will still be an unreliable source in general, so anyone blindly following the colour applied by a script will still see the same colour. I would suggest making sure the title of the reference is something like "Courtesy link to image of the album reverse showing the song listing". If you add a bare url it may get reverted, the same happens to edits without summaries, if other editors don't know why you're doing something they might revert you in mistake. Clearly explaining goes a long way to mitigate that. | |||
| :::Nothing at RSP "prohibits" the use of Discog, the specific wording is {{tq|The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable}}. That is routine wording, all ] is considered generally unreliable. | |||
| ::::It's prohibited for refs I believe. I want it usable for refs. Your quote basically makes the argument "We can't use any Discogs material for refs, because we don't use any Discogs material for refs" which is circular. Look me in the eye and tell me that you truly believe that these photos are not accurate to a sufficient level of confidence for a ref. You can't because they are. How can that not matter. ] (]) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not prohibited, and if you think my argument bis circular you have misunderstood it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::My point about ancestry/com is that it is unreliable, but that the primary documents it hosts are considered reliable (rather than the other way round). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As to hoaxes Discog is as likely to be hoaxed as any other place that are user edited, Misplaced Pages included. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hoaxing the Misplaced Pages can have ideological advantage in many places. Making a hoax record label is pointless and also requires some photoshop skill. There probably ''are'' hoaxed images on Discogs (altho their hivemind would catch lots of them eventually you'd think). However, surely it is way less than one in a thousand. A 99.9+% confidence is way more than sufficient for a ref. ] (]) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Most of the hoaxes on Misplaced Pages are not ideological, see ]. The main reason people create hoaxes is basic trolling. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Mnmh. Well, Misplaced Pages is a magnet for all kinds of hoaxes, but its very different, all of those are text hoaxes -- articles or passages. It's different. Plus Misplaced Pages is ''very'' visible, its the go-to place for hoaxing, Discogs is not. Plus realistic photoshopping takes a level of skill that... idk, one person in a thousand has? (Maybe not in your circle, but overall.) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::::::Photoshopping a record label is just not the same is all. Altho... now I think of it, you could photoshop your own name as the writer or something, either for lulz or some personal advantage (impress a girl or whatever)... but even so: are more than 1 of 1000 images in Discogs altered? Remember, there are a ''lot'' of images on Discord... 1 in 1000 would mean there are hundreds of hoaxed images on Discord. Many would have been caught, and/or bragged about. I haven't heard a whisper of that. And I mean the internet has a lot info, what my neighbors dog had for breakfast is on the internet. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ===Discussion: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| ::::::I mean sure anything's ''possible''... more that 1 in 1000 Discord images being hoaxes is not literally absolutely ''impossible''... but you'd really be going down a rabbit hole to think its ''realistically possible''. Maybe the ''New York Times'' doesn't exist and is an elaborate hoax (have you ever been there?). Maybe all the rest of us and the whole universe is ] (in which case there would be ''no'' reliable sources I guess.) But how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go. | |||
| *Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed. | |||
| ::::::Nobody in this thread has made the argument that more than 1 in 1,000 Discog label images are significantly altered. It'd be an extraordinary claim, and there's not one single source, even a unreliable random blog or whatever, for that, that I know of. I think it's safe for us to dismiss that possibility. ] (]) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Summing up, to this point anyway=== | |||
| So, seems to have died down a bit. So let's see. | |||
| Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to. | |||
| So, my goal here was to add text to the effect that "Except that images of record labels and jackets are OK" at the Discogs entry at ]. That page is for "sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here... it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" to avoid having to go over some sources over and over. Discogs is rated as "Generally Unreliable" With the circle-slash "prohibited" icon. This represent the consensus of the various previous discussions, and is mainly used for answering editors who aren't sure, but could also be used to quell pointless local discussions on the matter. And that is fine. (I was told that here rather than there is place to have this discussion). | |||
| ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, let's see -- by headcount, its 7-4 in favor of "yes" (most people from the other discussion voted here, but one didn't, and was a "yes" so '''8-4 Yes'''). As to strength of argument, well, not for me to say, but... I didn't find the "no" ones very convincing, to say the least. You ''can't'' pass off a photo of record X's label as being record Y, no matter how many people don't get that, you still can't. The photos themselves are technically user created, but I mean so is "I have the album right here, take my word for it man" and that's less reliable and the reader sometimes can't check it at all without unreasonable effort. "We can't use Discogs at all because we don't use Discogs at all" is not a strong argument; "We don't use Discogs at all and that works OK so let's keep doing that" is better, but pretty weak IMO... could be used against any change anywhere... "works OK" is arguable and "works better" is a worthwhile goal. But that's just me, and I'm biased, so make your own conclusion about strength of argument. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Anyway, for the purposes of ], a "a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" has to include this thread, and with more weight than something from say 15 years ago. So it's ''most probably'' not true that a summarization of discussion can be said to reveal a consensus against Discogs label photos as refs, anymore. More the opposite. (If there are a number of fairly recent, well- populated, and decisive discussions that might be different -- but since label photos as a separate thing were discussed little or not at all (I'll betcha), most probably not even then.) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| And the nutshell at that page does say "Consensus can change...". So... | |||
| *:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Heritage Foundation == | |||
| Make sense? I will talk to the Perennial Sources people, OK? They will probably agree to the change. | |||
| ] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| But here is the thing. So far we are talking about if a fact (is there consensus) was or was not established. | |||
| ::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation? | |||
| ::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods. | |||
| :On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes. | |||
| ::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's more valuable to treat them as ] than to treat them as ] personally. ] (]) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed that primary makes more sense than SPS for HF, though there are instances where their work would be or could be a secondary source. ] (]) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| But... for ''rules'' its different. At ] (part of ], which is technically just a guideline but has the weight of a strong rule) it says "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are... Discogs...". Well is 8-4 and (if you think so) weight of argument enough to change a rule? Mnmh... well the at WP:RS it's just one example. Removing it doesn't change any rule, at all. And dollars to donuts that the people writing that list of examples gave zero thought to Discogs label photos specifically, and we're not "originalists" bound to exact text. | |||
| As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So yeah I'd say changing that text (most probably just removing it, since its only listing some examples, and less confusing) would probably be appropriate. | |||
| Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| But suppose we would have to have a discussion over at RS tho. We'll see. ] (]) 03:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As someone involved in the RFC I would suggest leaving it to whoever closes the discussion. | |||
| :As to UGC as I said above this would change nothing, at best it would add a sentence at RSP that links to images can be used because if other pre-existing policy considerations. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC OurCampaigns == | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731956472}} | |||
| {{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=E3B9643}} | |||
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? ] (]) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| , not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's says: {{bq|OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content. | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website. | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!}} | |||
| * '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Previous discussions: | |||
| *]: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles | |||
| *]: "looks like an open Wiki" | |||
| *]: points to ], declined because "site is dead" | |||
| *]: brief discussion | |||
| *]: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated | |||
| *]: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure | |||
| *]: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable" | |||
| === RFC: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the ] (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup. | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided. | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 5: ]''' | |||
| ==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ==== | |||
| * <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s> '''lean Option 3, possibly 4, no blacklist''': Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in. | |||
| *:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I made this RFC mostly because folks had already started sending bolded votes. with some time, and red-tailed hawks suggestions, I think it makes sense to not blacklist heritage foundation... there are technical ways to reduce the risk. | |||
| *::Could also be useful to see if there is a way to send folks to the internet archvive version of the heritage foudnation urls instead of the actual urls if there is risk. ] (]) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist| | |||
| <nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}} | |||
| </nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists ] as running as an independent against the ] candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the , the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book. | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not a cybersecurity expert, and I'm not going to get into the long back-and-forth about HF using links to their website to scrape the IPs of Misplaced Pages editors. My concern is far more basic: if they are doxxing editors, or even threatening to, we should not be linking to them. ] (]) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, why don't we just treat them like a printed source? Mention the author, the title of the article, the year of publication, but leave out any URL to the article. Makes a good compromise: if it's necessary to cite them, then they can be cited without any security concerns that they'll grab a users IP. Those who want to verify the information can google the title of the article and access the article via the search engine so that all that HF would know is that IP so-so accessed their website via a search engine rather than Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I agree with editors that have voiced that the security concern is more "security theater" and !vote that the real agenda here should be based in reliability and reliability alone. ] (]) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Mainly out of the fact that if HF wants to be a bad actor and do what they plan, us removing the links barely stops them if at all. That just seems silly as a "defensive" move unless I am sorely missing something. ] (]) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::There was talk that they wanted to create links that would redirect to some fishy sites. If we don't include any of their links then at least that can be avoided. Plus, I'd think that would make it harder to track editors' activities across different platforms/website. At the same time, HF can still be used a source without any particular limitations other than the policies that are in place and have already been applied to them all this time. ] (]) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Interesting proposal. I hope your idea catches on in this discussion. ] (]) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::] actually suggested the same thing as I just saw (the post is right below this thread; here:), but it probably got buried in all the notifications and went unnoticed. ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Why should a source that publishes disinformation and misinformation be used in an encyclopedia? ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Because the required consensus to depricate HF might not be reached. | |||
| *:::::::Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the quality of HF's content, but I see that others consider HF's content useful (at least to some degree) that's why I'm suggesting a compromise in case HF will not be depricated, so that at least the security concerns could still be addressed. ] (]) 21:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::And I for one think that is very reasonable and level headed of you @]. ] (]) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The consensus so far appears to be somewhere between "deprecate" and "deprecate and blacklist". ] (]) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::] can be tricky, as it is not a simply or even a super majority of !votes. That is why we call them <u>'''''not'''''</u> ''votes'' (!votes) after all.. ] (]) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::The good news is that they are all proper !votes. ] (]) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::What would you consider to be an "improper" !vote? Generally speaking. ] (]) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Just to note, since some are treating deprecation as being more expanse than it is, ] says: | |||
| *::{{tq|Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in ] (see also ] and ]).}} | |||
| *::That should be sufficient to cover the times when we would need to cite this source, and preferably either with archival links or w/o links at all depending on implementation given the other concerns. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:To clarify this, I think an archival link in citations would resolve the security issues of using a Heritage Foundation link, not that blacklisting would be a panacea to the doxxing campaign. I think that a link to an organization's own website is the most likely candidate, among links, for a court to decide is a legal way to obtain information. Blacklisting won't stop dedicated efforts to create 3rd-party tracking links, which we should warn editors about, but it is a relatively easy way on our end to throw up a small impediment to the goals and increase the legal risk of any doxxing campaign. If this site is blacklisted, editors should be directed to the various resources on account security that have been discussed. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 + Blacklist ''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) <small>Amended to include Blacklisting ] (]) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}} | |||
| *:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting. | |||
| *:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else. | |||
| *::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things. | |||
| *::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment. | |||
| *::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. ] (]) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. ] (]) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Ugh, it's not for retaliation. I am commenting on the source's reliability. In addition to the incidents documented above and in the parent section's opening statement—which I, ], don't see you refuting—I don't trust Heritage to publish reliable information if they mount a personal assault on information itself. Even if we were on a site unrelated to Misplaced Pages, I would not trust it. ] (]) 22:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::yes, blacklisting is not about retaliation. any political organization that chooses to stoop to this level signals that there is no level to which it will not stoop, including wholesale fabrication of data in seemingly legitimate analyses. it has crossed the Rubicon and can never again be trusted. it should enjoy the company of Breitbart and InfoWars. ] (]) 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I agree, except for the part on blacklisting. Blacklisting depends on whether it's being persistently and disruptively added (as Breitbart and InfoWars documentedly were per their blacklisting discussions). I don't see that happening yet, and per RedTailedHawk below, I fear it'll lead Wikipedians into a false sense of security away from the vigilance about all links, which is needed. ] (]) 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Is blacklisting dependent upon a source being found persistently and disruptively used, or simply a finding of gross and malevolent unreliability? ] (]) 23:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{outdent|3}} The former. Besides the fact that it's called the <em>spam</em> blacklist, ] says {{tq| These lists mostly contain spam sites, but also include URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting), some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus.}} and {{tq|blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers}}. ] further says it's {{tq|intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses.}} ] (]) 01:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::yeah, I've been a bit befuddled by blacklisting being limited to spamming, rather than grossly false and malevolent content. was InfoWars blacklisted for spam? ] (]) 02:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::As linked to on RSP, {{tq|I think that int he interests of protecting the project from a mix of Russian bots and Rany from Boise we should blacklist these domains}}. You need persistent mistaken addition to blacklist instead of just deprecating. ] (]) 16:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::"Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself" isn't quite true. The US government runs lots of reliable sources, but the US government has also conducted information warfare. It's a big organization with a long history. | |||
| *:::::::I'll also direct you (and others interested) to ] and ], in case you haven't seen them already. Again, ANI is MREL, and that's unrelated to its attacks ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::], and while their court case is probably of bad faith, they are still respecting the rule of law. If they sicced private detectives on the 3 defendants to expose them, that's another story. You have a point regarding the US government, but the sources that we allow have much better records and reputations regarding what they <em>do</em> publish, and arguments for continued usage like that of the ANI RfC I linked to. For the ones that don't, like ], we deprecate them. ] (]) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Ugh, what a wall of text in the replies to my last comment. Look, this isn't about retaliating, or even about not liking what they said. It's about determining whether or not something is a reliable source. And anyone who cannot see that what Heritage is doing is inconsistent with being a reliable source is, I think, very likely to be a POV-pusher making excuses for them. --] (]) 01:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Heritage is engaged in subversion and espionage, which is thoroughly inconsistent with a reliable source. yes, ''espionage''. ] (]) 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I hope you don't mean to suggest I'm a POV pusher ] (]) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To clarify: I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT, but the Forward article that prompted this discussion might not even suggest HF plans to do anything illegal, unless they dox people who live in places where that's illegal like California or the Netherlands (that's not illegal in the wider US or EU) or spear phish people who live where that's illegal (from what I can tell, not illegal across the US unless it falls under another crime like identity theft, but a bunch of states have their own laws, according to an InfoSec article that I can't link to. Might be illegal across the EU?). Like it or not, they can choose from their menu of doxing tools to try to stay within the laws of each relevant jurisdiction. I do think ANI is worse, where a hostile entity has already succeeded in breaching anonymity ''and'' in censoring Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *:::::::::For OCB's deprecation, the reasoning cites "consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda". If we're going to deprecate HF it should be for similar reasons, but I don't think most of this discussion has actually addressed concerns of dis/misinformation, apart from "if they do ''this'' they must automatically be a bad source", which I don't think is a strong argument. There are some fringe but legitimate reasons where doxing people on the internet could be seen as acceptable, like investigative journalism revealing that Prolific Reddit User X is actually Known Russian Agitator Y (or, prolific TikToker influencing the Romanian presidential election is actually ''this guy'' linked to shadowy companies). So it's not the doxing itself that's bad, but the intent to reveal WP editors' identities (unless the doxing is conducted illegally). And, as mentioned, HF is not the only place trying to do that ] (]) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Clarification: saying "'if they do ''this'' they must automatically be a bad source'" I mean "''this"'' to be doxing. Of course there are things that, if sources do them, mean the sources are bad ] (]) 15:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::It may be legal, but it's not <em>lawful</em> nor civil as ANI's case was. And I do not want to argue about ANI here again after already dedicating a lot of words to that on a separate project talk page. We don't need to build this wall of text further beyond the horizons in scope.<br>There is evidence in the opening statement of this section on their disinformation. I have not seen that refuted anywhere. ] (]) 16:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I don't see the badness distinction between legal and lawful/civil. Google was fined $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by Russia through its legal system, which is a much more hostile action than threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do. | |||
| *:::::::::::As for the info at the start of the section, thanks for pointing that out!— I'd only been looking at the RfC. I shall respond to that in the appropriate place ] (]) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{outdent|10}} That isn't lawful. India's courts are much better than Russia's.{{tqb|1=threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do}}But <em>systematic</em> doxxing with professional spearphishing? ] (]) 12:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Alternatively, burning millions of dollars in lawsuits to try to bankrupt Misplaced Pages in some country with tight libel laws like the UK. I didn't understand the distinction before, and understand it less as "hostile lawfare against WP through a court system that is of quality greater than or equal to India's" being ok while a "hostile to WP but probably legal search through public information" makes a source unusable (again, that's a big part of how investigative journalism works). | |||
| *::Anyone with the right skills can dox like anyone else (except for like intelligence agencies with restricted tools who can do it better), the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it ] (]) 19:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It has the same difference as that between a court case and a witch hunt: the presence of actually moderated discussion and true dignity.{{tqb|the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it}}That's huge difference, as seen in , not to mention training. "Anyone can do anything with or without money." ] (]) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't think the potentially-superficial presence of moderated discussion in a hostile organization's threats and attacks against WP should be a gauge of reliability of that organization. | |||
| *::::I get that unpaid people in general are less motivated, but unknown psychos with a grudge are about as motivated as physically possible ] (]) 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::What about the known psychos with a grudge that also happen to be paid? ] (]) 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Not relevant to my point ] (]) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I don't even get your point with that part. What difference does that make to how bad Heritage is for hiring systematic doxxing? Why isn't systematic doxxing always bad? ] (]) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Where I've meant to be going with this is: if there's no reliability concern about being a hostile entity, nor about attacking Misplaced Pages, nor about successfully damaging Misplaced Pages, but rather about ''having a sufficiently nice and dignified talk about all that'', then what's up with that? ] (]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Systematic doxxing is not a {{tq|nice and dignified talk}}. There are reliability concerns about all of the "no" points you listed. ] (]) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Exactly, HF is unreliable ''because'' doxing under these circumstances isn't nice and dignified enough, if I understand correctly ] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If there were reliability concerns about the "no" points then they'd apply to ANI ] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{outdent|4}} Yes, that's also what I think. I'm glad we agree on this! ] (]) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Discussion is maybe starting to work! :D ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Tell me: Why is a publication that hires Pinkerton Detective Agency for witch hunts be better than a publication that uses the courts for intimidation? The latter is discussion, while the former is pretty much violence. ] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::These arguments appear to be turning to morals and ethics for support instead of WP policies and guidelines. ] (]) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::As I've said since the beginning of this chain, it's because of those anti-intellectual morals that I significantly doubt Heritage's intellectual reliability. ] (]) 00:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and ] (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this to the ] where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, . | |||
| * I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense: | |||
| :*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above. | |||
| :*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories. | |||
| :*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend , a website created by ] and run by the ], for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 () (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. ] (]) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on ] as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Misplaced Pages, ], ], etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. ] (]) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **{{+1}}. ] (]) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, I have a grudge against websites that have consistently provided incorrect information, something OurCampaigns has done multiple times beyond the examples given here, including reporting incorrect numbers, falsifying candidacies, and including unsourced maps. I don't believe we should allow people to continually add potentially incorrect information to articles and reward their laziness. I understand that most editors don't have access to non-online sources, which is why I am willing to share mine and have provided links to online freely available election data from archives like the Internet Archive, as well as dedicated, professionally run sites like A New Nation Votes and Ballotpedia. ] (]) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do you honestly, genuinely believe that they would use their main website domain to do that? ''Do you have any idea how these types of schemes work?'' ] (]) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Why wouldn't they? If they're aggregating data why would they not include their native data? That is exactly how this sort of legal watering hole attack works... Instead of poisioning the water with malware they just record who comes and goes (like most websites do). I would also contest the IP's use of "malicious links" as normally thats associated with links that go to malware (the illegal sort of watering hole attack) but the links in this context aren't malicious even if you could argue that *intent* behind them is. ] (]) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not going as far as the IP (I don't think that this would constitute either identity theft or blackmail) but I would note that such a scheme targeting EU citizens would be illegal even if one targeting US citizens is not. There are an awfully large number of places where these would be criminal acts, we just allow a massive amount of leeway when it comes to data harvesting in the USA. This sort of thing is inherently barely this side of a criminal organization, sometimes the lengths that even legitimate organizations like ] will go to are just up to that legal line. ] (]) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They should not be - they are primary sources. ] (]) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::They are used that way. They can publish both primary and secondary sources ] (]) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Not by us. Think tanks are ]. ] (]) 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Where do you see that? ] (]) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::In the definition of what a primary source is. ] (]) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Funny, because I see in the definition of a secondary source their function as a secondary source, almost as if they can publish both primary and secondary sources ] (]) 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::What is the role of a Think tank? ] (]) 19:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Good philosophical question, especially their place in a well-functioning democracy. Is this helpful to the discussion? ] (]) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::That's not the response that I was hoping to see. Their role determines what they publish, which in turn answers the question regarding whether they are a primary or a secondary source. ] (]) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::"A '''think tank''', or public policy institute, is a ] that performs ] and ] concerning topics such as ], ], ], ], ], and ]." | |||
| *::::::::::::May I strikethrough this half of the reply chain now? ] (]) 19:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there are times when they are primary and times when they are secondary (any think tank), and therefore it depends on the instance. WP policy and guidelines would support this as well unless anyone is able to quote something to the contrary. ] (]) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::How can entity that performs "research and advocacy" not be considered a primary source? ] (]) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::{{ec}}Research and advocacy are what we would expect from a primary source. ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::"A ''']''' provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains ''analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis'' of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. ]. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review." | |||
| *:::::::::::::::Why is "research" a problem for a secondary source? ] (]) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::It's not their so-called targetted "research" that is the issue, it's what they publish (their own thoughts, findings and recommendations) that make them a primary source. ] (]) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::Are you implying that all of their research is under this doxing agenda? | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::Think tanks publish both primary and secondary sources. Own-thoughts and recommendations are primary sources, but "findings" includes secondary sources, which come from research. | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::Thankfully, WP:DISCARD means we don't need to continue this part of the discussion because we both think we're obviously right and have nothing helpful to suggest to each other about primary/secondary sources ] (]) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::Analyses? Did somebody mention analyses? Here's another analysis: . Um, I guess that's a secondary source, too? --] (]) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure how it connects to HF publishing primary and/or secondary sources ] (]) 23:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::I really hope that the 90%+ of comments here that are completely unrelated to anything on the topic of reliability are tossed right into the garbage where they belong. ] (]) 22:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::Every single !vote is related to the reliability of the garbage source. ] (]) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"...maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough" (Nope). | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors." (Nope again) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"...their own communications indicate that they are a security risk" (Nope, not about reliability) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors." (Nope, not about "reliability"... | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Literally almost every single !vote invokes reasoning which should be ] as completely unrelated and not based in any policy or guidelines. | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Some !votes at least admit to their not being based in any policy or guideline such as this one, "Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures." | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Would be easy to go on and on... ] (]) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::Did I say anything about doxing? ] (]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::I interpreted "so-called targetted 'research'" to be an oblique reference to doxing, but sorry if I misinterpreted ] (]) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::I was referring to the think tanks in general, the Heritage Foundation is a garbage source (I think we all agree on that). ] (]) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::::Abort reply thread! Abort reply thread! ] (]) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::{{outdent|6}} What does that mean? ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Would the concerns here also apply to something like the SLPC? The HF and SPLC are both widely cited by RSs and if a RS says "HF/SPLC said X" then we might find weight for the attributed fact since a RS gave it weight. I would presume we wouldn't directly cite a claim by either since both are effectively advocacy organizations. ] (]) 23:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{outdent|::::::}} Per ], they have a much better factual reputation, and they should always be attributed anyways. ] (]) 23:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I don't think they have a better factual reputation given some of their court losses. Regardless, there seems to be a concern that editors would cite the HF without a RS giving the HF weight on the topic. I agree with that concern. The question is why wouldn't we treat basically all think tanks/activist organizations in a similar fashion. Why should we accept a direct reference to something like Hate Watch but not the index published by HF (I personally think we should oppose both absent a RS pointing to the claim). ] (]) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::All the cases against SPLC were dismissed. There's only 3 actual incidents mentioned in the SPLC article, all of which they apologized for and retracted, though one of them only after a $3 million settlement and 1.5 years—that's the longest time it ever took them to retract. Whereas Heritage's "expert"s still stand. ] (]) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::So they have been found guilty of defaming people. Has the HF been found to have defamed anyone? I'm not arguing that the HF is a good stand alone source. Rather I'm arguing that we are inconsistent if we treat SPLC like a relative secondary source but say the HF can't be given the SPLC's record is also quite sketchy. I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources. It would address concerns regarding potential misinformation as well as weight. ] (]) 11:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{outdent|3}} The settlement did not ever proceed to a lawsuit, though it is slightly concerning, but which has already been extensively discussed ].{{tqb|I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources.}}SPLC is treated like a primary source in that they're almost always used as ]. It's just that they're reliable. ] (]) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::They aren't treated like a primary source in that we often use their claims absent a RS establishing that the claim is DUE in an article. For example, if both SPLC and HF say something about a topic editors are likely to cite SPLC absent any 3rd party source (ie a RS article about our topic mentions SPLC) yet we, rightly, wouldn't do the same if HF said something about the same topic (say one of their indexes of X). That we treat these differently seems to be more about the views of editors vs the track record of the sources. Thus far the examples of misinformation etc seem relatively minor and at least to some extent in a gray area (ie we ultimately may not agree but the claim is not absolutely meritless). Of course, the easy way to fix this is just say activist organizations shouldn't be cited without a RS drawing the connection/establishing weight in context of the topic first. ] (]) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::That's what the consensus summary for WP:SPLC already says. {{tq|Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.}} The problem is with those articles that don't observe Due. ] (]) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::This is all moot anyway. This RFC is not about the SPLC. ] (]) 13:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I would agree. A simple solution is to say activist/think tank organization's reports/opinions should be assumed undue by default. That would also address much of the argument here about the HF. If a RS says HF said X about the proposed law then we have weight for inclusion regarding of the silly/problematic RSP numbering system. ] (]) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::There's no need for a novel policy construction here. ] works just fine. And it seems like this proposal mostly exists to create a false balance whereby any and all leftist advocacy groups will be declared unreliable just because the Heritage Foundation is a far-right advocacy group that is patently unreliable. I would suggest we should focus on the Heritage Foundation and their clear unreliability issues rather than trying to explode the scope of discussion. ] (]) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::I wasn't the one who raised the question about activate organizations. However, since the question came up it seems reasonable to look at the logic we are employing. Your argument certainly could support the impression that we should based policy on our feelings/agreement with a group's views rather than on principle. That would tend to move Misplaced Pages away from some type of neutral collection of knowledge (including conflicting views) and towards a collection of knowledge/views that align with the majority of active editors. This is why I think we should apply these rules more on principle vs forcibly based on if we 'like" the group in question. ] (]) 15:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::No. You are mistaken. I'm actually saying we should not be basing reliability decisions for advocacy groups on political alignment but rather on reliability on the basis of existing policy - specifically ] and ]. I will note that there is a tendency of far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation to be less reliable than groups that are not far-right wing. As for why that's the case, I will refer to a preeminently reliable source, ], who developed a core political theory for understanding this factual peculiarity. However, should a right-wing source demonstrate that it adheres properly to our reliability standards then it's reliable. Heritage Foundation is not. Simple as. ] (]) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I'll mention that the goal of this discussion is to determine to what extent HF adheres to or violates our reliability standards ] (]) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::{{tqb|Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than <em>a primary research paper.</em>|source=]}} ] (]) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Of course, but nothing about that quote, from what I can see there, says anything about think tanks or that think tanks are either always primary or always secondary sources. ] (]) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Their research is definitely primary. Only reviews, textbooks, etc. count as secondary research sources. And the analyses associated with such primary research is primary. ] (]) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Even if so, cited primary sources have their place on Misplaced Pages. Reliability is another thing altogether. ] (]) 22:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This particular line from ] isn't good for making a case against citing Heritage Foundation. The notion of a 'primary research paper' mostly holds in the sciences, especially the hard sciences, where journals publish what researchers call ''primary'' evidence or data. Other fields, like the humanities, consider the texts they study the raw primary data (archival documents, historical newspapers, literature, etc.) whereas the publications are secondary sources. If Misplaced Pages actually prohibited publications that do their own research, then we wouldn't cite journalism (like '']'') or book-length biographies (like '']''). The reason to not cite Heritage Foundation is much simpler than a technicality of how a sourcing guideline is phrased. It's simply that Heritage Foundation repeatedly publishes disinformation (about climate science, about political news, etc.) to the point that users cannot consistently depend on it for facts. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{outdent|8}} The premise of this chain is a counterargument against "whatever actually reliable thing they say, other secondary sources would" by claiming that Heritage is widely used as a secondary source. That is false. ] (]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It's not false to these professionals</nowiki>]</nowiki>] ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Misplaced Pages has different citation policies. ] (]) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are people actively adding them to articles still? if so, I suppose adding it to the edit filter might be appropriate. ] (] • ]) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, It should be blocked. If it is't then people will keep using it, instead of other sources. ] (]) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Could you point me to where you answered that? ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So misleading the public about electoral interference and climate change denial are "generally reliable" behaviours but it's generally unreliable if a left-wing source makes and subsequently corrects an error of fact. I think this line of reasoning is more guided by POV than policy. ] (]) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Please ] and keep the discussion on the sources. ] (]) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Would you like to respond to his point on the sources or the links about the sources here since the beginning, which I've excerpted below for your convenience? ] (]) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Where did you excerpt below? This thread is a total cluster "F". ] (]) 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Right below ]. ] (]) 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them. | |||
| :That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE. | |||
| :If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] | ] | ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations. | |||
| *::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Kind of a side point but the Principia is certainly outmoded, maybe theres a better example but this one is just you shooting yourself in the foot. ] (]) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Apparently I misunderstood what outmoded means! I thought it meant "obsolete" but I guess it's "old-fashioned", which I must confess is absolutely accurate for both books then (what I meant to communicate is that both books are timeless, foundational classics, which they can be while still being old fashioned). However, it's still irrelevant to being RS that a source is inspired by something old-fashioned ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think what they mean is more "outdated". ] (]) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed. | |||
| *:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source. | |||
| *:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::It is a reasonable statement to include in the article ] (in table format, for example), but not in the article ], unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —] 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? ] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::From ]: "The ] rated Denmark as "]" in 2016. According to the ] Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index ] (]) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —] 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC ] (]) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —] 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::I disagree ] (]) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::@] is right. ] (]) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::No, Alach E. is right. We should not be using think tank indices in article bodies like this. It's a failure of adherence to Misplaced Pages sourcing policy to treat pseudoscientific content like this - and I persist in asserting that a non-scientific economic index is pseudoscientific by appropriating the scientific language of economics without any rigor or scientific methodology - while the Heritage Foundation's hostility to our project has brought this index to attention, it's correct to remove many such indices. ] (]) 12:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source. | |||
| *::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical ]), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. ] (]) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Most of the comments in the academy that are distinct from the Heritage Foundation are critical of its methodology. EX: ''An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index. By: Cabello, José Manuel, Ruiz, Francisco, Pérez-Gladish, Blanca, Social Indicators Research, 03038300, Jan2021, Vol. 153, Issue 2'' ] (]) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Note - it took me a while to find even that because very few scholars bother to talk about it at all. ] (]) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You could also have cited ''The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters'' ( Studies in Economics and Finance 38 (3), 529-561, 2021), which is also critical, or ''Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom'' (Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing 3 (1), 1-14, 2023) or ''The relation between the index of economic freedom and good governance with efficiency of the European Structural Funds'' (Papers in Regional Science Volume 101, Issue 2, April 2022, Pages 327-350) which are not critical. | |||
| *::::::That’s just from the first page of Google Scholar search results for “index of economic freedom” so I’m not sure why you found it difficult to find anyone talking about it. | |||
| *::::::At any rate, a source receiving criticism has very little bearing on it being FRINGE when there is so much uncritical USEBYOTHERS. ] (]) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Have you seen the book cited that explores that use? I've quoted parts of it in the discussion section below. According to this academic book, Heritage is only used because of the cheap price and pure volume of what they circulate, despite great decrial from the NYT newsroom. You should borrow the book through the Internet Archive link I found and check out chapter 4, "The News Media and the Heritage Foundation: Promoting Education Advocacy at the Expense of Authority". It's quite harrowing. I think it's enough for an IAR argument in spite of UBO. ] (]) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Does the book specifically address the IEF — which is also done with the WSJ? ] (]) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I don't remember, and I"m too tired at this point. ] (]) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I found ''The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters'' but I had not read it yet and I try to avoid commenting on the contents of papers I haven't read. And even I have my limits with regard to the number of journal articles I can read in a day lol. But, yes, on the brief inspection I gave it (reading the abstract), your assessment of its contents seem accurate. ] (]) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}" | |||
| *:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Option 4, and blacklist''': clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it ''is'' here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. ''']''' (]) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:+1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. ] (]) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' – All think-tanks should follow Option 2 at a minimum. However, Heritage Foundation is particularly unreliable in that they've devolved into a mouthpiece for disinformation and fringe garbage. Even if some of their older material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than ] at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like restricting use to only archival websites, if direct links may lead to privacy issues for editors. ] (]) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4 and 5''' When it comes to reliability, Heritage was already in 3 territory even years ago and, in my opinion, breached 4 in the past few years when it began actively pushing misinformation and false claims across a variety of subjects, particularly scientific ones. So, deprecate on that alone. Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "{{tq|Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take.}}" seems not to be based in policy or guidelines, but rather in retaliation. Can you explain to me how if that is not the case, what am I missing? ] (]) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (] is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). ] (]) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::We are at that point? We are citing ]? Are there really no guidelines or policy otherwise to invoke in this instance? ] (]) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4: Deprecate''': My read on the original discussion was that this RFC was started to get opinions on the reliability outside of the security threat- if thats the case then Option 4 would stand given the rampant misinformation. ] (]) 02:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4: Deprecate''' is the best. <small>(However, if the decision is between Option 3 and Option 5, I definitely lean 5.)</small> It is not inflammatory enough to purely block as clearly as an attack site, though it does seem to be a propaganda mill, because some of their links could be usable to refer to a limited range of criteria, mostly what would generally fall under ABOUTSELF. All usage of Heritage Foundation sourcing for claims should be highly qualified and narrow in scope. ]｟] ]｠ 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4: Deprecate''' This source does not have a reputation for fact-checking and honesty that would make it a reliable source for inclusion in encyclopedia articles. In fact, it appears to do the opposite, lying to support its political agenda, so much so that it cannot not even be trusted to make truthful statements about itself. Blacklisting on the grounds that it is an actively hostile threat to editor privacy may be appropriate but is not the focus of this noticeboard. ] (]) 16:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' - Misinformation site by extremely partisan activist group. Not a news site. ] (]) 02:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5 - blacklist''' - Heritage foundation is definitely unreliable getting close to if not over the deprecate line given their involvement in project 2025. Regardless, given their stated intentions, I'd support blacklisting them as a purely symbolic measure. I'd '''strongly oppose''' blacklisting them on security grounds. As others have remarked that's security theater and highly problematic as it risks giving editors the impression we've done jacksquat about stopping them when haven't. It also makes us look like we're idiots who don't understand the basics of the internet. As I remarked elsewhere it's ridiculous to think they'd come up with this complex plan, and then plan to use domains in any way associated with them as part of it. That's like the classic movie/TV trope where some villian has this highly complex plan with some blindly obvious easily resovable flaw they ignored. There are so many reasons they'd never want to do that, including that it would have revealed they were behind the campaign when there's no reason to think they expected it to be public so soon. The fact their plans are now partly public doesn't seem particularly likely to change things especially since fair chance they'd already set a bunch of stuff up to make it less suspicious (with newly registered domains). It's still incredibly unlikely they'd want to make it easier to track what they're doing not to mention they'd need to convince their targets to click on the link in the first place. Why on earth would they do that when they could (to make up a very simple example) set up archive.now to point to archive.today etc (which already has quite a number of different domains) and it's potentially months before anyone realises archive.now doesn't actually belong to whoever the heck owns ]? And we all know how often we use archive links to bypass paywalls etc, so who's going to think anything when editor A gets editor B to visit an archive.now link? This is incredibly simple and yet still carries some risk of early detection so I'm not sure if something like this would be part of their plans, still it must be at least a thousand fold more likely than using any domain associated with them. Note that we should whitelist them as needed when specific pages are suitable for citations e.g. if something written by Clarence Thomas needs to be cited or some part of the Index of Economic Freedom. ] (]) 13:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' - Mainly due to the security risks that they have thrown against Misplaced Pages editors. If there was any sourcing from them that would pass the standard reliability policies, they can be sourced without links. ] <small>]</small> 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4 post-2016; option 3 otherwise''' - as others have said, blacklisting is ] and not an effective response to an organization planning a covert spearfishing operation against Misplaced Pages editors; comments suggesting blacklisting the organization's URL to send a message are akin to ]. The ''only'' question for this board is whether or not the publication can be considered a ]. Per the initial comments in the thread above, the Heritage Foundation has actively and intentionally published and promoted misinformation since at least 2020 (others say 2016) and for that reason alone it is not reliable and should be deprecated. For any of the organization's publications or opinions that are worth mentioning on Misplaced Pages, independent third-party sources will be available. I'm not saying that Misplaced Pages should not respond to the threat, just that this is not a useful response. An effort to educate and provide resources to users to manage their digital security would be a much better use of our time. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I can not support '''any''' of the options presented… except possibly option 2… because none of them consider context. The reliability of Heritage Foundation depends on the specifics of what we are trying to verify when we cite them. At minimum, they are reliable as a primary source for verifying statements (with in-text attribution) about the opinions of the Heritage Foundation itself. Whether it is ''appropriate'' to mention their opinion in the first place is a matter of DUE WEIGHT - and ''that'' depends on the specific WP article and topic. Certainly it is DUE to mention their opinion in the ] article itself… and probably DUE in other articles that discuss US conservative politics. The foundation is very ''influential'' in US conservative politics, and so their opinions do matter. It may be ''rare'' that it is appropriate to mention their views… but it is not zero. There ''are'' (and will be) rare situations where what they say is relevant and needs to be mentioned. | |||
| :And, ''when'' we mention their opinion we have to be able to cite them to verify that we are presenting their opinion accurately. | |||
| :Note: I would say this is how we should handle ''all'' think-tanks and advocacy organizations. We should ''always'' present what they say as opinion - with in-text attribution - and then assess whether their opinion is DUE to mention given the context of the specific article where we mention it. We should never present what they say as unattributed fact in WP’s voice. | |||
| As for Heritage’s threat to dox or otherwise hassle our editors… that is a legal issue and so should be left to the WMF’s legal team to deal with. We can take Heritage to court if they actually act on their threat. And as long as it is JUST a threat, we can ignore it. ] (]) 16:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * If this had been asked before they announced their intention to dox WP editors, I'd have said 2/3 depending on the issue. Anything else ''in reaction to that announcement'' feels retaliatory. Also never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. We play into their hands if we deprecate or blacklist. ] (]) 00:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:How so? ] (]) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::'Not citing the Heritage Foundation on Misplaced Pages will play into the Heritage Foundation's desire to control information on Misplaced Pages' (insofar as the reporting from ''The Forward'' indicates the plans to target Misplaced Pages editors are ostensibly about suppressing contributions that the Heritage Foundation deems anti-Zionist) is a take so mind-bending that I'm going to go lie down. ] (] | ] | ]) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Hey, let's see what she thinks, why she thinks it. ] (]) 12:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *All HeritageFoundation links should be '''blacklist'''ed, '''Option 5'''. But if there is a way to source their content without using their URL, then I would prefer '''option 2''' or '''option 3'''. Admittedly I am reluctant to do my research on their reliability because I don't even want to click into their website. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is ] (in case you missed it). ] (]) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I also posted some quotes near the bottom of the Discussion section. ] (]) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' in general, '''Option 3''' for global warming and related subjects. Heritage is a longstanding think tank, that, although biased and agenda-driven, produces a number of useful reports such as the Index of Economic Freedom, which is widely cited in journalism and academia. Heritage should not be considered reliable regarding global warming because they have repeatedly published uncorrected misinformation on the subject. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Generally unreliable. This puts the organization's publications in the same category as self-published. We would only be allowed to use articles if the writer was an established expert.The website itself could be blacklisted meaning that no links to it could be given. ] (]) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' + '''Option 4''': '''Blacklist and deprecate''' this fake news disinformation website which also have malicious activities in its online domains. An ] should not get littered with low quality conspiratorial websites. ] (]) 21:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' + '''Option 4''' – If anything said there is even remotely notable, it will be discussed in reliable sources which we can then cite. This organization actively takes pride in being a firehose of disinformation, and there's no indication to me that they're even reliable enough to be used in an ] fashion. Deprecate as a disinformation source; blacklist as a vector for doxxing. <b>]</b> ] 22:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4+5 - deprecate and blacklist.''' Deprecate because they are an active and deliberate source of misinformation - they are liars and they exist to be liars. Blacklist as an active and intentional danger to Misplaced Pages editors - ] (]) 10:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: Generally Unreliable''' - Based on the evidence of it's regular publishing of misinfo, the fact multiple reliable sources from news media to academic publishers, have highlighted this issue, means we should avoid using. I could be convinced of deprecation, but looking at the other sources we currently have deprecated, Heritage does not yet have seemed to cross that threshold. -- ] (]) 14:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
=== Discussion: The Heritage Foundation === | ||
| What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Over at ], {{Ping|Bill the Cat 7}} has argued that an appearance by Hancock on '']'' podcast is a reliable source for the following statement {{tq|Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly".}} . For context, the article already states {{tq|Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist}} cited to the New Republic (a reliable source). I think that while obviously statements on podcasts can be used for non-controversial non-self serving information per ], that the podcast is not usable to call the accusations by the SAA {{tq|defamatory}}, which I also think is a ] issue. As far as I can tell, the SAA did not actually call him a racist or white supremacist (see the letter they sent ), and therefore the addition by Bill the Cat 7 misrepresents what the SAA actually said. ] (]) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. I guess that should be discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —] 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the ] list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to ]. The page ] (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. ] is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of ]. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see ]) only explains ''what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon''. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an ''additional outcome'' may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.{{pb}}The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —] 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. ] (]) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. ] (] - ] - ]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's such an obvious BLP violation that it's not worth spending more words and time. ] (] / ]) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the "BLP vio" framing is confusing, It makes it seem like the BLP vio is against Hancock when it is not. I definitely disagree with the addition and think it's essentially flat out wrong and effectively soapboxing, but calling the statement by the SAA, an organisation not a living person, "defamatory" is not necessarily an obvious BLP vio, though I understand how it could be reasonably understood as a BLP vio against Daniel H. Sandweiss, the president of the SAA who signed the letter. ] (]) 17:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? ] (] - ] - ]) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. ] (]) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::In fact, a lot of the ignorant comments above will likely create a news story or something that Heritage will then use for more fundraising and even more damage. I just don't get how people are so naive to good intentions and the sometimes very negative consequences. Also, I've yet to see even one single argument grounded in policy and guidelines versus anger and fear. ] (]) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, blacklisting one domain will not prevent them from carrying out their plan. As far as legal implications go, one assumes that suitable WMF people are aware, but the HF plan seems to stop short of committing any crimes. ] (]) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. ] (]) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That would discard maybe 95% of the comments or more. ] (]) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::How so? "A reliable source says Source X plans to target users with cyberattacks" sufficiently goes to reliability; resorting to cyberattack to enforce its POV is ''not'' symptomatic of a source that wants to legitimately engage the marketplace of ideas through facts and rigor. ] (] | ] | ]) 23:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It takes away one of their attack vectors. The argument that "we shouldn't take away one attack vector because we can't take away all attack vectors" doesn't seem particularly strong to me. –] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::yes ] (]) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The problem is it creates a false sense of security while providing little-if-any protection. {{tq|In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.}} ] (]) 23:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This has balloned in size. If it continues to grow as it has it will need to be moved to a subpage. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * If we can't trust the link, how can we trust the cite, therefore how can they used as a source? ] (]) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was confused, thinking Hancock was referring to some articles published in the SAA record, not the letter. I still think a wikivoice statement that claims made in the letter are defamatory would be a BLP violation. It's written as expressing the organization's concerns, but it's definitely Sandweiss's letter, starting with "I write this open letter ...". ] (] / ]) 12:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think it would be productive to talk further about mis/disinformation. Per {{Strikethrough|@]}} Aquillion: "] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more." I guess I'll talk about this source by source. I can't be exhaustive with each, so please do go through and check if you think I've missed anything or cherrypicked.{{pb}}First, on climate change. 1st source: "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand" is a book that I don't have right now, but I have access to a library that has it and can look at it in the next few days if I have time. 2nd, DeSmog. They do give two examples I see of HF individuals saying objectively bogus things about climate change, but they were both taken from personal op-eds on The Daily Signal and shouldn't disqualify HF. Other things DeSmog brings up definitely indicate POV and COI but I don't think can be said to rise to misinformation. DeSmog mentions that HF called attention to a study in 2009 saying the economic consequences of climate change would be felt in poor countries but not the US, but that study was from MIT and Northwestern, not HF. They link to some other reporting including an investigation of Project 2025 (which I watched) but the content didn't seem relevant to dis/misinformation. 3rd, "The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America". It's another book I don't have now, but my library has "Climate Change Counter Movement: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Sought to Delay Climate Action" by the same author, which might be a different edition of the same book. Again, I'll have a look if I can (sorry that's not helpful now). {{pb}}Second, on the FDA. Source being: "News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education", another book, but with a quote saying HF is complicit in a campaign of "misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record", without further details, and on Google Books an available quote mentions HF donations (possibly showing a COI but can't see full paragraph). My library doesn't have this one, so I can't say much more. (I might want not to further specify exactly what my library has so as to not dox my library){{pb}}Third, on elections and politics. 1st source: "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register ‘illegal aliens’ to vote" from Washington Post. This mostly deals with "Heritage Action for America, a conservative group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation", but mentions part of a report by HF that claimed a certain federal bill “would register large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens.” WP says that the bill in fact included safeguards to prevent that from happening, but acknowledges that a very similar California bill did lead to "thousands of erroneous registrations, including at least one involving a noncitizen" — but also that those were quickly fixed. For HF I think this means a bit of a gray area. 2nd source: "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters" from NYT. Starts directly with "The right-wing think tank has been pushing misinformation about voting into social media feeds", and describes an example of negligent lack of due diligence from HF people (reporters?) to claim that noncitizens are registered/voting at a significant scale. I actually have a longstanding problem with loading NYT on my computer, so that's about all I can get to in 5 minutes of loading, but this absolutely seems like a red flag. 3rd source: "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force", from AP. The main event in this article is some bogus scaremongering report by HF "suggesting that President Joe Biden might try to hold the White House 'by force' if he loses the November election", based on "a role-playing exercise gaming out potential scenarios before and after the 2024 election". Tbf, it's unclear from the AP article if the report gives an above-minimal chance of that (I'd look for the report myself but this comment has taken too long already), but it does make me queasy that HF would put their name on that. The article also, however, says "The Heritage Foundation and other pro-Trump groups have continued to promote the same false claims of election fraud that fueled Trump’s attempts to stay in office despite his 2020 loss to Biden" (though for that they link to an article that doesn't mention HF), and "'As things stand right now, there is a zero percent chance of a free and fair election in the United States of America,' Mike Howell, executive director of the foundation’s Oversight Project, said ." Those are also red flags.{{pb}}It's clear to me from this that HF should be restricted to some degree for use on US elections. What do you all think? ] (]) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The SAA Archaeological Record did publish an issue responding to Graham Hancock's book ''America Before'' in 2019 (it's even cited several times in his article), but as far as I can tell it does not call him a racist or a white supremacist and Hancock is most aggrieved by the 2022 SAA letter about Ancient Apocalypse rather than anything in the SAA Archaeological Record. ] (]) 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Pardon the ping, but as an involved editor who's helpfully called me out on something already, do you think this (sub?)section is an appropriate place for such a wall of text or should I put it under the RfC section as "Comment", or does it not make a difference? ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As a further addendum, I'm not sure if this is intentional on Bill the Cat 7's part, but the part of the video he linked was as far as I can tell about the alignment of the constellation of Orion with the Great Pyramids, and Graham Hancock's rejection of white supremacy/racism is not within several minutes either side of the timestamp. If you're going to cite a 4 hour+ podcast, you need to provide accurate timestamp, just as you'd provide a page number when citing a book. ] (]) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further pardon requested for the ping, as it turns out the question was probably unnecessary ] (]) 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Please link .</s> While I think editors refer to ] often inappropriately, this is a good example where it's unnecessary to say 'I'm not a racist', precisely because the very next sentence is the slightly-more-substantial statement, "expressed support for native rights". The former says nothing (and really often just makes the BLP subject sound ignorant and defensive), while the latter is at least somewhat informative and may get the reader to actually click the source if they have any interest. As you point out, this is not an RS issue. ] (]) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tqb|possibly showing a COI}}If that's what you need, a search reveals that they have tons of funding from cigarette and oil lobbies. I checked the first book, and it throws Heritage into the "greenscamming" bin of organizations funded by Exxon and Koch, though without individual elaboration as to Heritage's false claims. I agree with you on Desmog. Source 3 says similar things, adding {{tq|Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change and aligning regulatory action with an additional tax and harming the welfare of the American population. The organization cited several individuals in the organizations during the 1990s (e.g., Antoneilli, 2000; Feulner, 1998; Schaefer et al., 1997a, 1997b)}}, where "organizations" refers to previously-discussed organizations that publish false information the book details. And yes, the book your library has appears to be the same thing.{{pb}}For the FDA book, the occurrences of "Heritage" when searched in Google Books seem to show that the book expounds on specific misinformation from Heritage. I don't have that book either, though. @] Could you provide some more quotes on this one?{{pb}}I hope we can agree here that Heritage is within deprecated territory or at least generally unreliable (GUnRel) for politics. Since pretty much everything Heritage does is about politics, can we agree that Heritage should be deprecated or GUnRel? ] (]) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. ] (]) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what deprecated (to a stronger degree) and GUnRel designation mean. ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I should ping @], since they's the one above who initially proposed the opening statement. ] (]) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Holy heck, ! Will be a bit harder to search within, though, since it's a photo scan without any embedded text. ] (]) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry for causing so many notifications, but it looks like the Archive's search function OCRs the scan. It looks like Chapter 4 is a case study based on Heritage. I'll take a look. ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tqb|general consensus that they are an advocacy think tank rather than an academic research think tank (Weaver & McGann, 2000)}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received at least $3.5 million dollars in contributions from the industries with the most to gain from the anti-E.D.A. campaign—pharmaceutical, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco manufacturers. (para. 1)|source=Ralph Nader op-ed quoted within the book as representative of "the majority view"}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Davis and Owen (1998) conclude that new media outlets present the "research" or "facts" disseminated by conservative think tanks knowing that it is thinly veiled ideology because such materials provide inexpensive entertainment which means greater profits than producing their own}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Berliner and Biddle (1995) argue that the public perception that education is in crisis is manufactured by conservative think tanks and others who deliberately misuse and misrepresent research and who use the "compliant" press (p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation.}}(p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation. Berliner and Biddle describe}}{{pb}}I'll stop here, since I've dived into too many sources already, but the book goes on to talk about how Heritage's marketing funds made it cheap for newrooms to pander. The book also mentioned some pretty interesting stuff from Soley's book ''The News Shapers'', which I also checked out:{{pb}}{{collapse|2=Quotes on explicated mislabeling of Republican politicians as "scholar"s and other dressings-up|<br>{{tqb|The Heritage Foundation, the AEI, the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and others only pretend to do research.}}<br>{{tqb|Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, has not published one research article in any of the 1,000 social science journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index in the last 25 years. Burton Yale Pines, the Heritage Foundation's "director of research," has never published one scholarly article. Neither has Dr. Leon Aron, Heritage's "Salvatori Fellow in Soviet Studies." In fact, between 1976 and 1980 the closest that any "scholar" at the Heritage Foundation came to publishing an academic article was a letter to a journal editor.{{pb}}The credentials of "scholars" at the other conservative think tanks aren't any stronger. To mask the academic anemia of their "scholars," conservative think tanks have created their own "research" journals. The journals bear names that closely resemble those of legitimate journals and are used to inflate their spokespersons' credentials. The Heritage Foundation publishes Policy Review, not the highly regarded Policy Sciences.}}{{pb}}{{tqb|"Advocacy tank" is a more appropriate description of the Heritage Foundation than "think tank," according to Time reporter Amy Wilentz (1986). Among beltway think tanks, Heritage associates have the weakest scholarly credentials, but are nonetheless the capital city's most active policy advocates. Of its 34 permanent "fellows, scholars, and staff" members, only 7 have Ph.D.'s. None are renowned scholars in their fields. The biggest names at this think tank are not thinkers, but former Republican officials. Its "distinguished scholar" for foreign policy studies is Charles M. Lichenstein, a Nixon appointee who also served under Jeane Kirkpatrick at the United Nations. Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese became a "distinguished fellow" at Heritage after his resignation in 1988, and Congressman Jack Kemp briefly went to the Heritage Foundation after losing his 1988 bid for the Republican presidential nomination (Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1988, 38, and September 14, 1988, 36)}}}} | |||
| ::::There's an entire subchapter on Heritage. ] (]) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::From what I see I definitely think at least GUNREL for specifically (US) elections (maybe post-2016), but that seems to be the focus of these problems. I think more variety of political topics would be helpful to say for politics in general ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::After reading Aaron Liu's recent-er comments I see I'll have to update my opinion — there clearly is more political stuff to look into. I'll be a bit busier/quieter in the next few days but shall try to get my hands on those books unless someone else summarizes them first ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This discussion is now up to three quarters of the size of the last Telegraph RFC, which was greatly bloated. I've already preemptively archived four over sections to try and keep the size of the board down. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:it's decision time ] (]) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::But it feels like the useful part just started! ] (]) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This isn't meant to stop any discussion, just a heads up that it might be moved. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] is a very interesting comment from 2021 that says there's consensus that think tanks are presumed GUn and also discusses the SPLC point raised above. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Daily Signal === | |||
| ::On SAA defamation, if the podcast doesn't firmly support it, that's a ] problem. (We don't have a V noticeboard, and we really need one.) Obviously you can't say something disputable or controversial that's not explicit in the source, before even considering RS. (I replied to the initial post too quickly.) ] (]) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] is a link aggregator and reprinter with some original content. It was part of the Heritage Foundation up to June 2024 but has supposedly been spun out now. I would personally be inclined to treat DS as GU at absolute best, but we might want to think about its status too, both before and after the spinoff - ] (]) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure verifiability would really need to be a different noticeboard. A statement is verifiable when it a) can be found in b) a reliable source. B would be in scope here, and A would be in scope on ]. ] (] • ]) 10:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === References === | |||
| :::To clarify further, I've jumped ahead of myself: why is it WP:V? Because first you need to make "defamatory" a direct quote, not a wikivoice summary as it is now (you'll notice that in the diff it is not even an ]) -- but that can only be done if Hancock literally says "defamatory" in the interview, and if he doesn't (which I don't suspect he does, but I'm not listening to any podcast without a timestamp), then it's a failed WP:Verification. ] (]) 20:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the ''Joe Rogan Experience'' making statements about Hancock, this is Hancock making statements about themself in an interview. So this is less ]/] and more ]/] (the two are duplicates policy statements) as Hancock is talking about themself.<br>It's reliable for Hancock statements about Hancock. Editors on the talk page should decide if it's self-serving or due for inclusion per ], but that's NPOV not reliability. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think it's entirely ]{{snd}}{{tq|allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record}} is a statement about something other than himself. ] (]) 23:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry you're correct, only this denial would be reliable not the details of what he was denying. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Should we not be asking is this podcast an RS in general, I would say not. ] (]) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most podcasts are ] due to being SPS, there's no real reason to consider JRE an ] so the only interesting (non-trivial) question is whether it might qualify for an exception, like ABOUTSELF. ] (] • ]) 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well it can be seen as self-serving, so arguably no. Much better would be third-party coverage of any denial. ] (]) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * At the very least, as written, by my reading, it is calling them {{tq|defamatory accusations}} in the ''article voice'', which is utterly inappropriate when using a primary ] citation to his own words. But even if it were attributed I would avoid it. The balance between NPOV, RS, BLP, and DUE allows us to state the simple fact that he denied it (ie. in a completely neutral wording like {{tq|X denied the accusations}}, saying nothing else), but sort of dry unexceptional statement of denial is the limit of what we can use ] for; when it starts to get into characterizations and explanations and other detailed framings, that's unduly self-serving and requires a non-ABOUTSELF source. If we're going to imply that they called him a racist or a white supremacist, this absolutely requires an independent reliable source (ie. non-ABOUTSELF); it's not something that can be cited to a podcast. --] (]) 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :A source that says X (e.g. Hancock saying he is not a racist) is ''always'' reliable enough to support the mere claim ''that that specific source says X''. In fact, it is the most reliable possible source to support ''that particular claim''. How could it ever not be? | |||
| :Reliability of such a source only matters if you want to use it to support more than the bare fact of what the source says. An accused party's denial of an allegation is typically not going to be a reliable source to support claiming, in Misplaced Pages's own voice, that the allegation is false (even if that source is otherwise considered reliable). Nor is it going to be a reliable source to support a characterisation in Misplaced Pages's own voice of what the accusations ''are'', since people or organisations who have been criticised often distort the nature of the criticism against them into a less reasonable, more easily rebuttable version when they publicly respond to it. | |||
| :The text you say this citation was meant to support mixes a statement that Hancock denies the allegations against him with a statement (in Misplaced Pages's voice) of what those allegations ''were''. It is reliable for the former purpose and not the latter one. | |||
| :(The denial may not be significant enough to include regardless of the above, but that's a judgment call that isn't ''purely'' about source reliability - although whether reliable secondary sources have reported on the denial is at least relevant to it.) ] (]) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Surely a podcast appearance, with audio and video of someone saying something, is a reliable source as to the statements made in said podcast appearance. This seems to be a dispute about the appropriateness of including the statement and how to frame it per Wikivoice, due weight, MANDY, and numerous other policies, guidelines, and norms, as well as the marginal value of this statement (and source) in the context of what is already presented in the article. Any determination about how to resolve this particular content dispute should not rely on the general reliability of ''The Joe Rogan Experience''. In the event that a statement, especially a direct quote, warrants inclusion it seems absurd to rule against citing the actual source. Time stamps should be provided and possibly links to multiple sources of the audio or video and transcripts. -- <span style="font-family: verdana;">] 🍄🟫<i>— ]</i> </span> 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've been very busy lately (I just saw this). Please give me 72 hours and I will respond formally. Thank you. ] (]) 13:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Formal reply follows. ] (]) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|::::}} | |||
| FORMAL RESPONSE - (GH = Graham Hancock, FD = Flint Dibble, SAA = Society for American Archaeology) | |||
| 1. GH was indirectly, but clearly, accused of various serious things. | |||
| a. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse | |||
| b. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix | |||
| c. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled | |||
| d. https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis | |||
| e. https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/ | |||
| f. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/experts-say-ancient-apocalypse-netflix-series-is-racist-untrue/101728298 | |||
| g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse | |||
| h. https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881 | |||
| i. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13965425/ancient-APOCALYPSE-comet-Netflix.html | |||
| 2. I updated the article providing a RS source saying that GH strongly, and in no uncertain terms, rejected such very serious allegations. | |||
| a. Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - 2:02, 2:08, & 2:19. | |||
| b. Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremacist, etc., as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=14479s</ref>. He has also has expressed support for native rights.<ref>{{Cite magazine |title=The Strange and Dangerous Right-Wing Freakout Over Ancient Apocalypse |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis |access-date=2024-04-26 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref> | |||
| 3. I was reverted, and then I reverted...twice, which I freely admit was wrong, although an honest mistake. My sincere apologies. | |||
| 4. I was given an "edit warring" warning on my home page. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7 | |||
| a. I responded, saying, "I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat (talk)" | |||
| 5. That didn't seem to satisfy User:Hemiauchenia. Instead, the user opened a ticket to the Edit Warring WP site (I can't find the link for this; it may have been deleted), as well as this RS site. | |||
| a. Note that I said I was willing to discuss it on the Talk Page of GH. | |||
| a. This might be WP:WikiBullying, but I'm not sure and I'm not claiming that it is. | |||
| 6. The SAA article claimed that "Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic." | |||
| a. Most reasonable people would agree that these are strong accusations and defamatory if they are not true. According to GH, these accusations and defamatory statements are very much completely false. | |||
| 7. I'm NOT suggesting that the article from the SAA be in any way removed or censored. I think it's important. In fact, I think it ought to be expanded to explain what '''''exactly is being claimed and why'''''. However, I maintain that an accurate and equally clear rebuttal in GH's own words, '''''must''''' be included in the article. | |||
| 8. With the policies linked below, I can provide another RS for GH's full response in his own words (not in WP Voice), to most or all claims leveled against him. Although this discussion should have been explored on GH's Talk Page, my hand has been forced, so I'm engaging here. I can update GH's Talk Page with these points after this has been resolved. | |||
| a. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons | |||
| b. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources | |||
| 9. I haven't seriously edited WP in a quite a long time (12+ years). Forgive me if I don't have neither the time nor inclination to engage in such matters on a regular basis. I'm just a WP Gnome at this point. Nevertheless, much of the article is a direct attack on GH's theories (pseudo this and pseudo that, etc.). Fair enough, since they are sourced. A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications '''''must''''' be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion is not about your actions, but whether or not the Joe Rogan experience is an RS, for this content. ] (]) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's true to a certain extent, but I just wanted to provide ''context''. It's about whether a youtube video is an RS for a '''''specific''''' rebuttal in the subject's own voice (i.e., not WP voice). Can you please explain why GH is not allowed, per wiki policies, to do that? I would also truly like you and others to respond to my above points on the GH talk page. Seriously. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No need, we can respond here (we should be discussions in one place, not spread over multiple talk pagers). And they have been addressed (or rather the question has, as non of the above affects this being an SPS). ] (]) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just to say this is not a general forum, and anything other than reliability should be discussed elsewhere. Discussions of behaviour or wikibullying are not appropriate here. | |||
| :::As has been said above the podcast would be reliable for a denial per ], but not necessarily for the nature of the allegations themselves. So using the subjects own words may not be appropriate, as the nature of the allegations are details about someone other than the subject (see the second point of ABOUTSELF {{tq|It does not involve claims about third parties}}). Also if there is disagreement about the exact allegations it may be at odds with the first point ({{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving...}}). | |||
| :::There is no requirement to use the subejcts own words only to report that the allegations behave been denied (see the final sentence of ]). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{tq|A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications '''''must''''' be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable.}} No, this is utterly untrue. The only requirement is the bare statement that he has denied it (ie. {{tq|X denied the allegations.}}) In fact, we are often unable to say any more than that. The reason is because there are multiple conflicting requirements here, all of which are important. We cannot use an ] source, ''even with attribution'', for something that is unduly self-serving or which touches on third parties; if someone says "I didn't commit the murder, X did!", we absolutely positively cannot put that quote anywhere in Misplaced Pages unless we have an independent secondary source. All we can use that source for is a paraphrased non-quotation saying that they denied committing the murder. Even that is sometimes controversial because it rests at a point of tension between the unduly-self-serving limitation of ] and the needs of ]; but limiting it to an unemotive bare minimum paraphrase of the fact that they denied it is generally seen as a way to thread the needle and meet both requirements. BLP absolutely does not give anyone any article subject some sort of special privilege to put their own personally words, opinions, or broader views on the issue in the article via a non-RS simply because they chose to frame themselves as being under attack (which is what your suggestion here would imply); it's a shield, not a cudgel, which means {{tq|X denied this}} is all that it can guarantee. If their broader views about the subject are credible and worth covering, some secondary source will have covered them; if none has, they cannot be included via a primary non-independent source, not ever. --] (]) 06:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Is this not a textbook example of ]? As an aside, I would strongly suggest Hancock's response should be in there, given the ] aspect. If we make it look like someone is saying he's a racist and he's said nowt, the reader may be left with the impression he has tacitly accepted the claims.] (]) 07:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just looked at the article, the denial is already sourced. I don't really see the need for more information than that.] (]) 09:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah those were my original thoughts. The issue appears to be not Hancock's denial (which is already included), but insisting on using the exact quote of Hancock's denial. ABOUTSELF is reliable for the denial, but not for the details of claims made by a third party. As far as I can tell the SAA doesn't ''directly'' claim that Hancock is a racist or white supremacist, but Hancock's denial states that they have. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More than anything we risk a BLP violation against Hancock himself by reporting Hancock's words about the SAA. The SAA actually claim his work is informed by outdated racist tropes rather than claiming racist animus against the man himself. I don't think even his most vociferous critics accuse him of actively holding or expressing racist viewpoints, rather than subconscious bias informed by the "scientific racism" of the past as well as the biases of past pseudo-theorists.] (]) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | {{reflist-talk}} | ||
| == Catholic-Hierarchy.org == | |||
| == Use of medical literature for claims about relative incidence of dog attacks by breed == | |||
| '']'' 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. | |||
| In the ] article there is a controversy on whether any medical journals can be used to cite claims that pit bulls are the cause of the most severe dog bites, compared to other breeds, because medical doctors are not dog experts. Nevertheless, there are many papers in medical journals that report that pit bulls cause the most, and often worst, dog attack injuries. For example, says, {{tq|Of the cases in which the breed was known, the Pit-bull was responsible for the highest percentage of re-ported bites across all the studies followed by mixed breed and then German Shepherds. Currently, no prior studies exist that examine bite severity by breed. Therefore, the relative risk of biting and average tissue damage of bite, calculated using the 240 cases seen at our in- stitutions, was used to determine an overall "risk to own" (Fig. 2). Mixed breed and Pit-bulls were found to not only have the highest relative risk of biting, but were also found to have the highest average tissue damage per bite.}} and appears to be representative of the literature. | |||
| 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) | |||
| A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable. | |||
| :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) | |||
| A third concern is whether certain papers in medical journals such as this one that cite advocacy websites like Dogsbite.org and/or Animals24-7.org, previously asserted to be unreliable for Misplaced Pages purposes , should be thrown out because they inherit that unreliability. ] (]) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 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" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (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. | |||
| ::::] 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. | |||
| ::::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}}— ] <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). — ] <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. — ] <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? == | |||
| :I have some initial thoughts. Looking forward to seeing what others have to say. ] should be cited for information about human health effects of bites from pit bulls relative to other breeds. appears to qualify but its relevance needs to be considered in light of the body of published literature. In this case, the also appears reliable. While a veterinary medicine professional society would not typically be reliable for human health, they have relevant expertise for questioning the conclusions reached by medical sources. It goes too far to say that the AVMA piece {{tq|makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable}} but the AVMA seems to me to be a reliable source to counter some of the findings from the (human) medical literature. | |||
| :<br /> | |||
| :The problem with is that it a primary source. Primary sources should not be used to support a conclusion that is debated among reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I saw on the Talk page that the question of whether you can cite a generally reliable source if it relies on Animals24-7 or another unreliable source also came up in relation to a ''Time'' magazine article. Similarly, the issue is that ] as a source for controversial topics in science. | |||
| :<br /> | |||
| :The whole ] section has sourcing issues and probably needs to be trimmed down. I appreciate that this has been contentious. -- <span style="font-family: verdana;">] 🍄🟫<i>— ]</i> </span> 23:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's late here but quickly on the last point, no a sources doesn't become unreliable because it uses sources that editors consider unreliable. The reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages should be based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, those guidelines are for the purposes of Misplaced Pages they won't be universally applicable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Essentially what is trying to be done is ] to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org, which as stated by Geogene, were previously determined to be unreliable sources by this community to cite dog bite prevalence among a breed. | |||
| ::] has guidelines on determining source reliability. The cited source in the article is Time, an otherwise reliable source. They are citing dogsbite.org / animals24-7.org's information about dog statistics in a topic that Time does not typically cover. | |||
| ::<br/> | |||
| ::] states {{tq|If outside citation is the '''main indicator of reliability,''' <u>particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies</u>, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} | |||
| ::<br/> | |||
| ::] states {{tq|Information <u>provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source</u> or <u>information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication '''may not be reliable''';</u> editors should <u>cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.</u>}} | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::So wiki guidelines point to not including it. If the original source of that citation is not reliable to be cited directly, then using ] is not advisable for including that source, if it's cited by a source that is publishing a topic outside their principal domain. | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::So now lets flip that to medical journals citing animals24-7 and dogsbite, and using them to reference unreliable data. Do medical journals typically publish about dogs, dog breeds, factors that affect the prevalence of dog bites? The answer is no. Its information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source outside that sources principal domain. Especially when, you have journals that do cover this topic at hand as their principal domain, stating that breed visualization, which all these medical journals relied upon, are unreliable as proven by multiple studies. In fact, the CDC itself, stopped tracking dog bite data partly because visual identification is unreliable and the inability to make reliable conclusions based on the data. The CDC. | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::Now, as to {{tq|A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.}} | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::No one said that medical data in medical journals is unreliable because of what AVMA and Veterinary Journals say in theirs. That is a misrepresentation as all data was not the argument. Strictly about information outside their domain. Medical journals are not in the field of criticizing dog information presented in a study. Veterinary Journals are. ] states {{tq|Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.}}. Medical Journals are not reliable sources for dog information, especially when Veterinary Journals contradict their claims. | |||
| ::<br /> | |||
| ::Open to other interpretations to ] Guidelines though and appreciate anyone willing to dive into this hot topic. ] (]) 04:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|Essentially what is trying to be done is WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org}} no it's not. If the source is otherwise reliable it doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages's ''internal'' policies. Editors should be careful of sources being whitewashed, but experts can use sources we don't like. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would it be appropriate to cite the CDC about the history of France? It's a reliable source, so it doesn't need to follow Wikipedias internal policies right? | |||
| ::::<br> | |||
| ::::Or, is it not the most appropriate source for the topic, especially when you have the National Museum of France can be cited counter to the CDCs claims. | |||
| ::::<br> | |||
| ::::I am having a hard time understanding why any wikipedia editor shouldn't evaluate different reliable sources to determine what source is the most reliable on a given topic. ] (]) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes it would be appropriate not cite the CDC for the history of disease in France. Editors absolutely should use their own good judgement and the relevant policies and guidelines when considering the reliability of sources. But the issue here is disagreement between sources, and that is sometimes best described in the article rather than simply rejected. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] is primary research and generally unreliable for ]. It shouldn't be used, and especially not to undercut ] sources. ] (]) 05:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sources are primary or secondary in context. What about the part of the paper where Khan et al. comment on the status of existing literature? ] (]) 05:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::And also, for example, this social commentary: {{tq|An area of contentious challenge between dog lobbyists and medical providers is that of breed identity, which seems to be a lightning rod for some dog lobby (principally pit bulls) enthusiasts who contend that identification of "the pit bull terrier type dog" is challenging and imprecise. There is precedent for countering this challenge in legal court briefs: "There exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. (American Dog Owners Association vs Dade City, Florida; No 89-771-CIV; 1989) and furthermore "pit bulls are readily identifiable...both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel (State of Ohio vs Anderson, Supreme Court of Ohio brief No. 89-2113; 1991) Breed identification via genetic confirmation is not necessary to gain a firm understanding of this area of dog related trauma.}} I'm concerned that applying MEDRS to this entire paper but not veterinary papers will hobble the ability to source medical POVs in a multi-POV controversy. ] (]) 06:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The source may be useful for ] though a primary research item is never going to be the best. ] (]) 06:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The trouble with the "secondary" bit of primary sources is that it is almost always selected/framed/spun with the goal of bolstering the primary finding (one wouldn't want to do the opposite, for obvious reasons) and so not indicative of knowledge in the field generally. This is why MEDRS is as it is: use reviews articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews or better. Primary sources, not. ] (]) 06:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::In any case, I trust that this primary veterinary poster presentation about animal shelter volunteers that Unbiased6969 posted above isn't usable to make claims about breed identification in attack risks for the same reason? ] (]) 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's not usable for ], for sure. For other things, dunno - not my area! ] (]) 06:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Agreed, it's not trying to be used for ]. It's being used to show that claims about dog breeds inside medical journals are widely known by the Veterinary Academic community to be unreliable. It's also a visual representation of a study that was done by the authors, and not just some poster as was stated. ] (]) 13:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Dog pages are wild. It's a reliable source. Primary research is likely due in this case, and the secondary parts of the paper are certainly due. Most sources on dog breeds are written by aficionados of that particular breed and suffer from extreme neutrality problems.--] (]) 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Going though this I'm a bit lost, am I being naive that medical experts would be more knowledgeable about injuries to humans than vets? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::No one is questioning whether medical experts are knowledgeable in the field of injuries. It's questioning whether they're experts in statements made by dog breeds in their work. | |||
| *::They're not. ] (]) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It's like saying medical journals can't be used to say cigarettes cause cancer because medics are not tobacco experts. ] (]) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Respectfully, that's a false equivalency. You visually identify different types of cigarettes reliably and make a reliable decision of their effects. | |||
| *::::As pointed out my veterrinary academia, you cannot identify a dog breed visually in a reliable manner and make a meaningful decision. As concluded by the CDC itself in my first comment. ] (]) 14:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::You reflect what the good sources say. If they say smoking causes cancer, reflect that. If they don't go into the weeds about "light" variety cigarettes or menthol ones, don't say that. ] (]) 14:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Understandable. I'd go one further though. I'd say you primarily present the academic concensus on the topic, then briefly mention the minority/controversial view point. So in this case, present primarily the academic concensus that no breed has been reliably determined to be more responsibe for inuries/deaths. Then mention that some medical studies have made this claim, but relied upon breed identification, which is known to be unreliable. ] (]) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There are next to no proper scientific papers on dog breeds, outside of those on health problems and wolf DNA. A medical paper which indicates that injuries reported to be by pitbull type dogs represents x per cent of their case load or whatever is entirely reliable for that claim, and is likely to make it due. The fact that sometimes people misidentify pitbulls can also be reported where that is cited. However, we cannot disqualify a RS reporting "people say pitbulls do this" because another RS says "sometimes people mistake pitbulls for other types of dogs".--] (]) 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There are no proper scientific papers on dog breeds? Have you dived into the topic to make such a bold claim? | |||
| :::::::::<br> | |||
| :::::::::I can show you multiple genetic studies performed on multiple dog breeds trying to isolate aggression to a gene, but repeatedly coming to the same conclusion that aggression in dogs is universal and likely a remnant of their predecessor wolves. Seems like a lot of science from academics to be deemed unreliable. | |||
| :::::::::<br> | |||
| :::::::::I disagree with your last point. The context of sources should be evaluated and if an otherwise reliable source is being used to make claims outside their domain, which is in counter to information published by those that study the topic, then using that source outside to cite the information in contradiction to academia is improper without giving more weight to academia. ] (]) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Genetics-based studies on dog breeds and aggression do not usually meet the standard for reliable scientific research. It's all "from our sample of 50 dogs" and "reports of aggression by owners". There is not going to be a "gene for aggression", because that isn't how the genetics works.--] (]) 23:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Wait why are genetic studies unreliable but the medical ones brought up earlier aren't? | |||
| :::::::::::The Khan paper has a sample size of 182 patients and relied on patients to report what type of dog bit them. The Essig paper calculated bite severity based on a sample of 240, again, relying on patients to report breed. | |||
| :::::::::::A cursory glance at canine behavioural genetics research is showing sample sizes of 1,975 with behaviour based on owner questionnaires , sample size of 6,818 w/ questionnaires , sample size 397 w/ questionnaires (notably this one also says "Pit Bull-type dogs showed reduced risk of owner-directed aggression"), sample size 9,270 dogs with questionnaire , etc | |||
| :::::::::::Why are owners* untrustworthy for reporting aggression, but reliable for reporting dog breed? (*inevitably many of the patients aren't the owner since some are strays, etc.) | |||
| :::::::::::Dogs aren't really my field so I don't know what papers on pit bulls specifically are out there, but behavioural genetics is absolutely a real field of scientific research. More complex than there being a "gene for aggression" sure, but genetic predispositions to aggression based on certain mutations ''is'' a legitimate topic of study | |||
| :::::::::::<small>(also fair warning I might not reply to/notice any responses to this comment... real life is busy rn. feel free to ping me a couple times if you need me to respond)</small> ] (]) 00:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::oh quick clarifying comment tho, no idea if the papers I linked are relevant to the overall topic of this thread or the article in question, just referencing them for methods ] (]) 00:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::This seems to be asking for speculation, but okay. Is it not possible that pit bull owners might be less likely to report aggressive behaviors than other dog owners because they perceive their dog as unfairly stigmatized? Are dog owners even able to consistently recognize aggression? The Bailey paper (PMID 33136964) that was much praised earlier says that even the aggression tests used by animal shelters are controversial and often wrong. | |||
| :::::::::::::What percentage of dog attacks are perceived by the owner after the fact as having occurred "without warning"? | |||
| :::::::::::::Also, dog attacks are extremely rare overall. Is a sample size of 10,000 pet dogs that have (presumably) not attacked before large enough to make actionable predictions about dogs that attack? | |||
| :::::::::::::Why would a dog owner know their dog was a pit bull? I assume that's because they researched breeds of dogs, then decided they wanted a pit bull, and then bought a shorthaired, muscular and mildly brachycephalic dog that resembled a pit bull through a "pit bulls for sale" ad. If so, then it seems reasonable to assume their dog is a pit bull until evidence is produced otherwise. ] (]) 01:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::oh, not trying to invite speculation, I might have just been unclear, sorry. My point was just that both genetic studies and the dog bite studies rely on owners/laypeople to report something (behavior and breed, respectively) that some sources say is, at least to some degree, unreliable. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::From what I could tell, Boynamedsue was saying that because owner reports of aggression aren't always reliable, a scientific paper that we might otherwise consider reliable, but uses owner reports of aggression, doesn't {{tq|meet the standard for reliable scientific research}} | |||
| :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 == | |||
| ::::::::::::::In contrast, the dog bite papers that use layperson reports of dog breed, which have also been reported to be unreliable by various sources, remain reliable regardless. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::::::::::::Essentially, I'm just confused as to why we would discard one set of sources (behavioural genetics) because they use a metric that some consider unreliable, but we aren't discarding the other (dog bite studies). | |||
| *https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/ | |||
| ::::::::::::::If both types of studies are published in high-quality journals by experts in their field, I'm hesitant to say that we as editors should be making that type of judgement call on ''either'' to say "these methods are bad so this source is unreliable". | |||
| *https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/ | |||
| *https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847 | |||
| ] (]) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.<br>Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.<br>The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::The sample size bit was mainly in response to the {{tq|"from our sample of 50 dogs"}} which I assume was hyperbole but didn't seem to reflect any of the sources I saw. | |||
| :: |
::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) | |||
| :::::::::::::::The 50 dogs one wasn't hyperbole, it referred to a genome study of cocker spaniels. But yes, my main point is that if you wanted to find out about the behaviour of humans, asking their mums and reporting the findings uncritically would not be the best methodology.--] (]) 13:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::My assessment: | |||
| :::::::::::Since you ask, my belief is that owner reports of their dog's level of aggression are entirely subjective. It is asking an owner to evaluate and judge what they believe to be a beloved member of the family for a negative trait. Owners frequently reassure people their dog is harmless, despite it clearly not being. Nobody knows a dog worse than its owner. | |||
| ::* 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 | |||
| :::::::::::I consider reports on the type of dog that attacked a patient to be more reliable. Most people know what a pit bull type dog looks like, and given the victim is most often the owner, a member of the family of the owner or a friend of the same, the victim will often have actual knowledge of how the dog was sold.--] (]) 06:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ] is a reliable source. | |||
| ::::::::::::Aight I have an extra 15, so quick reply: What I was trying to say was we shouldn’t decide that an entire sub-discipline isn’t “proper science” just because one of their methods has been criticized (for behavioral genetics or the medical dog bite stuff). I think (or at least more concisely) ] (]) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::In any case, the questionnaire based studies would certainly be reliable for the statements "owners report pit bulls have low level of human-directed aggression", we could then discuss how due that might be.--] (]) 06:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Just for a slight aside, there are cases where you can have instances like this. In the entomology world (I know it's not an insect), spider bites , and it's a real-world issue that's been brought up related to human doctors. So yes, doctors could be misidentifying something, but there would need to be MEDRS sources making that claim rather than someone trying to claim medical professionals don't have sufficient expertise like what you're responding to. That's the key distinction, but I can unfortunately see how easily the argument being made came up too. ] (]) 15:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Exactly. Medical professions are certainly reliable to say, thats a dog bite. However, not reliable to say thats a dog bite from this specific breed. ] (]) 22:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::That is not "exactly" what I said, quite the opposite. ] (]) 18:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This reminds me of some other arguments other the definition of words, with one group using a more general sense and the other using a hyper specific sense. | |||
| *:Maybe the solution is to describe the issue in the article, noting the research results but then mentioning that the general idea of a pit bull doesn't match the veterinary definition. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::You are then giving ] the primary narrative in an article, and allowing the academic concensus on a topic take the back seat. ] (]) 14:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't think fringe is applicable when discussing articles from a high quality source, describe the discrepancy it's one that is common place even outside this specific issue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::So, if I am hearing this correctly. Your opinion would be that it's okay to cite vaccine skeptics's claims about autism in x% of people, in the Wiki article about vaccines, so long as those fringe theory claims were sourced from a reliable source thats making those claims outside their principal domain of publication? Because that's the equivalence being applied here. ] (]) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::No, because the ] on vaccines say different. ] (]) 14:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When we have strong ] like ] there is no reason to use primary sources, in fact that's exactly what ''not'' to do. I can only imagine this topic has a POV-problem if editors are promoting low-quality sources and swerving quality ones. ] (]) 13:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Medical journals are reliable for medical information. They're not reliable for dog breed related information. ] states that one needs to evaluate whether the source is the appropriate for the claims made. In this case it's not, especially when it goes against the vast majority of Veterinary academia. ] (]) 13:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::They're certainly reliable for medical information and almost certainly reliable for dog breed information related to it, peer-reviewed ] in high-quality, ], peer-reviewed sources is top-notch however you look at it. If there are equivalent veterinary publications purely on the quesion of 'dog breeds' then they would be preferable, but for dog bite effects on people - which is what this query is about - we'd need MEDRS. Luckily, it exists. ] (]) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For dog bite effects on people, sure. However that's not what trying to be done on the article page. Instead, the medical journals are trying to be used as sourced to write that pit bulls have a outsized portion of injuries as determined by visual identification, when studies have show that visual identification is unreliable. ] (]) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::], which is a golden source, says:{{tq2|German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature. Our recommendations to physicians and to researchers, activists, and legislators are also included. However, these data must be heeded and acted on to further understand and minimize severe dog bites in the future, especially those inflicted on children.}} and it also says the dog breed recognition is often flawed, which complicates this finding. Misplaced Pages should reflect this knowledge. It's not hard. ] (]) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This is the source that should be used, with mention of the issues of identification. ] (]) 20:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == AllMovie == | |||
| :Any attempt to relate severity of bites to dog breed obviously involves assessment of 1. the severity / damage inflicted by the bite (a medical matter in which doctors and academics of medicine are experts) and 2. the breed of the dog responsible (not a medical matter, not one in which those same people are experts). | |||
| :But surely point 2 is a red herring - no medical professionals are going to publish papers in medical journals in which they are relying on their own inspection of dogs to determine the dogs' breeds! Papers are likely either blindly believing patient or witness reports about a dog's breed (probably unreliable - the critics have a point) ''or'' have collaborated with relevant experts (police / animal charities / whatever other entity is responsible for breed identification after a dog attack in their jurisdiction) who ''do'' have expertise in breed determination, in which case the criticism has no sting at all. To determine which category any given paper falls into, and therefore whether its breed-related conclusions can be trusted, read the paper and see how they say they determined breed. ] (]) 15:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not the job of Misplaced Pages editors to determine if a high-quality source can be trusted. The job is rather to reflect what it says. ] (]) 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is question-begging; if a study's methodology is junk, it's not a "high-quality source" in the first place. ] (]) 15:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a wiki editors job to evaluated the context of sources to determine whether the source being used is the appropriate one for that information. ] (]) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The source's quality (including that of its methodology) is determined by the journal editors and peer-reviewers, not by amateur Wikipedians with an axe to grind. This is fairly basic. ] (]) 05:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A medical journal is more than qualified to review about medical information. ] states {{tq|Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable}}. Its quite clear that using medical journals to cite information about dog related topics, when veterinary journals contradict their claims, should not be viewed reliable based on ]. {{tq|editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible}}. Its possible to cite contradictory information from Veterinary journals, so unless someone has a bias for medical journals that affects their decision making, I am not sure why this is even a issue. Medical journals are good for reviewing medical information, not dog breed information. ] (]) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's not contradictory. ] (]) 05:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry, no. You can't decide you don't want medical sources on articles that talk about dog bites. They are clearly relevant.--] (]) 06:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::2. would be something valid under the medical purview. Causes of injuries or disease are something medical professionals have to assess all the time such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. and strains of those causing that. If a paper calls for it, you'll likely involve epidemiologists or even more specialized specialists who work on the causative organisms primarily. Frankly, that statement looks like a severe misunderstanding of what epidemiologists do and publish on. ] (]) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will point out that studies have shown that visual identification is unreliable, even among professionals. Not sure if that changes your mind on the latter. ] (]) 01:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| *Advocates target all pit bull types, and support ], which is proven not to work. They also tend to be relentless in their quest to include media hype, misinformation, and/or malinformation from police reports that often contain incomplete information primarily based on visual IDs during a traumatic event. Those reports are also used as the basis for the information used by some science/medical journals, and so it goes. It is expected that some of our best editors can also be misled based on similar circumstances, causing them to latch on to a position that results in major ] and ] that never seem to end...and here we are now. | |||
| #'''Fact''' - all dogs bite. Many dog owners have been lax in the proper training and socialization of their dogs, particularly strong, muscular dogs, regardless of breed. Chihuahuas can even do serious damage. Bites typically result from improper training, purposeful mistreatment, or leaving small children unattended with dogs, especially children who are unfamiliar with dog behavior. | |||
| #'''Fact''' - visually identifying a dog as belonging to a specific breed can be an exercise in futility. Some dogs may look like a particular breed but DNA testing may prove differently. Dogs that are registered with one of the reputable breed associations such as the (], ], ], are better able to positively identify a dog by its pedigree, records of which are kept by the respective breed registry. In many cases, there will be DNA evidence to support the pedigree. For accuracy, DNA testing is required, but rarely done when a child or adult is treated for a dog bite, or when police take eye-witness reports right after a traumatic event. Even some dog owners have been known to misidentify the breed of their dog, referring to them as a "pit bull" when it's a mixed breed. This practice of misidentifying dogs has gone on for decades and has proven harmful to modern purebreds such as ]s, ], and the like, dogs bred specifically to be show dogs. Granted, dogs are being bred illegally as fighting dogs but those dogs originate from specific strains purposely bred for combat, and are not the modern show dogs registered with reputable breed registries. | |||
| #'''Breed doesn't determine personality''' - in a most recent study {{xt|..."the largest study of its kind, the team compared the genetic and survey data of nearly 2000 dogs—most of which had their entire genomes sequenced—and survey results from an additional 16,000 pooches. The pups included mixes and purebreds, with 128 breeds represented."}} See | |||
| #'''Pit bull''' advocacies have been referred to as racially motivated issues according to the following study . | |||
| #'''CDC is against BSL''' - {{xt|The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000).}} See Quote: "No breed owns any particular trait." ELAINE OSTRANDER U.S. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE | |||
| #'''Pit bull or pitbull is NOT a breed of dog''' - there is only one recognized breed with "pit bull" in its name, and it is the UKC's ] which is not recognized by the other breed registries. "Pit bull terrier" is a ubiquitous term used by people who, quite routinely, are uneducated about dog breeds, and don't know the difference between ] and ] vs a modern, registered dog with a pedigree and DNA test results documented by a dog breed registry. Those dogs are bred to be show dogs, or dogs that compete in obedience trials, tracking, etc. Scores of innocent dogs have been/are still being euthanized as a result of misidentification and misinformation. | |||
| # of breed-specific bans, despite the misidentifications; other breeds that are also banned may include Rottweilers, Dobermans, and boxers. | |||
| #Another example of malinformation: see wherein Geogene cites a news article by the BBC which states: {{xt|After the tip-off to the police, Lola was measured and assessed. An American bulldog crossed with an English Staffordshire bull terrier, she was classified as pit-bull-type. Pit bull terriers are one of the four breeds of dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 alongside the ], the ], and the ].}} I question "assessed" - was it a visual assessment or a DNA assessment? It also states "Pit bull terriers are one of the four '''breeds''' of dog banned under ...." yada yada. Pit bull terrier is NOT a breed. I consider this information to be questionable at best. | |||
| *Sadly, staunch advocates against ] types refuse to relent. WP doesn't allow advocacy editing, so this needs to be addressed. Our project has had more than its share of advocacies, and one of the worst was a multiple sock editor who first went by ]. ] do not allow the inclusion of incorrect, misleading, or malinformation, much of which may be motivated by a misplaced fear of dogs, or inspired by hyped-up media reports with visual misidentifications of dogs, and/or based on incorrect/incomplete police & hospital reports that used the ubiquitous term "pit bull", not to mention small studies of behavior analysis based on the aforementioned. ] ] ] 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Atsme}}, are you able to explain what's wrong with my diff you just posted? You seem to be accusing me of wrongdoing there. ] (]) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think her issue may be with the phrase "banned breed"; arguably there is no such thing in the UK. Government documenation at https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs stresses that in the UK we have banned ''"types"'' (defined by physical features/appearance), not banned ''"breeds"'' (defined by ancestry). However, I note that despite this it is common for media sources and police spokesmen to use the term "banned breed" and that basically everyone refers to the UK law as BSL (breed-specific legislation); arguably usage in mainstream sources vindicates using the term "banned breed" in the UK context even if strictly speaking it is a misnomer. I take no position for now; this argument doesn't belong on this noticeboard anyway. ] (]) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Geogene, even the title of this discussion is wrong, and for whatever reason, you either purposely refuse or are simply unable to understand that pit bull is '''not a breed'''. It's a ubiquitous description that attempts to define a dog by its visual appearance which has been proven repeatedly to be unreliable. Just the use of the term pit bull invokes the horrors of racial slurs from years past that were used to define certain races of people, classifying them as criminal, incompetent, etc. My detailed explanation above covers it. The crux of the problem rests with laypersons not understanding what constitutes a recognized purebred or specific breed of dog vs mongrel, mutt, or mixed breed, and that definitely includes the medical literature. The bite of a Rottweiler mix can be as deadly as a Staffie's bite if not worse. The medical literature needs to stick to human assessments and should seek advice from canine/dog breed professionals.<p>The article I linked to said the dog was "assessed" - how was it assessed - by a visual ID, or what the owner of the dog believes the dog to be? Is there DNA proof? Ask yourself what you're defining as a pit bull? If it's not a registered dog, how do they know the parentage? By looks, which is proven to be unreliable? It's a dog - a mutt that bit someone. Using ubiquitous terms has to stop. It's very possible the dog is NOT related whatsoever to any of the ] breeds or it could be so distant, it doesn't matter. Unless they know the dogs parentage for certain, it's a mongrel or simply a dog...and that's all we really know for certain. And that is what's wrong with your comment in the link, and each time you use the term. The pit bull article needs to be completely rewritten. ] ] ] 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :::::Well, even as the wokest person I know, this is the first time I've come across "pit bull is a slur". I would kindly ask you to stop comparing attempts to describe dog breeds to racism. It's offensive. Dogs are animals, you know, the things we eat. If you are shocked by people calling dogs "pit bulls", wait until you find out what we do to ]. | |||
| ] 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 ]. | |||
| :::::And your point doesn't make sense. The majority of dog bite victims are the owners of the dog in question, or their friends and family members (just as the most likely person to be killed by a gun is the owner or their family members). In which case they know the breed. If you then answer, "ah, but they may be wrong" then no research whatsoever on dog breeds that does not involve standardised genetic testing is valid. This means we have to delete 99% of our sources in all dog articles.--] (]) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Ironically, this comment itself feels like an activist screed, and is highly one-sided. I'll put a counter to just two of your numbered points, though I take some issue with every one of them: | |||
| *:1. Even if we accept as true that bites "typically result" from owner negligence (I don't know if that's true), there's absolutely no contradiction between that and the position that some breeds are more dangerous than others. Multiple factors can contribute to the same bad outcome. | |||
| *:5. The US government is against BSL? Well, symmetrically, the ''UK'' government is for it, and we have it here. Neither can be assumed to be right; it is not a knockdown argument either way. | |||
| *:Misplaced Pages needs to present both sides of this argument; certainly there are good sources available for both. ] (]) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment.''' Shouldn't the first question be whether this is even worth adding to the article at all? From my point of view, "dog breeds with the nastiest bite to humans" seems like fairly trivial information. ] (]) 22:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is bite risk not a fairly prominent controversy with pit bulls? ] (]) 22:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, the (real or perceived, depending on which side of the argument you believe) dangerousness of pitbulls is pretty much the single most notable thing about them; conclusions of studies relating to that are very likely to be significant in the context of that issue and thus worthy of discussion in the article (though not necessarily individually, and not not necessarily mean uncritically). ] (]) 02:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No one is arguing against referencing the controversy around pit bulls in the article. Thats obviously noteworthy and can be source md reliably. Whats being argued is not citing unreliable sources on bite stats because none exist. | |||
| *:::<br> | |||
| *:::The controversy around pit bulls is absolutely a topic. However, there are no reliable statisitcs about any dog bite data to cite in the article. The CDC itself, discredited their study for being unreliable. This, along with every academic veterinary organization. ] (]) 03:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|No one is arguing...}} - yes they are. In the grandparent comment that this subthread is about, @] questions whether this information is even noteworthy enough to include, irrespective of reliability. ] (]) 04:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I don't see that as arguing against mentioning the topic of controversy. I see it as arguing that the specific quote stated in their comment is of little importance. Otherwise, why quote and not just mention the topic in general? The quote was picked for a reason, and I think it was meant to highlight the subjectivity of the source's language not being impactful to meaningful discussion rather than a critique of the general topic. However, Yvan Part can clarify and prove me wrong. ] (]) 05:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Settle down, I was just throwing in the idea that, in their haste to discuss whether this is a reliable source or not, editors might have missed the bigger picture that this information might not be worth adding in the first place. I'm not championing that idea and other editors are free to debate its merits without my input. | |||
| *:The controversy mentioned, I'm guessing around pitbulls in general, seems out of the scope of this RSN section and is probably better discussed on the article talkpage instead. | |||
| *:@] I understand that you might be passionate about this topic but trying to convince and replying to everyone is considered ] which can rapidly land you in hot waters. ] (]) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for the lead on the ]. Never seen that one before, but I will take a break from here to read up on it. ] (]) 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :'''Comment''' I think it matters here whether we are asking if the studies are reliable enough for us to repeat their findings in Misplaced Pages's voice as ''objective truth'', or whether we are asking whether they are reliable enough to merely ''neutrally mention the existence of the studies and what they concluded'', with critical viewpoints also mentioned and given similar weight. | |||
| :Different commenters seem to be assuming different about which of those levels of reliability we're arguing about. I was taking as an obvious starting point that peer-reviewed research that isn't unambiguously retracted or debunked is at least reliable enough to cite and mention the conclusions of, though not necessarily as objective truth. To my surprise, though, other commenters seem to be arguing that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all. Such a position seems to me like it requires an extraordinarily robust case against all the published work in that area. I don't yet see such a case given here. ] (]) 04:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've read ]? ] (]) 05:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe you may have been mentioning me on the last point, but if not then apologies and ignore. I think it can simply come down to whether Medical Journals or Veterinary Journals are ] for claims about breed related information. I don't believe {{tq|that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all.}} Medical Journals have great information in them about effects/injuries of dog bite, etc. However, they are not reliable in making determinations about what breed of dog bit, or what rate a breed bites. As another editor mentioned here the errors by medical professionals making claims outside their domain is not exclusive to dogs. If there was not any data out there showing visual identification was unreliable, then I don't see a problem citing medical journals, absent better information. However, there is data showing their methods used to make those claims to be unreliable, and their claims run counter to every veterinary academic organization I have found. As such, ] states {{tq|When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements.}} I don't see the argument for basing breed related information from a Medical Journal, when Veterinary Journals provide information in contradiction. <b>I have read ] and its talking about biomedical information. A claim about which dogs bite, is not biomedical information, its veterinary and maybe even sociology.</b> No one is questioning the reliability of medical data inside a medical journal, or if they have, I haven't seen it. | |||
| ::<br> | |||
| ::Not to be lost in all this, is the attempt to use ] to cite information originating from dogsbite.com & animals24-7.org, which were already deemed to be unreliable. Currently the article cites Time, which cites Animals24-7.org that {{tq|independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising only 6% of pet dogs}}. The claims are contrary to the academic view point and represent a minority view and citing it ignores ] own text, along with ]. Only seems logical if a source is not reliable to cite their own information, that using another source to cite that unreliable information is ill-advised, unless said source was an authority in the topic presenting information in support of that previously unreliable claim. ] (]) 06:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's quite simple. ] says that | |||
| :::#German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature | |||
| :::#But dog breed identification is often unreliable, which complicates this reporting | |||
| :::These are both items of factual knowledge which can be asserted. How is this hard? ] (]) 06:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, we are going to ignore ] and ] then? Because using these "reliable sources" is being used to give weight to fridge theories that run against academic consensus... | |||
| ::::<br> | |||
| ::::] states it needs a reliable source, but a reliable source is vague, so wikipedia has a whole article about ] where it mentions ]. Whixh states {{tq|Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content.}} Spoiler, the medical journal study is not an appropriate source for dog breed content. Furthermore, {{tq|Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.}} Medical journals are otherwise reliable sources providing information in passing that is outside their publication domain. | |||
| ::::<br> | |||
| ::::There seems to be this bias that Medical Journals are universally reliable for information that is outside their scope and it needs to be addressed. Medical researchers are critiqing medical information in studies, they are not dog experts to be capable of reviewing these claims. I think accepting that not every claim made in a medical journal that is outside their topic domain is needed here, especially when it supports a ] inside that academic area. ] (]) 15:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What are you even on about? A medical review article is the <u>best possible source</u> to say what is reported in the medical literature. The secondary observation (that identifying the 'breeds' is likely flawed so the result are problematic) is something that nobody disagrees with (indeed it's what you have been arguing). The invocation of ] is bizarre. WTF is going on here? ] (]) 15:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The point is, on a dog breed page, there shouldn't be a good arguement for using medical journals to cite information outside their domain, when that information cited is in direct conflict of academia and veterinary research. Just like I wouldn't cite a veterinary journal on a medical page when medical sources conflict with whats being cited. ] (]) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I stated above this argument, {{tq|Not to be lost in all this, is the attempt to use WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite information originating from dogsbite.com & animals24-7.org}}, is wrong on several counts. USEBYOTHERS is a way that editors of Misplaced Pages can judge if a source is reliable, it has nothing to do with your argument or how secondary sources decide to use sources. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thats whats being done... ] {{tq|Each source must be carefully weighed to judge <b>whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content.</b>}} I'm not sure how else to explain it, but it's pretty clear to me that Time's citation in the article is being judged here. The argument is that it's not the proper source for such a claim as it's publications are outside the topic domain and higher quality sources cite conflicting data. ] (]) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you're saying a medical review article is not reliable for saying what is reported in the medical literature? What? ] (]) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No. I'm saying that a medical journal shouldn't be the citation source for information relating to a dog breed when the information is direct conflict with Veterinary Journals and wide spread veterinary academic concensus. ] (]) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That seems to be a bit too easy... You could use that trick to screen out whole groups of experts from most topics. ] (]) 00:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hooray, so it is at least conceded we an appropriate source saying "German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature". This is undoubredly true and impeccably sourced. ] (]) 03:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't see why anyone would consider epidemiology, even injury epidemiology, to be "outside the domain" of medicine. If there is an issue with ] that would seem to be an issue for ], but it seems unlikely anyone would agree to exclude or classify unreliable medical literature entirely. ] (] • ]) 00:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no such thing as "inheriting unreliability." A random person on the street or a random youtube video are unreliable sources, but if a reliable media outlet uses such sources the resulting article is generally reliable. | |||
| :Likewise, a scholarly journal can use data from sources we consider "generally unreliable." Unlike Misplaced Pages editors they are experts and may be able to distinguish unreliable and reliable information. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:27, 27 October 2024 (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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Film Music Reporter == | |||
| :Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- ] (] | ]) 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) | |||
| has been discussed several times before: in , , and . Each time there has been opposition to its use but no consensus recorded anywhere about it being unreliable. The source is currently used on thousands of articles related to composers, films, television, and more, and one such instance is ] which is currently undergoing a GA review where the issue has been raised again. My hope in starting this conversation is that a definitive consensus can be reached and recorded at ] that future discussions can point to. | |||
| *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. | |||
| I think the source should be listed as reliable. I agree with other editors that this is a ], and therefore it must be deemed a subject-matter expert if it is to be considered reliable. For years the site has been publishing accurate reports about film and television music including announcements about composer hirings and soundtrack details. Its reports have been referenced in other reliable sources, mainly entertainment journalist sites such as and . And it is followed on social media by actual composers and industry insiders. I think there is enough evidence to consider it trusted within the film scoring community, and I think the fact that it is used so widely on Misplaced Pages already points to the trust that many editors have in it (note that I am not arguing we should consider it reliable ''because'' some articles already do). | |||
| :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) | |||
| == MintPress News == | |||
| I have notified relevant WikiProjects about this discussion. - ] (]) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :I do agree that the website does post accurate information and is widely used on film pages (I routinely remove the site as a source in the infobox once the poster/billing block is released. The website has it correct every time). However, do we know who owns/writes for the website? Their doesn't provide clarity. Therefore, I'm not sure how it can be listed as reliable on ] without the author/owner details. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">'''] ]'''</span> 13:24, 24 October 2024 (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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just an aside but the consensus was record in the RSN archives you found, the archives exist to show what conclusions past discussions came two. It hasn't been ''summarised'' any where else. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As 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) | |||
| ::As to the sites reliability ] needs prior publishing by a independent reliable source, who runs the site isn't disclosed so it's not possible not check if they have been previously published. The other way they could be reliable is by ] and I'm not seeing a stromg case for that. | |||
| :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 often a source is used on Misplaced Pages has ''absolutely nothing'' to do with how reliable it is, Misplaced Pages is often used as a reference even though doing so is against ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::I clearly stated that "{{tq|I am not arguing we should consider it reliable ''because'' some articles already do}}", I am just pointing out that the source is widely regarded to be reliable by editors across thousands of pages. That is noteworthy context for this discussion. If nothing else, it means there will be a lot of clean-up to do if consensus here is that it should not be used. - ] (]) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::And I'm saying editors think Misplaced Pages is a reliable source for Misplaced Pages content. Sources should be judged by policies and guidelines, USEONWIKIPEDIA is not one of them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'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) | |||
| :I just saw that the May 2011 discussion you linked to was from me. Lol. Well my stance hasn't changed much, we still don't know who writes for the website and it's been 13 years later. Hopefully we can learn more this time around. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">'''] ]'''</span> 13:31, 24 October 2024 (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) | |||
| :So I'm an outsider coming to this website. If the site is used across the board as we say, what is primarily citing? Composers for upcoming films? If its grabbing content that can easily be established by far more trustworthy sources in the future, I'd vouch for failing it as reliable. As MikeAllen has suggested earlier, it looks like the site has not been forthcoming in any way whatsoever within a decade of where their sources come from. If its as simple as that, I wouldn't deem it a reliable source as it appears most of its content can be clarified by other sources who are deemed more reliable. ] (]) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (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) | ||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::While I do approve of such details. A track listing is something that can easily sourced to the subject itself later on as it is relatively uncontroversial information and will all be released in time. While release dates can be tricky and trivial to properly scope out, I feel if this is the only key information there is not that much lost that could not be re-traced back to other sources, especially as there is no information on the site on how the information is tracked. ] (]) 12:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. ] (]) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @]'s comments below. ] (]) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. ] (]) 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". ] (] • ]) 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. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 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. ] (]) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (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. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :— ] <sub>]</sub> 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article. | |||
| ::*{{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 .”}} | |||
| ::*{{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) | |||
| == aaroads.com == | |||
| === ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated === | |||
| https://aaroads.com is a huge online global database of roads with a stated aim to become the most comprehensive guide there is. That's fine, but a lot of its content is sucked straight out of wikipedia. If you do a for aaroads.com then you'll see that 290 of the 1,038 links returned are actually enclosed within a <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> article reference. That breaks ] and ] and likely ]. Clearly (to me) this isn't a reliable source and personally I'd like to see it expunged - initially from all references by being listed at ], but ultimately to be blacklisted so it's removed from all article external links as well. In case you're wondering how I came across this it's because they are actively recruiting Misplaced Pages editors to work on aaroads.com - see ] which was posted today. ] (]) 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Corrected username — ''''']''' <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) | |||
| :There are different nparts of AARoads, the wiki would be CIRCULAR and the rest is UGC. Listing on the RSP has zero effect on it being used on Misplaced Pages, it just means it appears on a list. If you want it added to a source highlighting script you could ask the scripts author. Editor can remove unreliable sources on their own judgement, but it only happens if editors do it themselves there's no automated process for removal. I don't see a need for blacklisting, as it could be useful in an External Links section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Thanks. I get the bit about needing to manually remove and the fact one editor can do it, I just feel that if does get an entry at ] then there is some justification for doing it rather than relying on one editor's opinion. Although I don't personally agree I would certainly be interested in what others think about the External Links section. Perhaps that should be disconnected from this discussion to avoid any confusion? ] (]) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: 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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is policy, and ] is a guideline, both have as much weight as RSP. ] exists for discussions about external links, they have their own separate guidelines from RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::Sorry just realised you know all that, I appear to have username blindness. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 24 October 2024 (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 ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking through how the source is used it's pretty bad, I thought it would just be naive additions of the wiki but there's a whole load of forum posts being used as well. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:40, 25 October 2024 (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 | |||
| :I don't see any valid use for aaroads.com on wikipedia barring a ] coming into existance, it was never a reliable source and nothing seems to have changed significantly in that regard. Now that there are major circularity concerns I would support scrubbing it entirely and blacklisting. ] (]) 17:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
:::::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: | |||
| :::It would be helpful to have a filter, similar to the deprecation one, that only warns about adding a link to UGC without blocking it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote. | |||
| :::You're going to have to explain what that place would be. ] (]) 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities. | |||
| ::::I don't know much about the source so can't come up with examples but from the description it seems reasonable that it could be so useful and I haven't seen anything to suggest it isn't unless it's claimed to be copyvio. While not copying from Misplaced Pages, ] is a prominent example of UGC which is treated this way. There are others from the wiki world e.g. ] (many articles e.g. ]). That said I agree with others this isn't the place for such a discussion as its not an RS issue and so far no one has disputed it's not an RS. While it's of minor relevance in whether we edit filter etc I don't think that's enough to discuss here. ] (]) 06:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending. | |||
| ::::Rather than jumping to the nuclear option of a blacklist (reserved for only the most egregious cases of linkspam), perhaps consider that the World Wide Web benefits greatly from linking to related websites, whether you agree they meet our policies on reliability (and ''only'' those policies). An entry in the external links section to an AARoads webpage that has a more thorough description and more images is perfectly fine; we do the same for links to other not-reliable-but-useful websites as Nil Einne also explains. ''']]''' 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter. | |||
| ::::I don't see how a link to aaroads in the external links section would be against policy. It holds a lot of information that the reader could find useful, and is not harmful, copyvio, or deliberately misleading. It is only links outside of that section that are a problem. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians. | |||
| :::::The question is how to dissuade editors from using it for referencing. It could easily seem an obvious source for new editors who don't know the relevant guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fixed link to article #2 again — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::::That's what I wanting to get to yes. Let's not discuss the External Links question any more and focus on the consensus that we seem to have that it is not RS. I still think listing it on ] (or at the very least pointing to this discussion) would give us a mandate for its ongoing removal as a reference. ] (]) 12:10, 26 October 2024 (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. | |||
| ::::::...and as you say some sort of mechanism for alerting editors to its undesireability. ] (]) 12:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<u>Article #2</u> It is the same link as Article #3 | |||
| :::::::The maintainers of the source highlighting scripts will add it if you ask nicely, this discussion can be seen as prove it's not reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<u>Article #3</u> It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public. | |||
| ::::::::Any pointers? Thx. ] (]) 16:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<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 | |||
| :::::::::{{noping|Headbomb}} maintains the most commonly used ], while {{noping|Novem Linguae}} maintains the ] used by NPP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<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. | |||
| :::::::The maintainers of the RSP have their own inclusion criteria, two discussions involvin multiple parties at a minimum, I don't think it meets that. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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."}} | |||
| ::::::::I would have sworn that this wasn't the first time the reliability of aaroads had come up but I can't find anything in the archives, perhaps it came up on another page. ] (]) 17:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| :::::That wasn't what I was thinking of... But aaroads.com has a lot of copyvivo (they don't seem to use the same standards we do, a lot of stuff there is cut-pasted from primary sources). ] (]) 17:59, 26 October 2024 (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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"A lot of copyvio" is quite the claim and is reaching; many of the primary sources quoted are either state statutes (non-copyrightable per '']''), pre-1977 AASHTO documents without a copyright notice, or public domain works from the federal government. And since when does an external link need to conform with ''our'' stricter policies? This is a ridiculous standard that ''only'' road articles are being held to. ''']]''' 18:05, 26 October 2024 (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. | |||
| :::::::Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "This is a ridiculous standard that ''only'' road articles are being held to."? ] (]) 18:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::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. | |||
| :::::::Copyvio would be covered by ] and isn't something that can be worked around, never add links to ''known'' copyvio. That's independent of any group or project. Whether aaroads has copyright issues I couldn't say, I'd want some prove of that and that they are ignoring the issue. | |||
| :::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::The argument over whether to use it as an External Links section comes down to ] #12, but {{tq|should generally avoid}} doesn't mean "must not". I would say that aaroads adds enough information to be useful as an external link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:34, 26 October 2024 (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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it needs to be listed on RSNP but it obviously isn't an appropriate source. Blacklisting may be more appropriate to deal with the issue given how widespread it's use is. ] (]) 04:15, 27 October 2024 (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) | |||
| '''Unreliable''', unless someone can give any indication on how this site isn't just something some guys made. Which is what the About page indicates to me. This is a similar issue to ship related articles using the amateur-run u-boat.net source that should be absolutely purged from this encyclopedia. But that's a separate problem. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:28, 26 October 2024 (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) | |||
| :It seems every area has at least one UGC/SPS site that gets added as a reference repeatedly, there was recently a discussion around one related to astronomical objects. There's so many genealogical sites they have there own section of the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::On a historical level that makes a lot of sense to me, you have a lot of crossover between early users and those associated with those UGC/SPS sites. In many cases the same people spamming them across articles here are the same people creating the content over there, even if there is often a certain lack of willingness to disclose (for example anyone with a COI vis-a-vis aaroads.com should have disclosed it when participating in this discussion but I can see at least one editor who did not) ] (]) 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you're implying that I have a COI, note that AARoads.com is a separate publication from the AARoads Wiki. One should not ], especially in repetition across multiple discussions. ''']]''' 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was not aware of that, I thought that they were related and that you were active on both (when discussing the reliability of UGC the "users" in question have a COI). May I ask what repetition across multiple discussions you are referring to? ] (]) 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Could any discussion of COI or user behaviour been done somewhere else, this isn't a general forum. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RIA Novosti == | |||
| Hi there. I made a post on the about a number of sources I came across on the ] which I have some concerns about in terms of reliability. I have already removed one offending source () according to the advice I got on my post. | |||
| I was wondering if someone here could please advise on whether articles by RIA Novosti such as this meet Misplaced Pages's reliability criteria? The outlet is Russian government owned and has links to ]. When I went to remove the Exclusive article above I also found this further article which was mislabelled as Exclusive. Would appreciate a hand from anyone who has a good understanding of Russian media, or just in general as I'm new to all of this. Thanks! ] (]) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliability is a fuzzy thing which some sources achieve, others do not, and still others sit in a grey zone where some content can be reliable and other less so. My recommendation is to absorb the content of ] and make an individual judgement based on the large number of factors related there. Further, you could take a look at ] and compare 'similar' sources to that of RIA Novosti and see how they compare. Mistakes will be made; reversions will happen and some will be fair and others not so. It's part of the overall editing process / experience here. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Great to know ] and thanks for guiding me towards the WP:RSP. ] (]) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I can see RIA is used to report on the accusations made the by Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan against Massimov (]) and the claims are attributed. I think it's quite unlikely that RIA falsified the prosecutor's words. Are you asking because you found contradictory information elsewhere? In any case it wouldn't hurt to double-check it, ideally in Kazakhstani sources. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ceyockey above guided me to the WP:RSP and I do find it interesting that it is considered reliable for official government statements, which makes sense even on a Biography of a Living Person. As a non Russian speaker it is a nightmare trying to figure out what claims I can take at face value, so this resource is very helpful. There's even a in this section with comedy bags full of money, so I've decided I'm going to take the information on this Misplaced Pages article and topic area with a massive pinch of salt. ] (]) 07:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Btw what made you think that exclusive.kz is unreliable? ]<sub>]</sub> 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The exclusive.kz article in question was based on information from LiveJournal and Google Earth, there was a discussion on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard which I have linked above. ] (]) 07:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *RIA News was discussed already, see . Your example was related to ]. Yes, one should use better sources about it, and there are such. ] (]) 23:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == History News Network == | |||
| The article ] currently states in Wikivoice {{tq|Deeply engaged in military operations, Hirohito commissioned a war room beneath the Tokyo Imperial Palace to closely monitor Japan's military activities. The extensive resources required for regular updates to the Emperor often drew complaints from military officials. To celebrate significant military victories, he rode his white horse in parades in front of the Imperial Palace}} which is cited entirely to on History News Network. Is this a reliable source for these statements to be in WikiVoice, or should they be attributed to the author Francis Pike, who is a historian? I'm seeking an opinion here because the History News Network piece seems pretty informal and was written shortly after the author's new book was released and doesn't really cite any sources for the information it is presenting. I wanted to ask before I attempted to attribute the statements to Francis Pike. <b>]</b> 03:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :On first reading I thought this was related to the History Channel, which is certainly not reliable, but the History News Network is completely unrelated. In general it's reliable, it's written by a recognise academic in the relevant field and I don't see any concerns with the publisher. | |||
| :For the specific context it seems reliable for everything bar {{tq|Deeply engaged in military operations}}, it says he was ''interested'' in military affairs. Engaged seems to strong given the source. | |||
| :In relation to attribution I'm unsure. There are three statements, the war room, resource expenditure, and riding his white horse on parade. Attribution is good, but can cast unfair doubt if misused. | |||
| :Certainly the last statement doesn't appear to need attribution, as finding details of Hirohito attending such celebrations on his white horse are relatively simple. The war room one is slightly shakier, lots of ther sources discuss the air raid shelter he had built to receive updates from his generals. Churchill had a similar air raid shelter built, and that is called a war room. The expenditure statement is much harder to gage, I would suggest that attribution is probably appropriate. | |||
| :As an aside it's nice if secondary sources cite their sources, but they don't have to. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh? They don't? There has been large amounts of debate relating to a different subject entirely where editors argued at length that lacking citations hurt the reliability of a text. My apologies, they taught me wrong, as a joke. Joking aside, good to know! I have no experience with the History News Network, and I feel wary by default of things that are formatted as "FIVE FACTS YOU DIDN'T KNOW" (not the exact wording, but still). <b>]</b> 12:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be completely honest, if you've got someone that's recently published a book writing an article on the same subject as the book in some newsletter, chances are the claims are also in the book because they (most likely) wrote the article to promote their book. Google Books snippet view would indicate some of the claims might be found around p. 207, for example so if anyone at ] is able to provide, say, pp. 205–210 and maybe the introduction as well, or whatever seems most appropriate. Bloomsbury is fairly reputable generally speaking whereas the primary qualifier for History News Network would probably be EXPERTSPS, they do have editors but present themselves as a "newsletter" so I'm not sure how much additional fact checking they'd bother with. ] (] • ]) 13:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::True, the claims they're making are very probably in the book. If I get my hands on a copy of it I'll go looking and probably replace the sources with the book. <b>]</b> 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Cheung et al in ] == | |||
| At ] we are having a dispute about this source: | |||
| Cheung CR, Abbruzzese E, Lockhart E, et al | |||
| Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows | |||
| Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 14 October 2024. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994 | |||
| https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994 | |||
| Some editors have argued that because one of the co-authors, Evgenia Abbruzzese, is also the co-founder of the ], the source should be regarded as FRINGE. Is this correct? ] (]) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Short answer on the specific question of whether one odd ball amongst the authors immediately disqualifies a source, no it doesn't. That's not to say there couldn't be other issue with the paper, which would require comments from edits with better ] knowledge, but just because one odd ball was amongst the authors doesn't immediately mean their odd ball believes are in the paper. The other authors, and the editors, may well have smooth them out or ensured they stayed within more normal academic ranges. | |||
| :There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold. So disqualifying a whole work by multiple author because of one of the authors is dubious doesn't work. | |||
| :Again I'm not saying that the paper is reliable, but that that argument against it is flawed. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :An author being blatantly out there on the fringe is a red flag that we can't ignore. What exactly we ''do'' with that information is up for debate, but "neglect it" is not a feasible option. ] (]) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] I'm not sure how this answers the question. | |||
| ::*Do you believe Abbruzese's participation alone disqualifies this source? | |||
| ::*If "yes" can you address ActivelyDisinterested's remarks above, specifically {{tq|There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold}} and why you think that doesn't hold here. | |||
| ::] (]) 08:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As an aside, does anyone know if Abbruzzese has published other works besides this one outside of SEGM circles? Whether other researchers have commented on said body of work, that would be a good indicator of {{tq|publish well regarded work}}, but I'm having trouble filtering out the other E. Abbruzzeses like Elvira etc from Evgenia. ] (] • ]) 08:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wouldn't regard Abbruzzese a reliable source, but they are one of seven authors for this article. I would suggest looking to the quality of the article, rather than fixating on one author. As XOR'easter points out it should be part of any discussion, but it's not the whole discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am aware, it just would have been nice to have a body of work to look at whether it is indeed well regarded, but I'm to lazy to actually look any of them up, especially for the authors that actually do have publications. Though, there are only 5 authors, you might be counting the number of affiliations? That got me a bit too. ] (] • ]) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :1) Addressing the other authors: none have ever published any research on transgender care or have any experience with it | |||
| :2) Addressing a glaring issue with the source: right off the bat they misrepresent trans healthcare in the US while situating the Yale Review in the same way SEGM does (ie, framing their position as more accepted than it is) | |||
| :* {{tq|Ultimately, these cases hinge on judges deciding between two conflicting perspectives. One side, argued by transgender advocacy groups and supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)22 and the Endocrine Society,23 asserts that medical transition for minors is backed by sufficient evidence, making restrictions unnecessary and discriminatory. On the other side, some states claim the practice is experimental, harmful to youth and that the constitution allows them to protect citizens from unsafe medical treatments.}} | |||
| :* They say "transgender advocacy groups", WPATH, and the Endocrine Society support it and states don't - they don't mention ''every'' single medical association in the US has opposed these bans - for example the ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Not to mention the ], ] and more. | |||
| :* It doesn't mention all the states doing so have done so at the behest of Christian Right anti-LGBT groups like the ], ], and, shocking nobody, ]. | |||
| :3) Relatedly, they extend this critique to arguing the authors of the Yale review are politically motivated as they testify against bans on gender-affirming care - ignoring that this is supported by all major medical orgs in the US. | |||
| :4) The Yale Review called out multiple false statements the Cass Review made (ie: "most trans kids grow out of it") - this supposed review of their critique fails to address a single one. | |||
| :5) SEGM is treating this review as a total refutation of the Yale Report, claiming the Cass Review is holy and untouchable while hoping U.S. {{tq|medical organizations and prestigious universities will resist the '''powerful special interests''' who have leveraged these institutions' highly-regarded names and hard-earned reputations to shield the practice of youth gender transition }} (emphasis added) ] (]) 15:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear, I am only asking specifically as to whether Abbruzese's participation as an author is enough to disqualify the source as FRINGE, according to current WP policy. I am not currently asking about any other proposed reasons to exclude the source. ] (]) 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the question is specifically about FRINGE, FRINGEN would seem to be a noticeboard more suited to the question at hand. ] (] • ]) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Outside of assessing a news source in general, where we look at the pattern of reliability of that news source. | |||
| :::When we look for reliability of specific articles as references, we don't generally evaluate articles only in isolation (or as you asked, only on the premise of if an authors involvement means we don't also may have other reasons to judge an article for neutrality and reliability), but also in the ]/] for which it is being planned for inclusion to better assess, which is why @] posted additional relevant information for this particular article. ] (]) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As an(other) aside, even if a source were FRINGE it wouldn't necessarily be outright excluded, as long as it is {{tq|put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field}}. Whether a source is suitable always depends on how it is used. ] (] • ]) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no == | |||
| Posting here for visibility. I have no opinion on whether are true, but they deserve our attention because if they are, these six reporters have a flagrant conflict of interest with respect to the current war. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Allegations according to the IDF, a known unreliable source that seems to have a of , , that write things the IDF doesn't like, denied by Al Jazeera, a known reliable source? ] (]) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is easy for those who passionately oppose current Israeli policy in the region to dismiss the IDF's claims as lies, just as it is equally easy for those who passionately oppose the activities of Hamas and other Palestinian liberation groups to label their supporters as terrorists. There is no profit to be had in speculating about the claims yet; the prudent path is to wait and see if anything concrete emerges, and I would like help watching, which is why I posted here. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 15:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's really irrelevant if one sits on one side or another vis a vis Israel. What is relevant is that the claims come from a party who has a vested interest in pushing a position and that the claims are unverified. '']''<sup>]</sup> 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ps, we recently had an RFC on the publication that the journalists worked for and there was consensus towards the reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No they do not until a third party RS goes "I say, good point that man". ] (]) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Your reason that they "they deserve our attention" doesn't appear to be based in policy and/or guideline. That would appear to be your own personal opinion presented as something which is representative of the community, don't do that. ] (]) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Claims | |||
| :*IDF | |||
| :**Found documents in Gaza | |||
| :**Documents prove 6 reporters had connection to militant groups | |||
| :**Documents prove integration of Hamas terrorist and Al Jazeera | |||
| :*Al Jazeera | |||
| :**The documents were fabricated | |||
| :**Warns IDF fabricated as a justification for targeting its journalists | |||
| :**Says blatant attempt to silence journalists | |||
| :**Says silencing journalist is to hide realities of war | |||
| :*''Reuters'' | |||
| :**not able to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents | |||
| :Can't decide between these claims based on any ''Misplaced Pages'' RfC's. ''Reuters'' is the most important here. ](]) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per the Time link I gave above: | |||
| ::"Earlier this year, RSF examined Israel’s targeted killing of two other Al Jazeera correspondents–Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi, killed by a drone strike on their car shortly after reporting live from a location near the family home of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh, who had been assassinated in Iran earlier that day. Israel asserted that al-Ghoul was a “Hamas military wing operative and Nukhba terrorist,” referring to the group’s elite Nukhba Brigade. The RSF investigation noted “numerous inconsistencies” in Israel’s evidence, including the assertion that al-Ghoul received a military rank in 2007, when he would have been 10 years old." | |||
| ::CPJ is reported on Sky News saying that they have seen the documents and they "don't appear to be credible" (https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1849549035725607378) ] (]) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was trying to show that we can neither: | |||
| :::# relitigate the RfC with new evidence ''nor'' | |||
| :::# assert any claims in content (RfC irrelevant in this situation) | |||
| ::without multiple RS's telling us the validity of the documents. Unless there is another possible result, what's wrong with: notified and noted. done? ](]) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :unless there is clear proof we should assume journalists are journalists. | |||
| :idf claims in the past include refusal to acknowledge killing of ] and even the ] has indicated Israel has made similar claims in the past to justify killing journalists ] (]) 19:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :We know from reliable sources that at least one Gazan reporter was a terrorist (or at least someone holding hostages). was a reporter for the ''Palestine Chronicle'' and wrote one <s>article</s> opinion piece for . | |||
| :We should treat these claims with plenty of grains of salt. We should wait for independent reliable sources to report on that. Until they do, the claims by IDF and the counter-claims of Al-Jazeera, a primary source in this case and a biased one, should be treated as claims and attributed accordingly. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thats an opinion piece, not a news article. ] (]) 19:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Eh, are you referring to the I linked? It's nowhere marked as an opinion piece. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Think they mean the reporter only wrote an opinion piece for AJ, not a news article. ] (]) 12:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes that is what I mean. ] (]) 16:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You're right, I've amended my comment. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Al Jazeera has had a number of issues and scandals over the years, including failed fact checks, issues around the Qatari state ownership and lack of independence, issues in reporting that differs between their Arabic and English editions with the former being more problematic, employing individuals or participating in discussions and improperly colluding with actors in the conflict, not to mention issues of bias and neutrality. I think this could support a downgrade to at least "needs caution"/"some considerations apply" and perhaps scoped to specific topics such as controversial international politics and A-I conflict issues. Consider other sources that are GUNREL such as Anadolu Agency, Daily Sabah (Turkey), Al Mayadeen (Lebanon), while AJ has a better reputation than those, it has some similar issues and patterns of coverage. Also consider recent discussion on the Jewish Chronicle, and similar treatment of a number of other sources while AJ so far has gotten a pass. While we have to wait to see what comes of this specific IDF document thing, I do think this is an exigency that will cause a new discussion for AJ and likely a new RFC needed when the dust has settled. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reminder, the very recent AJ RFCs were snow closed as reliable. ] (]) 12:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Before this descends into another free-for-all mess like most of the prior discussions on the source, can I suggest limiting the discussion to anything new? | |||
| :I'm personally unconvinced by of Al Jazeera's independence when it comes to reporting on matter relating to Qatar, but the prior consensus is obviously against me. The consensus of the recent RFC, it's only been a few months, is also very clear on their general reliability. | |||
| :For this recent issue I think it's a case of wait and see. If other reliable sources start to question Al Jazeera's reliability over the allegations that would change the matter, but I don't see that that's happened yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| IDF has released more documents Hamas instructing Al Jazeera how to cover the Palestinian liberation movement and related events. As of now, I can't find news media outside Israel discussing these allegations. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What I don't see irrespective of whether the IDF allegations are true or not is why they are in the least relevant. Are the journalists being accused of carrying arms or directing operations? Have their reports been shown to contain lies rather than journalism? And on that note how many journalists in Israel have not served in the IDF? ] (]) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems to me that if the allegations about the specific journalists are true, then any articles by those specific journalists are probably not sufficiently ] to be considered reliable in this area. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Come back when you know the allegations are true, this discussion is completely pointless, it would have more merit if it was asserting that the IDF were unreliable, for which there is actual evidence. ] (]) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well Al Jazeera would sack them for that. The point though is what crime deservng death have they committed? I mean that is basically what the IDF are saying they deserve plus any civilians in their vicinity would be justified collateral. ] (]) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The Israeli government also issues guidance to media organizations on how they're to cover related topics, especially when it comes to military capabilities. This is a bunch of molehills that people are trying to call a mountain range for political expediency. ] (]) 18:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As to that latest 'revelation' by the IDF, it just doesn't smell right to me. Some people in Al Jazeer being sympathetic to Hamas I could believe. Hamas instructing or advising Al Jazeer about communication and publicity? Who knows more about that! It just doesn't make much sense, the most I could see Hamas would do if they had such a link is ask that Al Jazeer keep quiet about something they might know. If they're doing what the IDF say then they're incredibly stupid. Even more in printing it. ] (]) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Robb Report == | |||
| I'm working on sourcing for ] and I am wondering about Robb Report. Generally reliable or should they be binned alongside ] and ]? | |||
| This is what concerns me. It reports {{tq|Belles Rives is where water skiing was invented|tq}} as a straight fact. | |||
| https://robbreport.com/travel/hotels/bar-fitzgerald-at-belles-rives-hote-in-cap-d-antibes-reopens-after-an-800k-renovation-1234840475/ | |||
| That claim is contradicted by https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ralph-samuelson-the-man-who-invented-water-skiing-180980355/ | |||
| So, it leaves me wondering if they do any fact checking at all. | |||
| ] (]) 01:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Oneroof.co.nz == | |||
| https://oneroof.co.nz is a website for promoting the real estate market in New Zealand. It has no ] and has no reputation for factual accuracy. I consider content from this source to be quite undue given the entire point of the site being to promote real-estate content, as stated in their FAQ: 'OneRoof enhances New Zealand’s latest real estate'. | |||
| The material this source is used for includes providing the home of a BLP: , promotional material on how money an apartment is making and that is for sale: , and how and how being in the right location can add to your property value: | |||
| Overall I fail to see how this source is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, the site's purpose is to promote real estate and we shouldn't be helping it. ] (]) 03:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It certainly looks a questionable source. I can't see how it passes WP:RS. ] (]) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Much of the use of oneroof is to their suburb profile pages, which gives dates of construction of housing, e.g. ], second paragraph. I fail to see that this is promoting real estate. I'm not sure why the sale of a house, which implicitly is no longer the residence of the seller, is a BLP violation. The "Grammar Zone" is a well-known phenomenon in Auckland, but I would be happy to see another source used for it.-] (]) 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : It's owned by ] so it's possibly reliable in the very limited circumstances in which it would be ], e.g. bland factual information about suburbs. ] (]) 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I doubt it. Their suburb profiles contain patently false information: , well no that isn't true it dates back to 1860. Perhaps they just mean still extant housing? Well that isn't true ] exists. And they even wrote an article about it's real estate listing . | |||
| ::How about their article on the CBD? 'the earliest residential housing recorded in the area constructed between 1800 - 1809'. That is 40 years before Auckland was founded and 40 years before ] (the first European to settle the area) came. | |||
| ::I could point out more obvious factual errors but I think it is pointless as I've clearly demonstrated the lack of any fact checking for this. Given the repetitive descriptions given it is likely this is automatically generated content created based on real estate data or something rather than any actual research carried out by a real person. ] (]) 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| There's a disagreement at an AfD about the reliability of an article from the Christian radio network ]. (], ) The individual K-Love article itself appears to be a highly promotional single-source interview and thus non-independent and unreliable, but I am curious for this board's view of K-Love as a source overall. I see no evidence that K-Love is operating as a real news organization per ]. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with ] content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see ), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. However, another editor in the discussion says "{{tq|Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source.}}" ] (]) 05:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not seeing much ] or explicit commentary in other RS, but my impression is that if it has a reputation for anything at all, it would be one of being a cost-minimising radio equivalent of a content farm driving local stations out of business for their own purposes, rather than anything like fact checking or accuracy. Whether such an operation actually cares to pay for a meaningfully rigorous editorial process... well, I'd find it dubious, but what I think doesn't actually matter because it's up to the editors actually wanting to use it to put up an argument that can be plausibly linked to being RS which "it being pasted everywhere" isn't: Both ''AP'' and ''PR Newswire'' are (inter){{tq|nationally syndicated}} but one of them clearly has nothing to do with an RS. (It also doesn't matter because it doesn't seem to be used anywhere) ] (] • ]) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Just a quick side note, interviews are always reliable for the words of the person being interviewed (see ]). So the interview is reliable in that limited way, even if it isn't independent for notability purposes. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That carries the assumption that interviews are always properly transcribed or not misleadingly edited. In a world where some media outlets have run "interviews" with people whom they have not actually had contact with, there is some level at which we have to be concerned about the outlet delivering the interview. (Note I am not saying that K-Love reaches this level of concern; I have no insight on or judgment of this particular source.) -- ] (]) 22:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Totally agree, I didn't mention it as its an extreme situation. Any outlet not faithfully publishing details it that way should be deprecated. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC Jerusalem Post == | |||
| <!-- ] 12:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1733140868}} | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=26ADFB4}} | |||
| The reliability of the ] is: | |||
| :'''Option 1''': Generally reliable | |||
| :'''Option 2''': Additional considerations | |||
| :'''Option 3''': Generally unreliable | |||
| :'''Option 4''': Deprecate | |||
| ]. ] (]) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (Jerusalem Post)=== | |||
| *'''Option 4''': the Jerusalem Post's coverage is extremely biased and is unfortunately extensively used throughout Misplaced Pages articles, to cite a few examples on these biases: | |||
| :*JP has been repeatedly propagating a false claim in its articles in recent months, calling the ], "Hezbollah-run," despite it not being affiliated with them and the fact that it is headed by ]. . | |||
| :*On 12 October 2023, JP published an article that it had confirmed seeing evidence for babies that had been burnt and decapitated during the ] that is still with no retraction despite being . | |||
| :*JP propagated another false claim last year that a dead Palestinian child was a doll, which, although it retracted and apologized for, also puts into question its fact-checking processes. | |||
| :*In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. ] (]) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Have we just not come out of a discussion about this? ] (]) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's what is being referred to as RFCBEFORE. ] (]) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So do we need another so soon? We can't keep discussing this every month or so. ] (]) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Option 2</s>''' Like nearly every other source......Options 1, 3 & 4 represent faulty over-generalizations. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Option #1'''Under the current Misplaced Pages context '''Option #1''' is the best match. My original Option #2 choice is for after we reconfigure to recognize that ''every'' source is option #2. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Bias isn't unreliability. Nothing has been presented that shows any other RS that question the Jerusalem Post. Retractions are good actually. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Andre; also per Slater, wasn't there just an RfC about this? ] (]) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I would need stronger stuff than this to think otherwise. ] (]) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''', as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year, ] (]) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You previously advocated that the Electronic Intifada shouldn't be deprecated because it's similar to the Jerusalem Post, but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated. | |||
| *:Specifically, you said that for the {{tq|] or ]: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not.}} What changed that made you think the Jerusalem Post should be banned in virtually all circumstances, instead of just an Option 2? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated.}} If EI and JP are indeed comparable, the community consensus that EI is GUNREL should presumably apply to JP. I'm not aware of anything on EI as egregiously misleading and uncorrected as reports of decapitated babies, so I see no hypocrisy in Huldra's stance. | |||
| *::However, I have used JP in and made what I hope have been valuable contributions using it, so I would be more inclined to argue that both are '''Option 2''' and that particular details reported by either source might be more unreliable on a case-by-case basis. To me, stories like the beheaded babies are less a black mark on any particular source and moreso an indication that, particularly in instances where systemic bias is at play, we ought to think of even the most reliable sources differently, along the lines of @]'s comment. Also a reminder that sources regarded as perennially unreliable like EI and The Grayzone can be a voice of reason in certain contexts where the mainstream media isn't doing its job. ] (]) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' - it's a cut below Times of Israel and Haaretz, several cuts above Arutz Sheva and i24 for example, and if it is the only source for some claim then asking for more or better sources is totally reasonable imo. But still a mostly reliable source and citeable as such. ''']''' - 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I glanced over a couple of JP articles while doing research for ] and was not impressed by its quality; it seemed to be parroting the government position without qualification or critical thinking. But I dislike how results from discussions like this are often used to purge sources from articles in a manner similarly lacking critical thinking, so I'll refrain from voting. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 1'''. The fourth Jewish source at RSN in recent memory. I'll repeat that it's bizarre that when the previous RfC on an Israeli or Jewish source closes, a new one quickly begins. Hezbollah runs Lebanon and no other publication was previously tricked by a deepfake student. The decapitated babies story is false but was widely picked up by the Western media at the time. As OP said about an Arab source: {{tq|All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading;}} <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sources do not have religions so there is no such thing as a "Jewish source." This is a bizzare framing of events that shifts the focus away from the Jerusalem Post's misinformation. | |||
| ::Yes, as I previously mentioned, biases do not affect reliability; but as demonstrated above, the Jerusalem Post is both biased and unreliable. ] (]) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If editors are only banning sources aligned with one viewpoint, this can skew the POV of entire topic areas. This occurs at RSN because we examine sources in isolation. I'm framing the discussion in this way because only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months and I believe that is negatively affecting the Israel and Palestine topic area. | |||
| :::Specifically, you haven't shown the Jerusalem Post is "consistently false". You've shown they were fooled by deepfake technology in 2020 when deepfakes were new. You've shown they reported on a decapitated babies story most Western media outlets also reported on. You've also shown they retract false stories. Finally, your biggest point is that they call the Lebanese Health Ministry "Hezbollah-run" when the government of Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, and many hospitals in Southern Lebanon are run by ]. | |||
| :::In this topic area, where most media sources blamed Israel for bombing ] and then immediately had to retract, some level of mistakes are tolerable. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 15:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The government of Lebanon is not controlled by Hezbollah, they are a part of a coalition government and members of that party hold the ministries of public works and labor. The public health ministry is headed by a member of the ], a Sunni party, not Hezbollah. Your claim about "only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months" ignores a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable that are not any of those things, and the conflation of Jewish and Zionist if made by a non-Zionist would draw outrage for antisemitism. But ] was deprecated, ] GUNREL, ] GUNREL, The Cradle deprecated, ] GUNREL, ] deprecated, Mondoweiss other considerations (you opened that arguing for deprecation), ] deprecated. The claim that "Jewish sources" are being targeted is absurd. If anything, your history in these discussions show that you consistently oppose sources that are not pro-Zionist, and repeatedly attempt to deflect in discussions about sources that are pro-Zionist by claiming it is an attack on "Jewish sources". It be great if that stopped. ''']''' - 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|Nableezy}} You said yourself Hezbollah is part of the government. They also have an effective veto power in Lebanese politics and have more power than you acknowledge, including providing basic services in areas Israel is bombing. The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Misplaced Pages. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied. | |||
| :::::Specifically, the standard for deprecation we've developed as Misplaced Pages editors that we should focus on how a source is used in articles. In the cases of Mondoweiss, I advocated for deprecation and was proven wrong because there wasn't the track record of demonstrable harm that deprecation would prevent, as well as a focus on opinion pieces. The most I could show was that it promoted October 7th denialism. '''The Jerusalem Post has not met that standard because "Hezbollah-run health ministry" is arguably true and isn't citable onwiki.''' | |||
| :::::The reason why I mention the Jerusalem Post is both Jewish and Zionist is that it regularly covers Jewish issues outside of Israel in the diaspora section. | |||
| :::::None of the double standard criticism applies to you. I largely agree with your reasoning that the Jerusalem Post is worse than the Times of Israel/Haaretz (those are the best Israeli newspapers). I disagree mainly because ] doesn't mean "mostly reliable source", it means marginally reliable. Without clear delineation of when it is reliable/unreliable, editors will try to mass-remove the Jerusalem Post from articles if they think it's being used in an inappropriate context (like BLPs for Mondoweiss). A ] outcome would not mean you're obligated to accept it for all statements of fact, but that it's "mostly reliable" as you've said. | |||
| :::::What I'm pointing out is since April, we've had RfCs on the ADL+Jewish Chronicle+Jerusalem Post, and there are editors that take different positions on the Jerusalem Post in different discussions. | |||
| :::::I would oppose the introduction of "Hezbollah-run health ministry" to articles especially given the precedent set at ]—it's technically true but doesn't have much context. That being said, nobody has seriously proposed to use that qualifier and I don't see how biased language makes the Jerusalem Post unreliable. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, it is technically not true, it is not arguably true in any way. Hezbollah does not run the health ministry in Lebanon, full stop. I didnt vote to deprecate. I only objected to your repeated claims of targeting "Jewish sources" which is demonstrably untrue. And I think that diversion is both untrue and, to be honest, outrageous in that it implicitly claims a racist motivation in questioning any of these sources reliability. If somebody is attacking a source because it is a "Jewish source" that should be block worthy. But as far as I can tell nobody is, making the accusation itself what is block worthy. ''']''' - 17:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's possible to have ] and that is not a blockworthy offence. Arguing that there is systemic bias in our treatment of sources is not an accusation of deliberately racist motivations on the part of individual editors. It is effectively impossible to ] if I am not allowed to acknowledge its existence. | |||
| :::::::What I originally said still stands: the pattern of examining sources in isolation at ] is causing systemic bias issues because we cannot determine if we are treating sources differently depending on their affiliation. | |||
| :::::::Examining sources by contextualizing them with other sources will more effectively evaluate the reliability of the Jerusalem Post by reducing the impact of bias. | |||
| :::::::In this case, I contrasted with Al-Jazeera and asked whether the Jerusalem Post has met the {{tq|consistently false or misleading}} standard applied there. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no such thing either; Haaretz is an Israeli Jewish-owned RS publication that is highly critical of Israel, of the Jerusalem Post, so this argument does not hold to scrutiny. Being "pro-Israel" is not opposed to being critical of Israel; on the contrary, many pro-Israel sources are highly critical of Israel's policies because they care about Israel. As for the decapitated babies debunked claim, the difference is that unlike the Jerusalem Post, western media did not claim to see evidence for this in their reporting. As for the claim about ministry being Hezbollah-run, this is an extraordinary claim and a personal opinion that is not supported by any reliable source. ] (]) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And the Jerusalem Post is highly critical of Haaretz, a publication whose owner said Israel imposes apartheid, that Hamas is full of freedom fighters, and that Israel should be sanctioned to bring about a Palestinian state. Haaretz is not a replacement for the Jerusalem Post, which is the main right-wing newspaper in Israel. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Seems like a reliable source and was recently RFC'd/discussed. No source is ever perfect and so all things considered, this is reasonable. Chess makes a good point that after a failed RFC against similar sources another pops up. Seems like agenda driven basis to depreciate such sources at any cost.] (]) 06:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' per Nableezy and North8000. All sources on this topic are problematic and should be used with caution and this is somewhere below the strongest sources but nowhere near the worst usable sources, so I would treat it similarly to Palestine Chronicle (maybe a little better given it does more of its own reporting). Re the specific charges, "Hezbollah-run" is not that big a deal; the babies story is problematic but we don't know the full truth; the doll story shows reason for caution but was corrected; the deepfake story is trivial (several publications were similarly taken in and JP removed it). We need to be consistent in our treatment of I/P sources, and exercise skepticism and triangulation with all of them. ] (]) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I just want to say about "the doll story" that I think it shows more than just a reason to be cautious, as what they said about for their reason for retracting does not stand up. The was an unverified tweet claiming it was a doll. That to me shows a willingness to promote unverified material as propaganda. This was not the case of an actual source giving the JPost wrong information, this was them having such a low standard that was treated as an authoritative source to make outlandish claims and present them as fact. Yes they took it down after it was widely mocked for putting out a false story, with proof of the lie having been offered by the photojournalist who had taken the photo. I simply do not trust them to have verified claims that other stronger sources have not, which is what pushes it in to option 2 territory for me. ''']''' - 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 generally and 2 for AI/IP topic area''' there is a fair bit of nationalistic tub thumping/the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist for this source so the AI/IP stuff should be treated with some caution but otherwise I would give the benefit of the doubt.] (]) 10:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Do you have sources to back up the claim that the Jerusalem Post promoted {{tq|the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist}}? This is unsubstantiated at the moment. And why would publishing an opinion along those lines make the Jerusalem Post less reliable? | |||
| *:For context, the ] Al-Jazeera has published opinion pieces directly saying "All Zionist roads lead to genocide". Should Al-Jazeera also be ] on Israel and Palestine? | |||
| *:Al-Jazeera's opinion editors have described Zionism, the belief that Israel should exist, as an inherently genocidal ideology. This is similar to describing the Palestinian identity as inherently terroristic. | |||
| *:From my understanding after I was shot down at the Mondoweiss RfC, extreme opinions aren't what makes a source unreliable. Mondoweiss being unable to separate advocacy from news is what contributed to its ] status. Likewise, Al-Jazeera is ] because it can separate advocacy pieces into an opinion section. | |||
| *:My understanding is that the Jerusalem Post would have to consistently perform advocacy in its actual news for its ] to negatively affect its reliability. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Don't see what AJ or Mondoweiss have to do with the JP. https://www.jpost.com/tags/palestinian-terrorism, horses mouth. ] (]) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area. | |||
| *:::Tagging articles as "Palestinian terrorism" is just pointing out that some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorism. I'm also unsure how an article tag would be cited beyond calling specific act of terrorism Palestinian. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area.}} Instead of repeating this as if that will somehow make the accusation more credible (it doesn't, its just annoying), make your case in an appropriate place (which isn't in this discussion). | |||
| *::::When Israel was doing its nearly 2 year long so called operation breakwater, and arresting Palestinians in the WB every night, JP would report it next day as "x Palestinian terrorists arrested" whether they were or were not terrorists. ] (]) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 generally, 2 for AI/IP''', same reasoning as SelfStudier honestly. ] (]) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', per ]. To respond to Makeandtoss, being Jewish is not solely about religion, it’s just one aspect of Jewish identity, and most Jews are secular and see their Jewishness as ethnicity/nationality/culture. I also agree that there has been a recent surge in attempts to discredit Jewish sources without real evidence, which is really troubling. ] (]) 15:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. I would lean strongly towards RS from the goodnesses of it being a well-established reputable outfit with local expertise and that they have made retractions and corrections when in error - and basically everyone makes an error sometime so the handling is important - and that WP has generally regarded it as a RS to use in . I would tend to view it as RS with POV to use in the context of the current hot war, but then I think that *all* sources should be taken as POV in the context of the current hot war. (London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail ... *all* sources.) Sort of what SelfStudier said. Cheers ] (]) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Andrevan and Chess. - ] (]) 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - agree that all four are issues, but JPost is one of the oldest and largest Israeli newspapers, and we're lacking an argument for why this is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than incidents at any other major publication. The fake persona seems less severe than fake stories, which many reputable publications have had at some point - see e.g. ], ], ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', though I could ''maybe'' be convinced toward 2 if a stronger case is presented. The decapitated babies story was a massive whiff, but I haven’t seen a pattern of outright falsified reporting otherwise. JPost certainly has a right-wing/nationalist perspective, which makes me rather uncomfortable, but as established in WP policy, bias is (unfortunately, in my view) not unreliability. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Wholesale opposed to 3/4, however. In both this topic area and others, I’ve seen sources currently marked GREL/MREL get away with far worse than what the opener notes - unless a stronger case is made, deprecation is beyond extreme here. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Important to note that unlike other news sources that reported on the decapitated babies claim, the Jerusalem Post was unique in saying that it had verified the evidence itself, so this is a major red flag and a different story. ] (]) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Again, while awful, one severely problematic piece does not amount to the pattern of lies and/or inaccuracies required for outright GUNREL/deprecation - if it did, most of the sources we use on this site would be in that grouping. The rest of the case you’ve made effectively boils down to bias and/or items they ultimately retracted. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine, Option 1 in general.''' - As others have noted the Jerusalem Post is clearly biased, but I don't think that necessarily means it's unreliable. Outside of the Israel-Palestine area it may well be generally reliable. The problem is that it veers away from mere bias into making incredibly inflammatory false claims that are widely shared and ''never corrected.'' The case of "" stands out in particular. They achieved almost 16 million views with and never retracted it. The article continues to be cited, sometimes by people with far-reaching influence. Detailed investigations by , and others continue to show that the claims the Jerusalem Post made were false, but as I write this JP has yet to retract or correct the story. <br><br>The other case was the claim about a Palestinian baby who was killed being a doll. An incredibly inflammatory claim, widespread reach, continuing to be repeated and adding to the ] myth. The and others showed this to be false. The JP did eventually retract the story, however the author of the piece continues to work for them to this day as their . The same is true of the "Photos..." piece, where the author continued to work for the JP for many months afterwards. <br><br>This is what makes the Jerusalem Post's coverage of Israel-Palestine stand apart from reliable sources in this topic area. Yes, they may also be biased (i.e. the Times of Israel) but they did not publish outright disinformation as verified reporting to millions of readers, then subsequently refuse to retract or correct it, let alone take action against the responsible author, when proven false by RS. Even when they do issue a retraction, the author in question remains an editor in good standing. <br><br>These are two especially high profile cases, but disinformation and outright falsehoods find their way into all of their output in this subject area. They wrote about - contrast this coverage with how Haaretz reported it, noting that many pointed out that the claim about the bag was in fact false (https://archive.ph/G3aAM)). This marks the difference between a reliable source in this topic area, and an unreliable tabloid outlet. <br><br>So, again, option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine. ] (]) 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Washington Post & LA Times == | |||
| {{atop|result=On review, Jensbest was ] by the community back in 2016, and is violating said ban by opening this discussion. Move along everyone <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Are these two newspapers still usable sources after the recent interference by the billionaire owners showed that a fact-based reporting can possibly be surpressed by them when it may bring trouble to the billionaires and their businesses by one of the 2024 candidates for US-President? This question is brought to you by the series 'Questions at the Dawn of Fascism'. --] (]) 13:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If information comes out about interference with their factual reporting, we should re-evaluate their reliability. I haven't seen anything to suggest that, yet. ] (] / ]) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No, as bias is not a reason to reject them, only lack of factual accuracy. ] (]) 13:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, they are clearly high-quality sources still. ] (]) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's see how many kowtowing of the owners before the aspiring Führer it takes before the quality of the paper will become questionable. -- When did Noah build the ark? BEFORE the flood -- ] (]) 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to be confusing the opinion desk for actual journalism, and ignoring that this is very much business as usual for the opinion desk. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not confusing the editorial board with "actual journalism", but this interference shows that the WaPo under Bezos can't be trusted anymore. --] (]) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::So have they in fact published any false stories as a result of this? ] (]) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The interfering of Bezos is a signal that the behaviour twowards Trump is changed. Between 2025 and 2029, the Bezos is expected to for the Pentagon. Trump referrred to WaPo in the past as "Amazon Washington Post and hurled invective against Amazon whenever the Washington Post publishes articles that he believes slight him or his Administration. Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign's chief spokesman, embraced the suggestion that the meeting of Trump with Blue Origin CEO David Limp and the announcement of the non-endorsement were linked. Robert Kagan :“Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people. Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.” - So it is a clear and proven danger that more interference is about to happen. Which for the moment makes WaPo a non reliable source. --] (]) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Every source has some owner who could possibly skew the fact-basedness of their output. We'd kind of have to see that they had done so to judge. (Similarly, every outlet has someone who could decide whether or not they run an endorsement, whether that title is "owner", "publisher", or "editor in chief".) ] (]) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies) == | |||
| == GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I would like to get people's input on how we should handle materials from the ] (GLAAD) - a 40 year old media monitoring organization that tracks anti-LGBT rhetoric in media. In addition to long-form reports, they maintain the "GLAAD Accountability Project" (GAP) which "monitors and documents individual public figures and groups using their platforms to spread misinformation and false rhetoric against LGBTQ people, youth, and allies. Some groups have misleading names inferring unwarranted expertise or credibility, when their main focus is advocating against LGBTQ people, and some claiming to be grassroots efforts have ties to national organizations with long histories opposing LGBTQ Americans." | |||
| :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) | |||
| I recently added a detail to the article on anti-trans group ], noting that GLAAD stated "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people". This was reverted with the comment that "This is a self-published, non-independent source specifically about a named individual, completely unsuitable for BLP claims, and selectively extracting the SEGM claims is sidestepping this source's unsuitability." For reference, the "named individual" is a founder of SEGM who GLAAD wrote about. | |||
| ::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 ] (]) 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.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts== | |||
| We use GLAAD ~1,500 times across Misplaced Pages so I assumed they were GREL and considered akin to the SPLC, and especially usable given the ]/] considerations. I'd like to open this to more commenters as we use GLAAD so heavily site-wide it should be discussed. ] (]) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :I'd consider GLAAD to be '''GREL''' as their reporting does contain factual statements, typically with links to back these up. Even the article that was used for the citation has links to all the relevant facts, which supports ]. GLAAD is universally well respected and regularly cited by ] media organizations around the globe, supporting that those organization similarly consider GLAAD to be a reliable source for factual reporting. ] (]) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a misuse of the "self-published" concept; it isn't an individual publishing their own work, but an organization with a hierarchy publishing the organizations work -- much as ] publishes the '']''. As for the idea that it's "non-independent"... of whom? GLAAD is certainly not dependent on ], the topic if the article. It's a ''biased'' source, as the group is in favor of things that SEGM is agin', but all sources are biased. And as Raladic says, this source is frequently cited by mainstream sources. -- ] (]) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::From memory (I participated on that talk page a bit) SPLC and certain dr's were argued to be non-independent because court cases in the US about laws banning gender affirming care often cited SEGM and SPLC and dr's argued against it (I think both were bought in as witnesses). I imagine GLAAD did similar. The argument being they are legally related. I'm not overly familiar with independent being used in this nature but that's the argument being made. ] (]) 13:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::For non-independence I '''may''' have confused GLAAD and GLAD. Mea culpa, but I'm sure you can see how that happens! (Both GLAD and SPLC are plaintiffs in cases where SEGM have appeared as expert witnesses for the other side, so, reliable or not, there's a legal relationship here that is worth bearing in mind) per ] {{tq | Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops '''any financial or legal relationship to the topic'''.}} Maybe I'm reading that too broadly, but AFAICT these are organisations briefing against each other in court. ] (]) 16:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd say GLAAD is GREL, and it's certainly independent of SEGM. But there's a separate question of whether it's a SPS and therefore a ] violation. ] says that "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same," and includes situations where "the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work." However, that essay also states that newspapers aren't SPS, even though journalists' job is to produce articles for the paper/publisher. I don't know whether GLAAD is really analogous to {{u|NatGertler}}'s NYT example, both because I suspect that there's more independent editorial oversight of NYT articles than there is of GLAAD content, and because there is no author identified on the GLAAD page — the content represents the organization's view. If GLAAD is not a SPS, then there's no BLP violation. But if it is a SPS, then it can't be used for a statement about "SEGM public members." So if the general view here is that GLAAD is GREL, I'd discuss on the Talk page whether it's a SPS and take it to the BLPN if you can't get consensus on the Talk page. ] (]) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree that the SPLC is the best analogy here, and by that analogy I'd definitely say that GLAAD is GREL. I would be inclined to say that they're not an SPS but honestly our rules for what's an SPS are pretty ambiguous so I couldn't say that for sure. ] (]) 03:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::+1 ] (]) 15:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :BLPSPS is about an individual publishing their own work, not a group like GLAAD. Individuals within the group are not publishing blogs with no editorial oversite by the group. GLAAD is generally reliable for attributed statements in the same way SPLC is used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I believe the argument was raised that SPLC was a SPS as well. I don't really see it myself, but it does mean that the comparison isn't as powerful as it could be. We might end up needing to have some sort of RFC or something about it to settle things. ] (] • ]) 11:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I shouldn't think an RFC would be necessary, this is just a misunderstanding. It comes from people thinking "This article is written by GLAAD and published by GLAAD, so it's self published", but GLAAD isn't the author - an individual at GLAAD is the author. If a newspaper publishers an article with no byline that doesn't mean the author is the newspaper, and that the article is self published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are clearly a significant number of people who want to dispute whether these organisations are SPS, so ideally we'd want {{em|something}} to point to. Some sort of formal close at least, maybe. I can see SPLC / SPS specifically was discussed previously on this noticeboard before as well, in ] (Aug 2017) with Kyohyi, NorthBySouthBaranof and a bunch of other people, ] (Jul 2018), with ] (for again), ], ] (against again) and ] participating, in ] (Jul 2021), with Springee, Nat Gertler (who are already here so I'm not going to ping them), Kyohyi again, ] (arguing for) ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. | |||
| ::::This seems to be brought up for ] as well (which at least has a NOT SPS bit in its RSP entry), and there's a discussion in ] (Jul 2020) about BLPSPS more generally, so it seems to me at least it would be a good idea to go through some sort of formal process and then insert guidance, either at RSP or RS or V for these things, becuase while it doesn't seem to be frequent, it does seem to have been discussed a lot. ] (] • ]) 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If editors rely want to discuss it I suggest having it at ]. It's how should all sources that are of this type be handled and do they constitute self-publishing, that's a policy discussion not one about the reliability of a source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<small>Also, if anyone is wondering about the pings for 245, I stopped adding people after I saw there were over a dozen, and I went through archive 245 after.</small> ] (] • ]) 14:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow. Really was not expecting to get a ping when the only thing I'm doing anymore is reading articles and editing typos (and occasionally saying hi), but here we are. | |||
| :::::So I have two things to say: | |||
| :::::1. GLAAD is absolutely a reliable source. | |||
| :::::2. Let us follow a bit of logic here. | |||
| ::::::'''Axiom 1:''' The right-wing in this country is currently engaged in efforts to perpetuate what amounts to a genocide against the LGBTQ community, ''specifically'' the trans community, from which my best friend, daughter, ex-girlfriend and countless other friends hail. | |||
| ::::::'''Axiom 2:''' I am a militant leftist Iraq veteran with a CIB and a Bronze Star, a large arsenal, a bad attitude and some ''very'' strong opinions on who the only good Nazis are. | |||
| ::::::'''Axiom 3:''' Misplaced Pages's editorship contains multiple outspoken right-wingers and is full of individuals who take offense at the slightest hint of incivility. | |||
| ::::::'''Conclusion:''' It would be a good idea not to ping me in any future political discussion, lest I actually share my detailed thoughts on the subject. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Noted. Apologies for the ping, I'll try and keep it in mind. Wish you well in your typo fixing. ] (] • ]) 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's all good. That wasn't intended as recrimination, just a blunt layout of the fact that I've pretty much exhausted my supply of patience with certain political POVs. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In the USESPS essay, newspapers are explicitly excluded. But the general guidance there is "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." If what you're saying is correct, then the USESPS essay should be edited to reflect it. Note that there have been extended discussions about this issue on the talk pages of the essay (e.g., ]), WP:V, and WP:RSN. ] (]) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I honestly feel like the issue with our SPS guidance is that it's trying to do too much. We're trying to have a general indicator of whether a source is a well-established traditional source or not, but there's not really a clear way to define that, so we sneak that intuition into ] and ], which makes it much more difficult to tell whether a source is an SPS. | |||
| :::::We're conflating "is the author as an individual the same person as the publisher as an individual" and "is the authoring organization the same as the publishing organization", even though essentially all sources are SPS under the second definition, because some bad sources (like ads) are clearly not SPS under the first definition even though that doesn't really contribute anything to their reliability. I think we need to just bite the bullet and accept that "not an SPS" does not mean "well-established" or "respectable". ] (]) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not, I think, "essentially all sources", but potentially "essentially all websites". https://www.coca-cola.com is written and published by the employees of ]; it is therefore self-published. | |||
| ::::::It is a general principle that whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. So if https://www.coca-cola.com is self-published because that organization's employees decide what to put on their website, then https://glaad.org/ is self-published because organization's employees also decide what to put on their website. And if it's not, then the other is probably not, either. ] (]) 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Again, then what is the difference between cnn.com vs coca-cola.com? | |||
| :::::::Many of the editors and writers on cnn.com are paid by CNN, same as most other traditional media. | |||
| :::::::Coca-cola.com i'd argue is not ] so much it has the issue of not being ]. It is clearly a company that promotes itself. ] (]) 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The difference is that news media organizations are considered traditional publishers, and real-world definitions of self-publishing exclude traditional publishers. ] (]) 01:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::But why? This is the same thing I'm complaining about, where we're trying to smuggle a vague instinct into a precise definition. | |||
| :::::::::IMO, zero of these examples should be SPS, because drawing the line anywhere else is either absurd (if CNN is self-published everything is self-published) or inconsistent (if CNN isn't self-published but GLAAD or the Coke website are, we have a double standard based on our intuitive understanding of the website's credibility, which is terrible for our evaluation of cases like GLAAD). | |||
| :::::::::The Coke website is not reliable because it's not ], which has nothing to do with whether it's self-published. ] (]) 02:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's a mess, having a general rule but then saying it doesn't apply to news organisations (because if it did the general rule wouldn't work) is never going to have good results. The problem appears to be trying to solve many different issues by making this idea fit all of them, rather than relying on different rules. SPS isn't the be all and end all, just because a source has editorial oversite (and in my mind shouldn't be classed as a SPS) doesn't mean it has a {{tq|reputation for accuracy and fact checking}}. | |||
| :::::Self published should be described as an author publishing their own work, whether that's a blog or vanity press doesn't matter. Other issue coming from low quality sources that aren't strictly self published don't need to be solved by this definition. There are many qualifiers and idea about reliable sources, as with other policies and guidelines they can't be taken in isolation - just because it's not an SPS doesn't mean it's reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just to say I totally agree with ActivelyDisinterested's arguments here. To say GLAAD is an SPS is a misunderstanding of WP:SPS. If we need tighter formulation of our SPS policy to avoid such misunderstandings, this isn't the place to discuss that. ] (]) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If that's true, ] should be changed first because right now, by my reading, it very clearly is a self-published source. And the whole problem with ] is that a self-published source can say what they like, with zero accountability, oversight or corrections policy, so I would say by whatever measure GLAAD's website is not an SPS, would then apply to essentially all websites for any activist group, and we get into a BLP minefield. ] (]) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think the question you want to ask is whether GLAAD might qualify for the "traditional media" exemption. That is, would we characterize it as being more like a newspaper than like an advocacy website? If so, then it's not really SPS. | |||
| ::::::::The idea that traditional publishers are different is one from sources, not from Misplaced Pages. See, e.g., https://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-publish, "to publish or issue (one's own book or other material) independent of an established publishing house" or ], "publish (a book etc.) oneself rather than through a publishing house". It's entirely possible that in what's called "]", we will develop different ideas about what constitutes being "a publishing house". ] (]) 23:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Cato (GLAAD arbitary break)=== | |||
| :::I wouldn't treat SPLC or GLADD as a GREL source. They are both activist sources. That doesn't mean unreliable but it means we need to assume they have a motive when providing what could be called negative coverage of some other source. To GLADD's credit, I don't think they have some of the troubling issues that have been reported about the SPLC. Still, if GLADD says something negative about an organization with politically opposed views is that because they are providing unbiased, factual reporting or because they are trying to discredit a source that opposes their own activism/positions? As for the SPS argument, I think it's half correct. When we move from news organization to activist organization it's still reasonable to assume anything they publish has some level of internal review, unlike something published by an individual. However, the source and the editorial control are still the same organization. SPS is written in a way that suggests its about material self published by an individual but it doesn't clearly state it only applies to individuals. Consider if we would accept a similar claim from a think tank like The CATO Institute vs GLADD. In both cases the organizations are well known and source frequently publish their views on a subject. If a 3rd party says CATO/GLADD said X on a topic then we could consider it due for inclusion. It's less likely to be DUE for inclusion if we are directly sourcing a GLADD/CATO press release. I would also be more comfortable citing CATO/GLADD on a question of public policy (how will this new law impact people in a given group) vs citing either of them to talk about an organization that would be viewed as their political opponent. In this case it appears that GLADD is being directly cited for a negative opinion of an opposing organization without making their political opposition clear in the article. I would say the removal looks fair based on grounds that are at least similar to SPS (though it may also apply) but also because it's effectively an organization's opinion that wasn't published by an independent RS. ] (]) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|However, the source and the editorial control are still the same organization}} This would be the same for all organisations who employ the author, which would include all news organisations. | |||
| ::::Whether something is due for inclusion is a different argument, as it's part of NPOV. Verification doesn't guarantee inclusion, inclusion requires that something can be verified. It can be verified that GLAAD has reported these details, whether that should be included or not is a matter for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are correct, for normal media sources the source (reporter) and editorial control are both under the same roof. The difference is the objective. Obstenessively a news organization is publishing on topics not related to the organization. When dealing with an activist organization that is no longer true. The same might be true if a car company published a report talking about the need to improve the highway system or a pharma company taking about drug policy. It might be correct but it's also likely self interested. Either way, we shouldn't treat GLADD like news media. Rather it should be treated like publications from a company (Honda, Roche) or from a think tank (CATO). Perhaps a good question for the group is does SPS apply to groups and if not, what does? ] (]) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, ] applies to groups, but as this isn't an instance of them talking about themselves or anyone reasonably judged as connected to the organization, so it isn't relevante here. At most, all this means is that we would add "according to the ]" to the statement (and one of the joys of that group's name is that you don't really have to explain who they are.) ] (]) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Nitpick: that's not their name anymore. They changed it to simply GLAAD a few years ago. ] (]) 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes they should be treated like other activist group and similar, with attribution of their statements. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No. SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities), unless it is shown to be a cover, like a person creating his publisher, or paying his publisher. | |||
| ::::::The analysis goes the regular route to the CONTEXT, reputation of the publishing enetity, reputation of author, purpose, format, COI, Due, ONUS, other BLP concerns, and continues on. ] (]) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq | SPS does not generally apply to groups}} | |||
| :::::::That isn't at all what ] says, so where is this exception coming from? ] (]) 16:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The footnote for WP:SPS says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos." Your statement that {{tq|SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities)}} is inconsistent with "the material contained within company websites." Who are the independent reviewers at GLAAD? 16:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 16:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The independent reviewers are the employees of GLADD's publishing operation, just as the New York Times has independent "reviewers" (editors) it employs, except when The New York Times is publishing about itself. Both these reviewer's jobs is, among other things, avoid lawsuits that could destroy the organization when it is independently reporting on others, and GLADD would be even more likely to be destroyed by such lawsuit. ] (]) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I assume that it's a lawyer, not an editor, whose job it is to avoid lawsuits. Seems to me that if an editor had reviewed the GLAAD page in question, that editor would have pointed out that most of the last sentence – "critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people" – was plagiarized from the source that GLAAD linked to (the sole change being the replacement of "trans" with "transgender"). ] (]) 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Plagiarism of one sentence that's your claim? That's not a serious claim. ] (]) 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Given that that sentence '''was the sentence added to the article''', I think that has a bearing. | |||
| :::::::::::The point here is an opinion from a weak source has been plagiarised by GLAAD and then repeated in Misplaced Pages, attributed to GLAAD, as a stronger source. ] (]) 18:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::None of that has to do with self publishing, which GLADD is not, as the NYT, or CATO is not. And there is no need to ]. ] (]) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Is coca-cola.com self-published? ] (]) 23:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Obviously not. ] (]) 13:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't think it's a weak claim when it comes to the question of whether the page was reviewed by an editor or not. ] (]) 18:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Of course it is, or perhaps, you don"t really understand plagiarism. ] (]) 19:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people," and here's the Trans Safety Network text: "SEGM's public members ... outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on trans people," with both sentences linking the phrase "public members" to the same . You don't think that's plagiarism? ] (]) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think you would be surprised at the amount of plagiarism in peer reviewed publications that have been through multiple rounds of editing and review. Not to say it's {{em|common}}, but it happens, and sometimes much more substantially than a sentence or two. ] (] • ]) 02:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are exactly right. GLAAD noted it, and whether it should be included should be discussed on the talk page, if necessary. ] (]) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Cato might or might not be reliable for stuff outside of libertarianism (the last discussion was in 2015 and came to no consensus apparently but to be honest, I don't really care much... I don't think people try to use them as a source too often?) but I really don't see why they would be considered self-published. They should fine for attributed opinion, though I probably won't use them for actual economics instead of like, actual economists (i.e. ]). ] (] • ]) 14:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===End of Cato stuff=== | |||
| :I would say that GLAAD is ] and I have cited them many times myself, mainly when it comes to their reports on representation in TV or their blogposts about said representation. I have my grumblings that they don't cover enough series, and miss some, but I'd agree that they are GREL. I would say the comment you got in response by Void if removed is ''clearly mistaken'' and a ''clear'' misuse of Misplaced Pages rules on self-published sources. ] (]) 15:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Can you please explain how this is a {{tq | clear misuse of Misplaced Pages rules}}? ] says {{tq | Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including Business, charitable, and personal websites}}. Are you saying this is not a ]? Or have I erred in some other way? ] (]) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, its'' not'' a self-published source, in ''any'' way shape, or form. I don't mind it being credited to GLAAD, and saying something like "according to ]." If you think it IS a self-published source, I'd recommend you read the guidelines again. As said above by another commenter, GLAAD is "absolutely a reliable source." ] (]) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq | I'd recommend you read the guidelines again}} | |||
| ::::I'm sorry, but I have read the guidelines, over and over, I'm not being wilfully obtuse - can you please explain how it isn't? | |||
| ::::] says: | |||
| ::::{{tq | Neither the subject material, '''nor the size of the entity''', nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference }} | |||
| ::::It also says: | |||
| ::::{{tq | A'''lmost all websites''' except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including Business, '''charitable''', and personal websites}} | |||
| ::::And non SPSs are: | |||
| ::::{{tq | The contents of magazines and newspapers Books published by established publishers Research published in peer-reviewed journals}} | |||
| ::::So unless ] is very wrong, what am I getting wrong here? Again - this is a genuine question. ] (]) 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will refer to other comments on this issue, including Alanscottwalker who states above "SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities), unless it is shown to be a cover, like a person creating his publisher, or paying his publisher", as I do not want to get in a long and drawn out argument on this topic. It is clear that your viewpoint on this is unmovable. Also, let us be absolutely clear that ] is an explanatory essay, ''NOT'' a guideline. So ''stop'' acting like it ''is'' a guideline. ] (]) 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK, but WP:V, which ''is'' a policy, says that "Further examples of self-published sources include ... the material contained within company websites." Alanscottwalker's statement is inconsistent with that. ] (]) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I understand what you are saying, but I strongly disagree that GLAAD is a self-published source. If you said it was, then reports by ''every single group'' ever could be considered self-published, which is faulty. ] (]) 16:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::WP:V also says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." Who are the independent reviewers at GLAAD? ] (]) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This is getting nowhere and we are going in circles. GLAAD itself arguably falls under ] as there are undoubtedly "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." On those grounds we can say it is a reliable source, and hence ''can'' be cited. When it ''comes to BLPs'', I understand that guidelines are stricter. In those cases, GLAAD should be cited by saying "according to ]" or something along those lines, as others have noted earlier Going back to what the OP stated at the beginning of this discussion, the following was stated before from the page, incorrectly, by Void if removed: | |||
| :::::::::<blockquote>The ] (GLAAD) stated "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people."</blockquote> | |||
| :::::::::I would say this is an appropriate citation, for , as the organization is cited, and this is stated as a viewpoint of said organization. I see no issue with that, and I'm not sure'' WHY ''people are acting like this is an issue. It is not. As @] in a follow-up edit, "BLP doesn’t apply to organizations, and GLAAD is properly attributed in text" and ] (]) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't think we're going in circles. You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again: Who are the independent reviewers at GLAAD? | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not discussing whether GLAAD is a notable organization, nor whether it's GREL. I'm discussing whether it's SPS, which is distinct from both notability and GREL. Not sure what "BLP doesn’t apply to organizations" means here, as the SPS issue is not about what is said about GLAAD (SPS can be used to make statements about organizations as long as the author is an expert in the field), but about what GLAAD said about "SEGM public members," who are living people (and per BLPSPS, SPS cannot be used to make claims about living people, so it matters whether GLAAD is or isn't SPS). ] (]) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I am not going to comment on Snokalok's statement that "BLP doesn’t apply to organizations" but will say that I'm not entirely sure how BLP or SPS applies here (as I noted earlier it seems to be primarily aimed at biographies, which again have stricter standards than other articles, as ] (cited in the original comment) is an organization, and the quote from GLAAD currently used in the article, "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people" is about the organization's members, not a specific individual. As such, considering the source is GREL and ''is cited appropriately'', I see no issue, and it falls within existing guidelines. Otherwise, I'm not going to comment on your other claims because I do not seem them as relevant ''because'' the source is cited appropriately. ] (]) 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::SEGM is an organization, but their "public members" are specific living people. The WP edit that led to this RSN discussion was the removal of a quote from this . The quote came from the last sentence of that page, and if you click on the phrase "public members" there, it links to . If you scroll down slightly, that page identifies their public members. They weren't named in the WP page, but much of that GLAAD page focuses on one of those public members, and my interpretation is that the BLP restriction on using SPS to make claims about living people applies even if they're not named. I might be wrong about that, and we can ask on the BLPN. ] (]) 18:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::In the source, that statement is cited to another, self-published activist website, that is itself already cited for other matters on the page. The GLAAD source is a summary of material from other sources already cited in the article (a Yale report, Buzzfeed, and this activist website). It is little more than aggregating material from other sources, in terms of depth and quality, and repeating it in this way creates an appearance of independent coverage that simply isn't the case. | |||
| ::::::::::Glaad says: | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq | SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people.}} | |||
| ::::::::::The original site says: | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq | '''SEGM's public members''' include key figures in the Bell v Tavistock case, and '''outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on trans people.''' }} | |||
| ::::::::::The GLAAD page simply plagiarises this and removes the "Bell v Tavistock" claim. | |||
| ::::::::::This material from the original site would not be due, because it is partisan and self-published. GLAAD repeating it in a different self-published source doesn't add anything. Also, the name is simply GLAAD now. ] (]) 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Honestly, if you changed it to Trans Safety Network instead, it could'' still'' be cited, as long it says something like: | |||
| :::::::::::<blockquote>"The Trans Safety Network stated that the organization is "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and that its public members include "outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on trans people" and key individuals in the '']'' English court case."</blockquote> | |||
| :::::::::::And then would be cited. Citing organizations is fine as long as they are attributed them appropriately. ] (]) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::This isn't relevant. We are talking about this specific source, on GLAAD's website. Not GLAAD as a whole, nor how to get in content from other sources they might cite. | |||
| ::::::::::::This page is IMO a ], and the content is merely aggregating/plagiarising content from sources already cited on the page. Regardless of whether anyone thinks GLAAD are reliable in general, ''this specific source'' is a poor source for the material added. ] (]) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===SPS section in V=== | |||
| : We really should be sharing how self-published is described in WP: V. From WP: V " Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:". Further in V "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view.". My way of paraphrasing this is if the organization is trying to get you to buy something, or believe something, the work is internally generated, and it is in line with what they want you to buy/believe, then internal review is not independent review, and is therefore self-published. This isn't just limited to individuals publishing their own web pages or blogs, it applies to organizations as well. --] (]) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, I think that makes it clear that these activist sort of organizations (both ones we like and dislike) should be viewed as self published. ] (]) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think that's clear at all. For one, while UC Berkeley library guides might be persuasive in forming our guidelines, they are ultimately not Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Additionally, the literal reading {{tq|self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives}} distinguishes the two as different classes, even if we might treat them the same way in some cases. We can, for example, adopt the idea that most random websites are GUNREL and the level of review may vary even with reputable organisations, but that is not the same as considering any biased source self-published. | |||
| :::Going back to the attribution question, I'm not really sure how we'd make their political views any more clear. As Nat Gertler puts it, it's spelt out pretty clearly already in the name. Maybe {{tq|GLAAD, a media monitoring organisation that advocates for LGBT acceptance}}? Additional things like that really seem too verbose to make a habit of doing though. ] (] • ]) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The material Kyohyi quoted appears to be part of the WP:V policy (see the note 1). That note references several external sources but the quoted text is part of WP:V. That text specifically says that SPS is more than just one person operations. ] (]) 03:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I {{em|have}} read the note. As I've said, if you do consider the quotes to be incorporated into V, then you have to contend with the fact that "A or B" implies A and B are separate classes. If instead we treat it as "these first two sentences are how we define A on Misplaced Pages, these following dotpoints are some external opinions which we find persuasive that we used to arrive at it" then, in my opinion, this has the advantage of at least being internally consistent within the space of a paragraph. It's hardly a fatal failure for the other interpretation, but it seems at least a little undesirable. | |||
| :::::Again, if we apply {{tq|lack of independent reviewers}} as the rule, we can certainly exclude some organisations. What I am not seeing is that it is {{tq|clear}} that we should exclude anything we would consider an activist organisation. I'm sure you've read the same discussion in this section that I have, Springee; please allow me a small indulgence, and entertain for a moment the possibility that they too {{em|could have}} in fact read the 372 words (including both notes) of the very section that has been under discussion for almost a day and a half now. Now, {{em|assuming}} that possibility, that our fellow editors are indeed perfectly competent to take part in this discussion: Said discussion does not seem to me like a clear endorsement of your and Kyohyi's interpretation of that same section. In fact, I would say it is rather less favourable than that. | |||
| :::::What is clear is that something needs to change, because it is no good to have policies and guidelines if they don't properly polis or guide. Whether that is inserting some explicit comment in ]*, as had been done for ''Science Based Medicine'' and, apparently, ''Climate Feedback'' and ''Quackwatch'' as well, or whether we want to make some broader change modifying the phrasing of ], or maybe adding a section, either specifically on think tanks and advocacy organisations, or more broadly. Or some combination of more than one of the previous options. | |||
| :::::<small>* before anyone says anything, I am {{em|also}} aware that GLAAD is not currently listed on RSP. That's {{em|not my point}}.</small> ] (] • ]) 10:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::RSP is supposed to be a listing of sources that get regular discussions, and a summation of those discussions. It's not policy, and at best it could be documentation of consensus. The problem is that when we are dealing with sources that have strong beliefs tied to them people will engage in motivated reasoning as to why their preferred source is good, while an opposite view source is bad. Though we should be trying to stay ] in our source analysis, editors are human, and suffer from this very human flaw. Personally I would prefer it if RSP documented what type of source things are, and it's editorial structure instead of wikipedians opinions on a source, but that's a different discussion. --] (]) 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tqbm|RSP is supposed to be a listing of sources that get regular discussions}} | |||
| :::::::I believe I've pointed to a few times this was discussed for SPLC. To be completely clear: My suggestion, if we are to add something to RSP, would be to add SPS status to SPLC's entry. I am aware of the fact that GLAAD does not have an entry, and will hopefully not need one. May this discussion never come up again. Noting SPS status is done for other RSP entries as well, not many of them but clearly people do add them when it becomes a issue. Additionally, "not SPS" is not the same as good, and "SPS" is not the same as bad. There are clearly instances where Barrett on ''Quackwatch'', for example, would be a better source than a peer reviewed journal article (namely, when that journal article is low quality fringe bs) even though Barrett would be a SPS by consensus, and the journal article not. | |||
| :::::::{{tqbm|type of source things are, and it's editorial structure}} | |||
| :::::::... Is "self published" not a type of source related to editorial structure? ] (] • ]) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: My point is that I think RSP entries should focus more on is it a print magazine, online magazine, published blog, academic journal, (how long has the journal been in publication), are the writers experts in their field, does the publication have a panel of editors, or just one person doing the whole thing, is the publication related to some other parent organization, does it have editorial independence from that other organization. Stuff to help determine ]. --] (]) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|I think that makes it clear that these activist sort of organizations (both ones we like and dislike) should be viewed as self published}} - it seems like you're arguing that ] sources are automatically self-published. Would this apply to activist ''press'', then? That is to say, magazines and the like which overtly support a particular point of view, like (to choose a random example) ]? Reason very clearly fits the description of being {{tq|published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or '''believe a point of view'''}}, since it is published by the ], a think-tank committed to advancing {{tq|"the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies"}}; its purpose as a publication is to get people to believe that point of view, so by your logic it is self-published. Or if you still feel it isn't, then what precisely is the dividing line that makes GLAAD different? It seems like, in particular, your argument would apply to anything published by a think-tank (perhaps with some highly-specific exceptions for things with incredibly unusually good reputations, or for the rare think-tanks that aren't trying to advance a point of view) which confuses me because my vague recollection is that you've disagreed with that in the past. --] (]) 13:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be clear, {{tq|published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view}} is a quote from UC Berkeley, not a quote from the SPS policy. ] (]) 16:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, but it seems to be one a few people are saying we should use as a standard for declaring certain biased sources ]es; I'm pointing out the implications that would have. If anything published by an "activist organization" is considered self-published, as suggested above, then there's a bunch of things we currently consider reliable that would have to be re-evaluated due to eg. being published by think-tanks and the like. And we'd probably also have to consider the wording of ]. --] (]) 19:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's not anything published by an "activist organization". It's content produced, and published by an activist organization, while also related to their realm of activism. The all in one house relationship coupled with advocacy creates a conflict of interest on the review process. --] (]) 19:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Right, but that describes a lot of sources we consider reliable currently; many publishers are mission-driven and produce things, in-house, that align with their mission and which focus on things related to that mission. I'm not averse to changing policy to treat them as self-published (which would functionally make most think-tanks devoted to advocacy, and anything they publish in-house, unusable for anything related to their mission, outside of a few narrow exceptions), but we'd have to do so to a lot of sources beyond just GLAAD. To get back to my original point - would you say that anything ] publishes that touches on {{tq|"the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies"}} (which is basically everything they publish, that being their purpose) falls under ]? It's a magazine produced and published in-house by a think-tank, the ], devoted to activism on those points. Normally, we say that such ] sources are still usable, even for BLP purposes, as long as they are otherwise a ] - that is to say, as long as they can credibly claim editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, we don't just say "well yeah but since the editorial controls are being done by ''activists'', it's conflicted and therefore worthless." If we're going to reconsider that, we have a ''lot'' of other sources to go over. GLAAD lists authors and researchers for the pieces it publishes, which are distinct from GLAAD itself as an organization; if you don't feel that that's sufficient, what ''is'' the dividing line? --] (]) 04:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't disagree that the line becomes fuzzy when we're dealing with what would be called advocacy journalism. And the best response I can say is can we determine if they have an independent editorial board which isn't beholden to the mission of the parent company. Do they publish content that is independent of the mission? That is evidence of an independent editorial board. Do they publish content that would be against the mission? That would be strong evidence. We can argue whether or not a source is more advocacy or more journalism, and exactly where that line is. But there are a number of sources which don't even present themselves as journalism and exist only as advocacy. To make a comparison, Reason would be more akin to Pink News, than either of them would be to GLAAD. --] (]) 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq | that describes a lot of sources we consider reliable currently}} | |||
| ::::::::You and others are confusing self-published with unreliable. These are orthogonal concerns. Please read ] which says: | |||
| ::::::::{{tq | self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". }} | |||
| ::::::::Please try and separate these two things. GLAAD can be reliable generally and this specific material can be self-published at the same time. The only serious caveat with it being self-published is that you shouldn't use it for BLP claims. Given that the GLAADAP is nothing but BLP claims, that probably means it shouldn't be used, but most of the rest of GLAAD's output is absolutely fine. | |||
| ::::::::{{tq | GLAAD lists authors and researchers for the pieces it publishes, which are distinct from GLAAD itself}} | |||
| ::::::::Self-published is not necessarily a blanket statement for everything GLAAD produces in all situations. In this specific case, this is content produced in-house and posted on their website with no identifiable author, no external publishing arrangement etc. It is textbook self-published material. | |||
| ::::::::{{tq | what is the dividing line}} | |||
| ::::::::If it was written and published by the same entity - regardless of the size of that entity - it is self-published, unless it falls under one of the exceptions eg. for legacy media/news organisations at ]. ] (]) 09:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::SPS and RS are distinct features. A source can be any of the four: SPS & RS, SPS & non-RS, non-SPS & RS, non-SPS & non-RS. Saying that think-tank's website is SPS doesn't mean that you have to reevaluate whether they're RS. The issue here is the BLPSPS restriction, because the WP text in question is about public members of SEGM, and they're living persons who are identifiable. ] (]) 00:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, this mostly is untrue. Reread ]; it is largely a category that declares things in it to be non-RSes. The only exceptions are for self-published expert sources {{tq|when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}} and for ]. The core definition of a SPS is that they lack what we would consider valid or functional editorial controls, which normally bars them from being a RS. --] (]) 04:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, what I wrote is true. I didn't claim that all four categories (SPS & RS, SPS & non-RS, non-SPS & RS, non-SPS & non-RS) have the same size. I'm pointing out that none of those four categories is empty, and therefore the features of being self-published and being reliable are distinct. You just pointed out the two things that fall in the first category. If a think tank has already been identified as a reliable source, that's presumably because the authors have expertise in their field, so if it's a SPS, it falls in the subject-matter expert exception. Can you name a think tank that's a reliable source but where the authors are ''not'' subject-matter experts? ] (]) 15:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What this makes clear is that footnote 1 at ] is badly written in that it conflates two different things. By comparison, the sources it quotes (in the same footnote) do a good job distinguishing those two things: {{tq|The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published '''or''' published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view."}} (my emphasis); {{tq|The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."}} The problem with coca-cola.com is that the only content on there ''is about the product sold by the publisher'', and everyone involved in publishing it has an interest in that product selling well; this is a good reason to not use coca-cola.com as a source, but it has nothing to do with the concept of self-publishing, and is not analogous in any way to material published by GLAAD. | |||
| ::(Personally I do not consider it shocking that Misplaced Pages policies are not always carefully or thoughtfully written: they're produced by the same process that Misplaced Pages is, but without recourse to reliable sources, and with much less scrutiny than any high-profile article.) ] (]) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] says {{tq | Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, '''unless written or published by the subject of the article'''.}} | |||
| :The GLAAD website is a ] per ]. ] (]) 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is a terrible misreading and I'm unsure why you are arguing this point. I would not say GLAAD sources are self-published. <s>Also ] *only* applies to biographies, NOT to other articles, let's be clear.</s> It is my understanding that self-published sources, can generally, be used, as long it is very minimally. Even so, in terms of GLAAD, it clearly is ''not'' a self-published source. Also, as noted above, this claim comes from people thinking "This article is written by GLAAD and published by GLAAD, so it's self published", but "GLAAD isn't the author - an individual at GLAAD is the author." Let's be absolutely clear here. GLAAD reports are NOT the same as some random social media post. There is no equivalence. ] (]) 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Update: I revise what I said above: ], ''generally'' applies to biographies, not to other articles, especially if biographies of living persons are not cited in said articles.--] (]) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq | I'm unsure why you are arguing this point}} | |||
| :::Because you keep saying its a misreading without explaining how, other than you disagree, seemingly quite strongly. If your argument is that ] is wrong, well that seems quite a fundamental essay to be wrong seeing as it is directly linked from one of the most basic policies. | |||
| :::{{tq | WP:BLPSPS *only* applies to biographies}} | |||
| :::My understanding is ] concerns apply to any BLP claim, even talk pages. | |||
| :::{{tq | NOT the same as some random social media post}} | |||
| :::That isn't the issue. The issue is: are they self-published? Are they in any way equivalent to the editorial/publishing/oversight process of an academic journal, a newspaper, or a book publisher? By my reading, SPS is not about quality or size of entity, it is about independence/oversight of author from publisher. ] (]) 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said elsewhere, ] is not policy and it never has been. Additionally, I defer to others in noting on the reliability of GLAAD. If it IS cited in a biography, then those guidelines applied to biographies apply, which are stricter than on other pages. Additionally, SPS, if we are to use it, only seems to be applied to biographies, from my reading of the essay. ] (]) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|Also WP:BLPSPS *only* applies to biographies, NOT to other articles}} is false. WP:BLP is quite clear that "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." ] (]) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmm, ok. In any case, I revise what I said earlier to say it ''primarily'' applies to biographies. And if a page lists people that do NOT have biographies (and there are many on this website), then it likely wouldn't apply. ] (]) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, it very clearly applies to "any living person" regardless of whether they have an article. ] (]) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok, you can go on. In any case, BLPs clearly have stricter standards for sources than other pages. ] (]) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's statements about living persons that have stricter standards for sources, regardless of where those statements about living persons appear on WP. It's not that the standards for BLP articles are stricter; it's that there are more statements made about living persons in BLP articles. ] (]) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ok. I would say "there are more statements made about living persons in BLP articles" isn't ''always'' true because some BLPs are embarrassingly short (i.e. they are stubs). Luckily, there are some users who work to expand those stubs into better, more through articles! ] (]) 18:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a self-published source, and nor are similar organisations. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===UN resources etc=== | |||
| ::By that logic, UN resources published on UN.org are self published, as are most advocacy groups, think tanks, and NGOs. | |||
| ::Since none of the work goes through another publisher, they'd be SPS. ] (]) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I think that is true, that is exactly how I read things, ie, you probably shouldn't use self-published material directly from thinktanks and advocacy groups for BLP claims. It should be pretty obvious why. If it is picked up and covered in secondary sources, with editorial oversight and a corrections policy, use those. ] (]) 16:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's a troubling opinion. UN organs have much more reliability than NGOs, as there is often more expertise, especially if its a report, like a court order from the ICJ for instance. ] (]) 17:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, TBF, I think the UN is a bit different, as it has and a publication board, so it arguably depends what sort of document you mean. But even so I don't know where this would be relevant, ie where something like a UN press release would be used for a third party BLP claim, for which no secondary source exists. This is all in the weeds though, the point is that whatever convoluted process we might agree the UN has, and whether that isn't an SPS, has no bearing on GLAAD's website. ] (]) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok. In any case looking at the content removed as noted in the beginning of the discussion, I do believe it was attributed appropriately and agree with the editors who restored your removal. Otherwise, I'll let other users speak to this topic as I've already said enough here. ] (]) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Specific reports from GLAAD, UN, and other advocacy groups such as SPLC often have author lists. I pointed out this example to suggest that by ], since the publisher is the organization, and the author is not the whole organization, reports should not generally be considered ]. | |||
| ::::In particular, if the publishers are biased, we can use ] voice and relevant guidelines to state what's happening. But we should not assume all publishers are the same, and that if the publisher is an overarching organization, of which the author is part of, it isn't quite SPS. '''Simply dismissing all NGOs, advocacy groups such as GLAAD, ADL, SPLC, and the UN as ] akin to some random guys' random blog is ludicrous.''' ] (]) 18:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I completely agree. This is the issue I have with the arguments primarily by Void if Removed and FactOrOpinion in this discussion. ] (]) 18:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Possible other counter-examples I'd argue that appear as ] but actually are not | |||
| :::::* NYTimes editorials where the author byline is NYTimes editorial board. Technically at first glance, looks like author and publisher are both nytimes. Should be used as ], but not under ]. | |||
| :::::* Articles in medical journals that have the byline as the medical journal. Many are also editorials, but doesn't mean we can't use them. | |||
| :::::It depends on context and who the publisher is ofc. If John Doe creates John Doe Inc., it probably is a SPS. ] (]) 18:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Not all self-published sources are created equal, and such sources which are considered experts in their field are perfectly usable in articles of their expertise. The only time self-published sources are categorically not used is on BLP content. Which has the exception of a source talking about itself. --] (]) 18:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::These are all exceptions in ], I don't see why you bring this up. | |||
| ::::::And saying that because something is ] that means it is {{tq | akin to some random guy's random blog}} is a straw man. ] (]) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::From ]: {{tq|Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations),}} | |||
| :::::::I'd argue that GLAAD, UN, and think tanks etc. are traditional publishers in that they publish reports regularly and have been sponsoring researchers for a long while. I bring up the supposed strawman argument to point out the issues with throwing away reputable organizations based on a faulty definition. ] (]) 18:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You could argue that, I suppose. But wouldn't that make every organization with some sort of web page a traditional publisher? They all regularly publish some sort of report on their ongoings. Or would a traditional publisher be an organization whose purpose is to accepts or rejects written material from independent authors. In which case, GLAAD, UN, and think tanks are not traditional publishers as they don't usually publish independent content. --] (]) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You are confusing independent content with biased content. | |||
| :::::::::Bias is totally allowed per ] as long as we attribute as per ]. ] (]) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, I'm saying that traditional publishers are in the business of publishing independent content, as in content they don't create in house. These orgs are not in that business, which is why they aren't traditional publishers. Independent content is different from biased content. --] (]) 19:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::News organisations produce most of their content in house though, and the bit they don't (e.g. from wire services) are usually not subject to their own editing. ] (] • ]) 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::*I'm unclear what you mean by "in-house" in this context; most news organizations publish things in-house, and generally speaking stuff that ''isn't'' created in-house wouldn't even be considered part of their output for ] purposes (ie. if they're just reposting stuff like press releases or news feeds from elsewhere with no edits, the reliability comes from the original source, if it exists at all.) But GLAAD does list authors in the acknowledgements section for papers it produces, who are generally not part of GLAAD itself; it is not self-published in the sense of these authors just throwing whatever they want out into the world with no editorial controls ''at all''. Is your assertion that GLAAD's fact-checking and editorial controls do not count at all (as opposed to merely rendering it ]) because the group itself is an advocacy org? --] (]) 04:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: In house means as directed by the mission of the organization. In essence does the writing/editing staff have editorial independence, or are they driven by the mission of the organization. We assume this is the case for journalism, for advocacy journalism it gets fuzzy, and for advocacy there is no reason to believe they have editorial independence. --] (]) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That's certainly an... {{em|interesting}} definition of in house. ] (] • ]) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I will add as well - the GLAAD source simply repeats information from sources ''already cited on the page''. Irrespective of reliability, independence, or publishing status, citing it in this specific case adds absolutely nothing. ] (]) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Eh, I think it does add ''something'', since GLAAD is a well-known organization and their viewpoint on this is worth noting. ] (]) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If their viewpoint is "Buzzfeed said X", and we're already citing Buzzfeed, this isn't adding anything. ] (]) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok. Whether GLAAD or the Trans Safety Network should be included (I would vote for the latter in this case since it does provide a bit more detail) , can be decided through a talk page discussion if necessary. I don't think the GLAAD page is necessarily bad (the sources generally seem fine and the Buzzfeed article seems to fall under ]), but the Trans Safety Network article is better in terms of the sources cited. That's just my view. ] (]) 18:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not a concern for RSN either way. The point of this noticeboard is to decide if GLAAD is a reliable source (and it is, and it's not an SPS), not whether or not to use it on any given page. ] (]) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The specific source cited (the GLAAD Accountability Project pages) simply seem to be taking/aggregating content from other sources, about named living subjects, and collating them - and they do appear to be self-published, like any corporate website. I have a lot more faith in GLAAD's longer-form subject matter reports being reliable, than this sort of content aggregation, where reliability seems to depend on the sources actually being used. And since these specific pages are self-published, none of these should be used on any BLP. ] (]) 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, your claim is the GLADD page is republishing, then it is even more silly to talk about self-publishing. ] (]) 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Right. As I said in my above comment, I think the GLAAD page is fine as bringing together / summarizing multiple sources... which isn't a secondary source supposed to do? And as such, it isn't a SPS... ] (]) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A secondary source can still be self-published. | |||
| ::::::Seriously, this is all in ]: {{tq | Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources.}} ] (]) 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm at a loss why you think a source copying content from other sources can't be self-published, let alone to call that {{tq | silly}}? ] (]) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Because it is silly. A republishes publishes writing from elsewhere, it is independent and it can't possibly be self publisher of that material. ] (]) 20:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::A paid employee copying content from other websites and putting it in pages on a company website is not "independent publishing". Your suggestion means every hack plagiarist is a publisher, which really would be silly. Rather, this is exactly the sort of unaccountable practice lacking in independent editorial oversight that is why we do not trust ] with ] claims. ] (]) 20:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That is still silly. Self-published is not another word, for you don't like it When the Seattle Times republishes a wire service, it is silly to say it is a self publisher. ] (]) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Republication from a traditional publisher (e.g., a wire service) wouldn't necessarily invalidate the original publication, but what if it's a copy of a press release? Not a gently edited press release, but just "Hey, if we fill our ordinary daily newspaper's website with commercially distributed press releases, we'll get more traffic, so auto-post them all" re-publication. Would you call that press release non-self-published now? ] (]) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tqbm|I have a lot more faith in GLAAD's longer-form subject matter reports being reliable, than this sort of content aggregation,}} | |||
| ::::See, if the argument originally made was that {{em|some specific parts of GLAAD's website}} might be less reliable or subject to whatever review process they have, that would be a lot easier an argument to make. That's a claim that I personally wouldn't reject out of hand on my end. I'll take a look at any evidence produced to this effect, but I don't believe it would be appropriate to consider any of these organisations (UN, think tanks, advocacy orgs) SPS as a whole, even if some of them might be unreliable in other ways. ] (] • ]) 02:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Though I do see the points from YFNS below, which I would consider evidence {{em|against}} the idea that the accountability project is self-published. ] (] • ]) 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sometimes everything an entity publishes is SP, sometimes everything it publishes is non-SP, and sometimes its publications are a mixture of SP and non-SP (e.g., it publishes both an edited annual report and a non-edited podcast). Ditto for whether its publications are RS: it might be all, none, or a mixture. In discussions, I sometimes lose track of that third possibility (mea culpa), and I end up talking about the entity as a whole rather than focusing a specific publication. The question here is whether this specific webpage is SPS, not whether GLAAD as a whole is SPS. There is no author identified for this webpage, and ultimately, I'm not sure how to determine whether it was reviewed by an independent (non-COI) reviewer. I assume that their more significant publications undergo that sort of review. ] (]) 16:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is exactly my point upthread. SPS is not a blanket status that applies to an entity as a whole, and many sources are mixed. Past discussions on ] ]. | |||
| ::::::As stated in the comment you're replying to: {{tq | if the argument originally made was that some specific parts of GLAAD's website might be less reliable}} | |||
| ::::::That ''was'' the argument originally made, about a specific source (ie, a page on GLAAD's accountability project website, and not one of their longer reports). Whether that applies to other sorts of material published by GLAAD is a different question. ] (]) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, I took part in that WP:V discussion. I haven't been editing as much since then, so I've forgotten some of the things that I'd understood at the time, or at least I held them more at the front of my mind then than I do now, which is likely why I fell into discussing whether GLAAD is a SPS rather than whether that webpage is a SPS. ] (]) 19:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right. And I would say it clearly IS a reliable source. ] (]) 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd say there's a difference in reliability between GLAAD's longer form reports, and the accountability project pages on their website, which consist largely of material collated (and in some cases plagiarised) from other sources, as a dossier of claims about living people. This is material collected and published by GLAAD employees on their own website. It ticks every box for a ], there's no information about or evidence of independence or oversight, I don't see how you can argue otherwise? From ] | |||
| :::{{tq | If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.}} | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::{{tq | One characteristic of self-published material is lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those who are not hired and fired by the author, and whose employment does not depend upon agreeing with the author).}} | |||
| :::IMO GLAAD's content generally is reliable - especially their more official reports - though perhaps requiring attribution as a biased source, but the accountability project pages are clearly self-published, and as such they are not suitable for use in BLPs. Given the fact that some of the material seems just lifted from other sources, I'm not even sure these pages should be used with attribution. ] (]) 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :GLAAD is an advocacy org recognized for their efforts. As such they should be treated as generally reliable though any claims made from a GLAAD source should include in text attribution, as we would for SPLC and similar focused advocacy groups.<span id="Masem:1730322038557:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===The Hill article on Accountability Project=== | |||
| :For the record for all, The Hill published an article on the GLAAD Accountability Project which says: | |||
| :* {{tq|Now, the media watchdog is expanding the project to hold more than 200 politicians, commentators, organization heads, journalists and other public figures accountable. }} | |||
| :* {{tq|The archive was published before GLAAD could finish a final internal review last month and was immediately noticed online. }} | |||
| :* {{tq|After criticism over revisions, which Ellis said were ongoing at the time, they did take the project down, saying, “no entries are being removed from the project, but additional profiles will be added and an official launch will happen soon.”}} | |||
| :* {{tq|Now the project is up — officially — and GLAAD is prepared for more pushback. But, the group is also open to conversation “for real change” with Singal and others on the list, which Ellis said is intended to be a “living breathing document that will evolve.” “We live in a time where what you say is documented, and that’s all this is, is a documentation,” she said}} | |||
| :* {{tq|GLAAD, a nongovernmental media watchdog, plans to maintain the archive, adding and updating profiles as necessary, as a repository for journalists and other members of the media to consult in their research.}} | |||
| :Some key highlights: It's considered a reliable nongovernmental media watchdog, their archive consists of documenting factual statements and quotes, and what they publish there is subject to internal review - so it is not self-published as the authors are subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking and can't just say whatever they want. ] (]) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing in that suggests it is considered a "reliable, nongovernmental media watchdog" nor that their records are anymore factual than any other group that collects quotes they feel indicate anti- or pro- something. That isn't to say they are always wrong or right. Instead, they are clearly an activist organization and per WP:V they would fall into the group identified by WP:V as self published. (<small>{{tq|Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:}}</small> Advocacy groups shouldn't be treated as outright reliable or DUE for inclusion and this is especially true if they are politically opposed to the group in question. ] (]) 00:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've mentioned this on the talk page as well, but I would consider treatment in line with ] to be appropriate for advocacy organisations in general, but I find the argument that they are entirely self published to be bizarre, and still do. DUE is something we need to consider for everything, nothing is treated as automatically reliable (even GENREL sources) or DUE, but arguing it should be excluded due to being self published is a stretch. ] (] • ]) 02:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm going to repeat my question above and ask whether this ought to be a general rule for anything published by a think-tank devoted to advocacy, because it seems to me to be inconsistent with your past positions. Do you concede that ] is likewise self-published, and should likewise not be used in situations where it is ideologically opposed to whoever it is describing? It is published by a think-tank with a stated aim of advocacy, which means that your reasoning (regarding its reviewers lacking independence due to a conflict of interest) seems to apply there as well. I'm not necessarily ''opposed'' to being stricter about prohibiting the use of sources published by think-tanks and other sources of advocacy, but we'd have to be even-handed if we're making that a strict rule, since it changes a lot of how we've thought about ]; and that would start by opening a discussion about sources like Reason, which obviously fail to clear the bar you're arguing here. And if ''not'', then what is the precise difference - what would GLAAD have to do differently for you to consider it to be closer to Reason? Identifying that dividing line would be helpful in terms of both turning this into a workable general principle, and indicating more precisely what sorts of things people who believe GLAAD is reliable would have to produce in order to convince you. --] (]) 04:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:If you read ] the answer is in there. It says the following are not self-published: | |||
| ::*:{{tq | '''The contents of magazines '''and newspapers, including editorials and op-ed pieces in newspapers (including online-only content of widely-circulated magazines and newspapers)}} | |||
| ::*:But it also says: | |||
| ::*:{{tq | Conversely, properly published sources are not always "good" or "reliable" or "usable", either. Being properly published does not guarantee that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, or subject to editorial control. '''Properly published sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-serving'''.}} | |||
| ::*:To me, Reason looks like it isn't a self-published source (the magazine predates the foundation for starters), though it is very clearly not ''independent'', and likely biased and self-serving too (as an ideological mouthpiece for a libertarian thinktank), and as such any argument against inclusion would be different. So while an SPS like the GLAADAP website more straightforwardly shouldn't be used for a BLP claim, an article in Reason might require attribution even on non-BLP topics because of the non-independence aspect, and probably wouldn't be DUE for a contentious BLP claim that wasn't also in other, independent sources. IMHO. ] (]) 09:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So, just to be clear - you say that the issue is whether the {{tq|author and the publisher are the same}}. Reason's authors obviously ''work'' for reason (as do most reporters), so you can't mean that something is self-published if its authors work for the publisher. Therefore, I take it that your position is that if something has a listed author, it is not a ] under the interpretation you're pushing for. That is to say, if I could point to where GLAAD lists individual authors for papers on its site, you would agree that they are not self-published? Or is your argument that the description of a "magazine" is paramount; papers do not qualify, but if GLAAD were to publish them as a magazine, using the same authors, you would consider them to be independent? More specifically, I guess I'm asking - what do you feel GLAAD would have to do, that it isn't doing currently, to avoid falling under self-published by your definition? --] (]) 14:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq | what do you feel GLAAD would have to do, that it isn't doing currently}} | |||
| ::::::IMO the content they create would need to be overseen and published by an independent third party with its own editorial process which GLAAD have no direct control over. | |||
| ::::::This is what the role of a publisher is, be it in books or academia. News organisations are a special case - but GLAAD isn't a news org, it is an advocacy group. | |||
| ::::::Something like Reason seems to be a bit of a hard case, and no doubt sometimes such relationships are a sham with no actual separation, but thankfully that isn't the sort of hard case we have to decide here, since we aren't talking about Reason, or a magazine, or a sham publishing front, or the meaning of SPS in general for all time, or even GLAAD's long-form reports, but in fact a specific section of GLAAD's website, which they have total direct control over and which is written by their employees in service of GLAAD's advocacy aims, and is quite clearly self-published, like the vast majority of such websites. ] (]) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqbm|the magazine predates the foundation for starters}} | |||
| :::::Are we seriously going to argue that a guy making photocopies on the university photocopier before the rights were acquired by a bunch of people who liked it that a few years later made a foundation, the part {{em|before}} the making of the foundation is the evidence that it isn't self published? The definition of self-published put forth as part of this discussion seems extremely unconventional, and I do not believe it reasonable to use it unless a widely-advertised RFC explicitly incorporates it in to V. ] (] • ]) 03:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq | it is not self-published as the authors are subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking and can't just say whatever they want}} | |||
| ::From ] a self-published source can still have {{tq | a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something}}. | |||
| ::All that matters is if the authors and the publisher are the same it is self-published - and here, the authors and publisher are the same. And to be absolutely clear that alone isn't to knock GLAAD since {{tq | A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.}}. That might well apply, though didn't seem to weed out plagiarism in this instance. But regardless of overall quality of this resource or GLAAD more generally, and usability as a source in all sorts of ways, the one thing you shouldn't do with an SPS is make BLP claims, and that is precisely what the accountability project is - a self-published collection of claims about living people. ] (]) 08:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this is true the exception for books, magazines, and news organisations is patently flawed. Unless we are to believe the incredibly naive idea that none of these are published to sway opinion in anyway. USESPS should be replaced with an essay that actual documents community behaviour. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Policy is meant to document. The community accepts the use of similar sources in BLPs, and are equally against using self-published sources in BLPs, so these are not seen as self-published and policy should reflect that. As I suggested before this is probably a discussion to be had at ] or the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq | USESPS should be replaced }} | |||
| :::::Which is the crux of it - we have a core policy, which specifically links to an explanatory essay, and by that essay, the page at issue is clearly a ]. The response of some editors is to argue that no-one pays attention to this and the explanation should be changed to reflect it. | |||
| :::::Either the explanation of a core policy is fundamentally wrong and everyone rightly ignores it, or it is right and editors are getting away with ignoring it. | |||
| :::::I agree this goes beyond RSN. ] (]) 13:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Essays are not policy, they don't have consensus, and they do not need to be interpreted or over-interpreted poorly either. Your assumptions about GLADD publishing simply don't seem well grounded.] (]) 14:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed that this is a discussion that would be better to have at WP:V or the village pump. I'd keep in mind that it's possible for diverse organizations, including GLAAD, to publish some content that's SPS and other content that's not SPS, in which case some of the organization's publications might be used for BLPs while others can't be. That is, the simple existence of citations from similar organizations on BLP articles doesn't imply that all of their (or GLAAD's) publications are non-SPS. The question here is whether this specific GLAAD Accountability Project page is/isn't SPS. The contents of a GAP page looks like the accumulation of info added over time. Does every new bit of info get independent editorial oversight before it's added? I don't know. ] (]) 23:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is the first time in my life I've heard that a self published source can have an independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. Since ] added independent to that dot point perhaps they would care to clarify their thinking on the subject? ] (] • ]) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Alpha3031}}, I'm not sure what I said that you're referring to. Could you quote it? WP:V says that "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content," and I'm definitely not saying {{tq|that a self published source can have an independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes}}. If those processes are there, it's not a SPS. ] (]) 16:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for clarifying, I expect that it was added in error then. I know it was 4 years ago, so it would be difficult to reconstruct exactly what the people involved thought of it (given I am neither psychic nor in possession of a time machine), but I believe the most likely scenario would be that it was added in error as part of a series of larger edits (See ]) and the 70 watchers of that page did not find the difference significant. Therefore, I'd agree that there's no evidence that specific passage of the essay has the consensus of the community. ] (] • ]) 01:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, I had no idea that you were referring to something on a different page that I added 4 years ago. Looking it at it now, I'm guessing (totally a guess, as I don't remember) that I added "independent" because those bullet points were supposed to summarize content from WP:RS, where there's a statement about sources that "may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review" and thus not be reliable. The problem might have been that I removed "except for the second one" from "A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one" (because the wording of the second bullet point changed), but I failed to add "except for the last one" after I modified that last one by adding "independent." Or perhaps I should have questioned that last bullet point on the talk page, since WP:RS says that a self-published expert source might be a RS even if there's no outside editing or peer review. Either way, I definitely made a mistake. In an overly-long comment on the talk page, I'd tried to encourage more experienced editors to check my edits, as I wasn't (and am still not) that experienced an editor. No one noticed all this time. Hmph. Thanks for pointing that out. ] (]) 03:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion now on WT:V about type in general=== | |||
| Hi all, figured I'd also let everyone still here that isn't watching WT:V know that there is now also a section there, ] so that anyone who wants to continue to add to the discussion on SPS in general can add their input there instead. ] (] • ]) 13:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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? | |||
| == Is https://www.newageislam.com/ an RS for ] == | |||
| Basically, I would like you to review the following: | |||
| ] ] 10:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)? | |||
| 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> | |||
| :Is there some context to the question? It's contributors include some notable Islamic scholars and it has use by others, but is obviously slanted in a particular way. So the context of how it's used would be important. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:17, 30 October 2024 (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> | |||
| ::It's used to back "In terms of jurisprudence, the Deobandis uphold the doctrine of taqlid (conformity to a school of thought) and adhere to the Hanafi school. Founders of the Deobandi school Nanautavi and Gangohi drew inspiration from the religious and political doctrines of the South Asian Islamic scholar, Salafi-oriented theologian and Sufi Ismail Dehlawi (26 April, 1779 – 6 May, 1831)." ] ] 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 3) Are exceptions for X posts allowed for reputable journalists and official verified company accounts to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages? | |||
| :::That's a lot to go through. But as a starting point the article is actually a repost from Eurasia Review were its clearly marked as an Op Ed. I can't find much on the author, but it's a not uncommon name and the only info to go on is that he's a freelancer. | |||
| :::Having gone through the rest of the article the answer in context is a clear 'No'. It could be a quite marginal source for Shah Ismail Dehlawi but much better ones are surely available, it doesn't mention the Deobandi movement or any of the details the reference is connected to. I think maybe it was added as additional reading on who ] was, but that can be found in the article about him. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Is this ] or ]? == | |||
| :If it's just a matter of one or two days, just wait for the official announcement.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Sometimes text books can be considered ]. However, is authored by ], a genocide scholar? Would this be considered a secondary source? | |||
| == RfC: TheGamer == | |||
| For example, {{tq2|Examples of Secondary Sources:<br/>Textbooks, edited works, books and articles that interpret or review research works, histories, biographies, literary criticism and interpretation, reviews of law and legislation, political analyses and commentaries.}} ] (]) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (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? | |||
| :I'd say that it's a pretty good tertiary and depending on what it was being used to support, secondary as well. ] (]) 15:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's being used to support methods for ] in Americas. I believe the author, ], would be considered a subject matter expert. ] (]) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no dispute about the general reliability of the source. The only dispute is about whether a specific claim in the book is a minority one among scholars in the relevant fields, and whether it is wp:due for inclusion in the article... The book is several hundred pages long, so just being mentioned in the book does not make it wp:due. (] · ]) ''']''' 02:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], when a typical source says that textbooks are tertiary, they're generally talking about textbooks for high schools or early university. A grad school textbook is not usually a tertiary source. | |||
| :More importantly, whether we'd classify it as secondary or tertiary makes no difference to the question about whether editors can/should use it, so this is kind of an irrelevant question. ] (]) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Does it matter? I am legitimately curious about the wikipedia policy distinction for secondary vs tertiary sourcing. i thought we treated both equally. ] (]) 01:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In theory, we would prefer that an article was ''mostly'' from secondary sources (and therefore that more of an article comes from secondary sources than either primary or tertiary sources). We also suggest looking at tertiary sources in particular if there is a dispute over ]. This is the "check another encyclopedia" approach to balancing viewpoints in an article: If another general encyclopedia has an article on the same subject, and they mention ____, then Misplaced Pages should, too, and if they don't, then Misplaced Pages probably shouldn't, either. ] (]) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| == Haitian Report - blacklist == | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| ]</s> | |||
| Ever since the ], I've repeatedly seen multiple people try to add the website haitianreport.com as a citation (specifically ). Yes, it's a real-live ] in the wild, folks. It's a website with 11 total posts, created to host that very article about eating cats, dated to 2019. There is almost no other content, but it looks like a real news site so it tricked a bunch of far-right outlets, e.g. ] running a with the headline "‘Haitian Report’ Publication Confirms Disturbing Practice of Cat Consumption Among Haitians: ‘Cat Meat is a Delicacy that Many… Can’t Resist’". Looks like the ] , too. Anyway, it's garbage website that new accounts keep adding (like over at ), so it seems like a good candidate for a blacklist. Do we need a formal RfC? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's obvious nonsense. The 'reports' are all by the same person, the images including the one of the author are AI generated, and the comments section of that article gives the distinct impression of trolling. I don't think blacklisting requires an RFC, I believe they just want it to have had a high profile discussion somewhere. | |||
| * '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If this keeps getting added in a disruptive way I wouldn't oppose blacklisting it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:39, 30 October 2024 (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) | |||
| ::Honestly I'm surprised they were able to get an AI generated image back in 2021. The only model back then would have been DALL-E, wouldn't it? Would support blacklisting as well. ] (] • ]) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Th images may have been replaced overtime. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpq|It's a website with 11 total posts...}} That is interesting as Speaking of snapshots, before it was at some point. Support adding to the blocklist if it continues to be a problem. --] (]) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I support adding it to the spam blacklist with no RfC or ] entry. The site promotes exactly one conspiracy theory that will be irrelevant in 4 days when the ] occurs. A 30-day RfC would be a waste of time when we all know the result and because the site will not matter after November 5th. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation== | |||
| Ok. See ]. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs. | |||
| == Check Your Fact == | |||
| 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 | |||
| ] (CYF) is a "for-profit subsidiary" of '']'', the latter being ]. This fact-checking website was briefly ], where there appears to be lack of consensus over it's reliability. | |||
| 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/ | |||
| As requested by ], here is an example of CYF as a source being removed from an article based exclusively on the unreliability of ] (). This is where the issue lies: The RfC failed to question CYF; from searching through the discussion, no-one argued that it was unreliable. I otherwise only found one noticeboard discussion (post-RFC) referenced above that was inconclusive. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Currently the CYF url is categorised as deprecated based on ], as this was added by ] in February 2024 () based on ] at RSP (rather than RSN notably). So is it correct that Check Your Fact is deprecated, because of the 2019 RfC? Ie was the RfC about ''The Daily Caller'' (the website), or the entity The Daily Caller, Inc. that owns Check Your Fact? | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote> | |||
| To me it looks like it was specifically about the website, hence there was no discussion over it's subsidiaries. Overall it seems like incorrect "book keeping" to include this url as deprecated when it wasn't discussed here, but maybe I'm mistaken or misunderstood something? | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote> | |||
| And finally the usual question: Should Check Your Fact be considered generally reliable source for use in articles? | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{small|What this discussion isn't, for those quick to jump to conclusions or misinterpret: 1. This isn't about changing an RSP listing, this is about the interpretation of the 2019 RfC. 2. This isn't about the article referenced as a diff, this only serves as an example. Thanks!}} ] (]) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As an update, based on deprecated sources archives, I discovered that CYF is in fact not deprecated, so will boldly remove from RSPUSES for now on that very basis. Whether it should be deprecated is another discussion. ] (]) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for 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. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop" | |||
| :::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page | |||
| :::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate? | |||
| ::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist. | |||
| ::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious. | |||
| ::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future. | |||
| ::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include. | |||
| ::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ] ] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I digree that this wasn't deprecated, it was created as just another URL for Daily Caller content and the source is deprecated not a particular URL it happens to be using. As a general principle going over the same ground because a bad sources find a new outlet would be a waste of time. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :Remembering my comment from the last time this came up, at least at first this was no different than the Daily Caller. With it being run by the same staff and using more or less the same content. Over time it appears to have become a bit more separate from its parent organisation, and I could see an argument that it should be ''now'' have an exception from the deprecation of the Daily Caller. | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| :As a separate comment 'fact checking' sites are poor sources in general, and I would suggest their use is always attributed. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:48, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :should be deprecated if its part of daily caller ] (]) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ] ] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct. | |||
| ::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places, | |||
| ::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ] ] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}} | |||
| :::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Overall rating (legend/option) for Jewish Chronicle == | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ] ] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer == | |||
| ] of the RfC on the Jewish Chronicle about the retention of the green legend (Generally Reliable in its areas of expertise:) for this publication. More specifically if this truly represents the average views of editors which participated in that RfC. I have NOT questioned any of the text written, so we don't necessarily need to go over old ground again unless there are any further objections. This is purely about the overall interpretation of what has already been written for the labelling. | |||
| Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've produced , in which each editors choice of rating is tabulated then counted and averaged to assist this process. As many editors have chosen ratings relating to a wide variety of timescales and subject areas this can only be an approximation. I've separated it into two sections: | |||
| :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? == | |||
| Israel/Palestine 'Sometimes ME, the Left, Antisemitism typically from 2015 or 2020' on the left (in which 7 editors chose option 1, 2 editors Option 2, 17.5 editors Option 3 & 8.5 editors option 4) and | |||
| 'General articles (Some after a cut off date, some no date)' on the right (12 editors option 1, 13.5 editors option 2, 7.5 editors option 3 & 3 editors option 4). | |||
| {{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 ]? | |||
| Note, was eventually modified to 11 editors Option 1, 1 Editor Option 2, 11 editors option 3. I'm unsure if the disqualifications affected previous RfCs before that. ] (]) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (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) | |||
| :<s>This is just bad formatting at RSP</s>, clearly JC is not GREL based on RfC close as well as the summary itself. Either there are three listings for JC based on the determined consensus of GREL, NC, and GUNREL, or otherwise just turn it MREL. Striked part of previous comment as realise RSP was never updated post RfC close. Based on discussion ], have updated to reflect closing summary. Other editors can split the entry, improve the summary, or revert if deemed necessary. ] (]) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Closers don't necessarily update the RSP, although it is helpful when they do. Interested editor should update it as and when required. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't like the methodology of weighting Option 4 more than Option 3; Option 4 is ''not'' an extra level of unreliability. | |||
| :That being said anyone can see that RfC was an Option 2 generally at best. I agree with the current ] formatting of tagging the source as ] then explaining what those additional considerations are. Specifically, that the source is unreliable on Israel, Palestine, and related topics. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:59, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| == The use of yearbooks as a source for an external but related organization == | |||
| ::@], 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) | |||
| == Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for ] == | |||
| :{{courtesy link|Draft:Braveland Conference}} | |||
| I am unsure about how to proceed with establishing notability, and to what extent highschool years would be considered independent from an athletic conference, the subject of the article. What were originally ] concerns have been addressed after the author of the draft asked the best way to source the material (see ] on my talk page for the relevant conversation). Would someone be able to advise if they believe a yearbook would be considered independent from the athletic conference? I'm leaning that I believe this would likely survive, or draw due consideration, at an ] and ''that'' is what ] asks of reviewers, but I'd appreciate a second set of eyes given that this would be uncharted territory for me, and I can't find any P&G page that adequately surmises this current issue. | |||
| See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 17:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A high school yearbook goes nothing towards notability. But it's reliable for things like Bob played the oboe in the school band, or Bob graduated High Valley High School in 1994. ] applies for most things you'd find in a yearbook though.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found a link to the pdf but which I don't read well. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliability and notability are different topics, the year book is probably reliable but it is an indiscriminate list of pupils so shouldn't add to notability. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:59, 31 October 2024 (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) | |||
| == Another look at Atlas Obscura? == | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Atlas Obscura has two entries at Perennial Sources. ] notes that "places" articles are user-generated and generally unreliable. ] states that "articles" are professionally written, have editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. It then cautions that {{tq|other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles}}. I read through the four linked discussions @ Perennial Sources and I found opinions about the reliability of "articles" more mixed than the entry at ] suggests. The most recent discussion ] highlighted the difference in URLs beginning atlasobscura.com/articles vs. atlasobscura.com/places. | |||
| 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) | |||
| What drove me to Perennial Sources in this case was which is used as a source in ]. A Google search turns up lots of sponsored content labeled as an "article" at Atlas Obscura. At a minimum, I think the wording at ] should be strengthened so as not to suggest that "commercial" content is hosted at "other areas" of the site besides "articles." I would support downgrading the label to "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply." Thoughts? --] 🍄🟫—] 21:55, 31 October 2024 (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) | |||
| :I don't think this matters because the sponsored posts are very clearly marked "SPONSORED POST" right below the article title. They aren't trying to hide it. Sponsored articles are of course not usable no matter who makes them - provided we can tell them apart, what does it matter? I think they're fine. ] (]) 22:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::I hear you and I largely agree with the general point. Editors should of course be able to discern that a {{em|clearly}} sponsored post is unusable regardless of the publisher. I was surprised when I read the linked discussions at ] to find less agreement on the general reliability of AO than the summary suggests and even more surprised when I discovered the sheer volume of sponsored "articles" on the site. I don't see any downside to addressing that in the summary. --] 🍄🟫—] 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Pirate Wires''?== | |||
| == The Guardian == | |||
| '']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] | ] |''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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. — '''] | ] |''' 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. — '''] | ] |''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| Im about to start an article. There are many sources for this article, such as BBC and some human rights groups pages but one of them is The Guardian. Needless to say, I know human rights blogs and the such are not reliable so Ill be careful about what to include among those pages but my question is about The Guardian, Are they reliable? ]'' (]) 10:29, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :Yes, but also recall that a lot depends on what you are sourcing, news content is not the same as Opp-edds. ] (]) 10:33, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :Just for clarities sake do you mean ] or one of the many other Guardian newspapers (])? ] is a reliable source, but reliability is ultimately about ]. Newspaper also report a lot of allegations, if you're writing an article about a ] addition considerations may apply. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:38, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :Guardian already answered above, but FYI some human rights groups' work is considered reliable, too. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Need context before coming to RSN === | |||
| At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 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 ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I see that there have been many discussions of CNN's reliability to date, but I believe recent events call for a renewed analysis. | |||
| :It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I believe that CNN should be held to the same standards as a publication like FOX when it comes to political commentary, as content published under the heading of "news" by CNN regularly demonstrates a level of bias that renders the commentary inappropriate for use as source material for an encyclopedia. | |||
| == Fantasy Literature == | |||
| For example, this recent article: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/27/politics/trump-rally-madison-square-garden-vulgar-attacks/index.html | |||
| 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) | |||
| - The article uses language that may imply judgment, e.g., “ominous” and “hodgepodge,” which can evoke emotional responses. Such terms subtly convey an opinion, which may impact perceived neutrality. | |||
| :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) | |||
| - Quotes from rally speakers, especially those containing provocative language, dominate the coverage. While including quotes is essential for accuracy, emphasizing controversial remarks could lead to a more negative portrayal of the event if context isn't provided for each speaker’s stance. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == NASASpaceFlight.com == | |||
| - The article emphasizes certain figures (Hinchcliffe, Rosenberg) and their contentious remarks in the opening, which may prime readers to perceive the event negatively. In contrast, Trump’s statements are included later with less detailed context. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| - By ending on quotes that critique Harris and immigrants, the article may lead readers to a concluding sentiment shaped by more divisive points. This structure can subtly influence the takeaway from the event coverage. | |||
| 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. | |||
| With a cursory investigation into the writer, Greg Krieg, you might even find him describing himself as "a leftist who hates seeing his political rivals have a good time". https://x.com/GregJKrieg/status/1850745484157092081 | |||
| ] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br> | |||
| For anyone familiar with CNN's reporting, this is just scratching the surface. In the days immediately following a contentious event, they may publish multiple articles every day that contain similar language and framing. Their non-political coverage generally maintains factual accuracy ''and'' tonal neutrality, but I believe there is enough evidence to warrant moving CNN down at least one peg on the "political content accuracy" scale. ] (]) 15:13, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :No thanks. ] (]) 15:16, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| ::<small>Context: ].</small> ] (]) 15:19, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :Bias was not why Fox was judged to not be an RS, making stuff was. ] (]) 15:17, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
| :Bias does not rule out a ] source, and each source should be seen through a lens of whether any news article is ] in a specific context. Example, it is probably ] to include a CNN's reporting on the rally on an article about the ally, as many news sources all showed bias against the comedy. The correct thing to do is to show attribution (see ]). | |||
| :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) | |||
| :inaccuracy is what causes deprecation | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| ] (]) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (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) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:48, 17 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RfC: 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 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?
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- 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 quoteBILD'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
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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):
- 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 saysreputation 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)
RfC: NewsNation
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Jacobin
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)
- Even if correct this is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Springee that, "
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
 |
|
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey: Jacobin
- Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3
or 4They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the
no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2
position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear.
- Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
- I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK
Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.
A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
- It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
- Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
- They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The author's attitude certainlyleaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to:
centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement
. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge
. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:- Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
- Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
- THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
- The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
- So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
socialist perspectives
and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supportingradical politics
andvery explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism
. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
- Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: Jacobin
- Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
- That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
- What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
- On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
- Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
- It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's more valuable to treat them as WP:PRIMARY than to treat them as WP:SPS personally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed that primary makes more sense than SPS for HF, though there are instances where their work would be or could be a secondary source. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's more valuable to treat them as WP:PRIMARY than to treat them as WP:SPS personally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state
). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.
Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
- I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
RFC: The Heritage Foundation
|
|
What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
- Option 5: Blacklist
Poll: The Heritage Foundation
Option 5: Blacklistlean Option 3, possibly 4, no blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
- is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made this RFC mostly because folks had already started sending bolded votes. with some time, and red-tailed hawks suggestions, I think it makes sense to not blacklist heritage foundation... there are technical ways to reduce the risk.
- Could also be useful to see if there is a way to send folks to the internet archvive version of the heritage foudnation urls instead of the actual urls if there is risk. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization
—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment:
Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).
Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise.But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?
Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question ofDo paperbacks get special dispensation ...
. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...
)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote:... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...
. —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not a cybersecurity expert, and I'm not going to get into the long back-and-forth about HF using links to their website to scrape the IPs of Misplaced Pages editors. My concern is far more basic: if they are doxxing editors, or even threatening to, we should not be linking to them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, why don't we just treat them like a printed source? Mention the author, the title of the article, the year of publication, but leave out any URL to the article. Makes a good compromise: if it's necessary to cite them, then they can be cited without any security concerns that they'll grab a users IP. Those who want to verify the information can google the title of the article and access the article via the search engine so that all that HF would know is that IP so-so accessed their website via a search engine rather than Misplaced Pages. Nakonana (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with editors that have voiced that the security concern is more "security theater" and !vote that the real agenda here should be based in reliability and reliability alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly out of the fact that if HF wants to be a bad actor and do what they plan, us removing the links barely stops them if at all. That just seems silly as a "defensive" move unless I am sorely missing something. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was talk that they wanted to create links that would redirect to some fishy sites. If we don't include any of their links then at least that can be avoided. Plus, I'd think that would make it harder to track editors' activities across different platforms/website. At the same time, HF can still be used a source without any particular limitations other than the policies that are in place and have already been applied to them all this time. Nakonana (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal. I hope your idea catches on in this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- NatGertler actually suggested the same thing as I just saw (the post is right below this thread; here:), but it probably got buried in all the notifications and went unnoticed. Nakonana (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why should a source that publishes disinformation and misinformation be used in an encyclopedia? M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the required consensus to depricate HF might not be reached.
- Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the quality of HF's content, but I see that others consider HF's content useful (at least to some degree) that's why I'm suggesting a compromise in case HF will not be depricated, so that at least the security concerns could still be addressed. Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I for one think that is very reasonable and level headed of you @Nakonana. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The consensus so far appears to be somewhere between "deprecate" and "deprecate and blacklist". M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS can be tricky, as it is not a simply or even a super majority of !votes. That is why we call them not votes (!votes) after all.. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The good news is that they are all proper !votes. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would you consider to be an "improper" !vote? Generally speaking. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The good news is that they are all proper !votes. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS can be tricky, as it is not a simply or even a super majority of !votes. That is why we call them not votes (!votes) after all.. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal. I hope your idea catches on in this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was talk that they wanted to create links that would redirect to some fishy sites. If we don't include any of their links then at least that can be avoided. Plus, I'd think that would make it harder to track editors' activities across different platforms/website. At the same time, HF can still be used a source without any particular limitations other than the policies that are in place and have already been applied to them all this time. Nakonana (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly out of the fact that if HF wants to be a bad actor and do what they plan, us removing the links barely stops them if at all. That just seems silly as a "defensive" move unless I am sorely missing something. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with editors that have voiced that the security concern is more "security theater" and !vote that the real agenda here should be based in reliability and reliability alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, why don't we just treat them like a printed source? Mention the author, the title of the article, the year of publication, but leave out any URL to the article. Makes a good compromise: if it's necessary to cite them, then they can be cited without any security concerns that they'll grab a users IP. Those who want to verify the information can google the title of the article and access the article via the search engine so that all that HF would know is that IP so-so accessed their website via a search engine rather than Misplaced Pages. Nakonana (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not a cybersecurity expert, and I'm not going to get into the long back-and-forth about HF using links to their website to scrape the IPs of Misplaced Pages editors. My concern is far more basic: if they are doxxing editors, or even threatening to, we should not be linking to them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to note, since some are treating deprecation as being more expanse than it is, Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources says:
Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB).
- That should be sufficient to cover the times when we would need to cite this source, and preferably either with archival links or w/o links at all depending on implementation given the other concerns. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify this, I think an archival link in citations would resolve the security issues of using a Heritage Foundation link, not that blacklisting would be a panacea to the doxxing campaign. I think that a link to an organization's own website is the most likely candidate, among links, for a court to decide is a legal way to obtain information. Blacklisting won't stop dedicated efforts to create 3rd-party tracking links, which we should warn editors about, but it is a relatively easy way on our end to throw up a small impediment to the goals and increase the legal risk of any doxxing campaign. If this site is blacklisted, editors should be directed to the various resources on account security that have been discussed. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 + Blacklist I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Amended to include Blacklisting Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
- While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
- Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
- With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
- It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.
- If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...
" Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, it's not for retaliation. I am commenting on the source's reliability. In addition to the incidents documented above and in the parent section's opening statement—which I, again, don't see you refuting—I don't trust Heritage to publish reliable information if they mount a personal assault on information itself. Even if we were on a site unrelated to Misplaced Pages, I would not trust it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, blacklisting is not about retaliation. any political organization that chooses to stoop to this level signals that there is no level to which it will not stoop, including wholesale fabrication of data in seemingly legitimate analyses. it has crossed the Rubicon and can never again be trusted. it should enjoy the company of Breitbart and InfoWars. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, except for the part on blacklisting. Blacklisting depends on whether it's being persistently and disruptively added (as Breitbart and InfoWars documentedly were per their blacklisting discussions). I don't see that happening yet, and per RedTailedHawk below, I fear it'll lead Wikipedians into a false sense of security away from the vigilance about all links, which is needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is blacklisting dependent upon a source being found persistently and disruptively used, or simply a finding of gross and malevolent unreliability? soibangla (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, except for the part on blacklisting. Blacklisting depends on whether it's being persistently and disruptively added (as Breitbart and InfoWars documentedly were per their blacklisting discussions). I don't see that happening yet, and per RedTailedHawk below, I fear it'll lead Wikipedians into a false sense of security away from the vigilance about all links, which is needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, blacklisting is not about retaliation. any political organization that chooses to stoop to this level signals that there is no level to which it will not stoop, including wholesale fabrication of data in seemingly legitimate analyses. it has crossed the Rubicon and can never again be trusted. it should enjoy the company of Breitbart and InfoWars. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The former. Besides the fact that it's called the spam blacklist, Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist says
These lists mostly contain spam sites, but also include URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting), some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus.
andblacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers
. Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting further says it'sintended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses.
Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- yeah, I've been a bit befuddled by blacklisting being limited to spamming, rather than grossly false and malevolent content. was InfoWars blacklisted for spam? soibangla (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As linked to on RSP,
I think that int he interests of protecting the project from a mix of Russian bots and Rany from Boise we should blacklist these domains
. You need persistent mistaken addition to blacklist instead of just deprecating. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As linked to on RSP,
- yeah, I've been a bit befuddled by blacklisting being limited to spamming, rather than grossly false and malevolent content. was InfoWars blacklisted for spam? soibangla (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, it's not for retaliation. I am commenting on the source's reliability. In addition to the incidents documented above and in the parent section's opening statement—which I, again, don't see you refuting—I don't trust Heritage to publish reliable information if they mount a personal assault on information itself. Even if we were on a site unrelated to Misplaced Pages, I would not trust it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself" isn't quite true. The US government runs lots of reliable sources, but the US government has also conducted information warfare. It's a big organization with a long history.
- I'll also direct you (and others interested) to this Signpost article and WP:ANIGATE, in case you haven't seen them already. Again, ANI is MREL, and that's unrelated to its attacks Placeholderer (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are very good reasons to cite ANI, and while their court case is probably of bad faith, they are still respecting the rule of law. If they sicced private detectives on the 3 defendants to expose them, that's another story. You have a point regarding the US government, but the sources that we allow have much better records and reputations regarding what they do publish, and arguments for continued usage like that of the ANI RfC I linked to. For the ones that don't, like WP:OCB, we deprecate them. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, what a wall of text in the replies to my last comment. Look, this isn't about retaliating, or even about not liking what they said. It's about determining whether or not something is a reliable source. And anyone who cannot see that what Heritage is doing is inconsistent with being a reliable source is, I think, very likely to be a POV-pusher making excuses for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Heritage is engaged in subversion and espionage, which is thoroughly inconsistent with a reliable source. yes, espionage. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mean to suggest I'm a POV pusher Placeholderer (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify: I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT, but the Forward article that prompted this discussion might not even suggest HF plans to do anything illegal, unless they dox people who live in places where that's illegal like California or the Netherlands (that's not illegal in the wider US or EU) or spear phish people who live where that's illegal (from what I can tell, not illegal across the US unless it falls under another crime like identity theft, but a bunch of states have their own laws, according to an InfoSec article that I can't link to. Might be illegal across the EU?). Like it or not, they can choose from their menu of doxing tools to try to stay within the laws of each relevant jurisdiction. I do think ANI is worse, where a hostile entity has already succeeded in breaching anonymity and in censoring Misplaced Pages.
- For OCB's deprecation, the reasoning cites "consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda". If we're going to deprecate HF it should be for similar reasons, but I don't think most of this discussion has actually addressed concerns of dis/misinformation, apart from "if they do this they must automatically be a bad source", which I don't think is a strong argument. There are some fringe but legitimate reasons where doxing people on the internet could be seen as acceptable, like investigative journalism revealing that Prolific Reddit User X is actually Known Russian Agitator Y (or, prolific TikToker influencing the Romanian presidential election is actually this guy linked to shadowy companies). So it's not the doxing itself that's bad, but the intent to reveal WP editors' identities (unless the doxing is conducted illegally). And, as mentioned, HF is not the only place trying to do that Placeholderer (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clarification: saying "'if they do this they must automatically be a bad source'" I mean "this" to be doxing. Of course there are things that, if sources do them, mean the sources are bad Placeholderer (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- It may be legal, but it's not lawful nor civil as ANI's case was. And I do not want to argue about ANI here again after already dedicating a lot of words to that on a separate project talk page. We don't need to build this wall of text further beyond the horizons in scope.
There is evidence in the opening statement of this section on their disinformation. I have not seen that refuted anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I don't see the badness distinction between legal and lawful/civil. Google was fined $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by Russia through its legal system, which is a much more hostile action than threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do.
- As for the info at the start of the section, thanks for pointing that out!— I'd only been looking at the RfC. I shall respond to that in the appropriate place Placeholderer (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, what a wall of text in the replies to my last comment. Look, this isn't about retaliating, or even about not liking what they said. It's about determining whether or not something is a reliable source. And anyone who cannot see that what Heritage is doing is inconsistent with being a reliable source is, I think, very likely to be a POV-pusher making excuses for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are very good reasons to cite ANI, and while their court case is probably of bad faith, they are still respecting the rule of law. If they sicced private detectives on the 3 defendants to expose them, that's another story. You have a point regarding the US government, but the sources that we allow have much better records and reputations regarding what they do publish, and arguments for continued usage like that of the ANI RfC I linked to. For the ones that don't, like WP:OCB, we deprecate them. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That isn't lawful. India's courts are much better than Russia's.
But systematic doxxing with professional spearphishing? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do
- Alternatively, burning millions of dollars in lawsuits to try to bankrupt Misplaced Pages in some country with tight libel laws like the UK. I didn't understand the distinction before, and understand it less as "hostile lawfare against WP through a court system that is of quality greater than or equal to India's" being ok while a "hostile to WP but probably legal search through public information" makes a source unusable (again, that's a big part of how investigative journalism works).
- Anyone with the right skills can dox like anyone else (except for like intelligence agencies with restricted tools who can do it better), the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it Placeholderer (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the same difference as that between a court case and a witch hunt: the presence of actually moderated discussion and true dignity.
That's huge difference, as seen in the maintenance of software, not to mention training. "Anyone can do anything with or without money." Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it
- I don't think the potentially-superficial presence of moderated discussion in a hostile organization's threats and attacks against WP should be a gauge of reliability of that organization.
- I get that unpaid people in general are less motivated, but unknown psychos with a grudge are about as motivated as physically possible Placeholderer (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the known psychos with a grudge that also happen to be paid? M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant to my point Placeholderer (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even get your point with that part. What difference does that make to how bad Heritage is for hiring systematic doxxing? Why isn't systematic doxxing always bad? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where I've meant to be going with this is: if there's no reliability concern about being a hostile entity, nor about attacking Misplaced Pages, nor about successfully damaging Misplaced Pages, but rather about having a sufficiently nice and dignified talk about all that, then what's up with that? Placeholderer (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Systematic doxxing is not a
nice and dignified talk
. There are reliability concerns about all of the "no" points you listed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Exactly, HF is unreliable because doxing under these circumstances isn't nice and dignified enough, if I understand correctly Placeholderer (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there were reliability concerns about the "no" points then they'd apply to ANI Placeholderer (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Systematic doxxing is not a
- Where I've meant to be going with this is: if there's no reliability concern about being a hostile entity, nor about attacking Misplaced Pages, nor about successfully damaging Misplaced Pages, but rather about having a sufficiently nice and dignified talk about all that, then what's up with that? Placeholderer (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even get your point with that part. What difference does that make to how bad Heritage is for hiring systematic doxxing? Why isn't systematic doxxing always bad? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's also what I think. I'm glad we agree on this! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion is maybe starting to work! :D Placeholderer (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant to my point Placeholderer (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tell me: Why is a publication that hires Pinkerton Detective Agency for witch hunts be better than a publication that uses the courts for intimidation? The latter is discussion, while the former is pretty much violence. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- These arguments appear to be turning to morals and ethics for support instead of WP policies and guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I've said since the beginning of this chain, it's because of those anti-intellectual morals that I significantly doubt Heritage's intellectual reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- These arguments appear to be turning to morals and ethics for support instead of WP policies and guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the known psychos with a grudge that also happen to be paid? M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the same difference as that between a court case and a witch hunt: the presence of actually moderated discussion and true dignity.
- Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
- In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
- With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
- With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you honestly, genuinely believe that they would use their main website domain to do that? Do you have any idea how these types of schemes work? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't they? If they're aggregating data why would they not include their native data? That is exactly how this sort of legal watering hole attack works... Instead of poisioning the water with malware they just record who comes and goes (like most websites do). I would also contest the IP's use of "malicious links" as normally thats associated with links that go to malware (the illegal sort of watering hole attack) but the links in this context aren't malicious even if you could argue that *intent* behind them is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you honestly, genuinely believe that they would use their main website domain to do that? Do you have any idea how these types of schemes work? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not going as far as the IP (I don't think that this would constitute either identity theft or blackmail) but I would note that such a scheme targeting EU citizens would be illegal even if one targeting US citizens is not. There are an awfully large number of places where these would be criminal acts, we just allow a massive amount of leeway when it comes to data harvesting in the USA. This sort of thing is inherently barely this side of a criminal organization, sometimes the lengths that even legitimate organizations like Bellingcat will go to are just up to that legal line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They should not be - they are primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are used that way. They can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not by us. Think tanks are primary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where do you see that? Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the definition of what a primary source is. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Funny, because I see in the definition of a secondary source their function as a secondary source, almost as if they can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the role of a Think tank? M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good philosophical question, especially their place in a well-functioning democracy. Is this helpful to the discussion? Placeholderer (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the response that I was hoping to see. Their role determines what they publish, which in turn answers the question regarding whether they are a primary or a secondary source. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "A think tank, or public policy institute, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture."
- May I strikethrough this half of the reply chain now? Placeholderer (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there are times when they are primary and times when they are secondary (any think tank), and therefore it depends on the instance. WP policy and guidelines would support this as well unless anyone is able to quote something to the contrary. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- How can entity that performs "research and advocacy" not be considered a primary source? M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Research and advocacy are what we would expect from a primary source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review."
- Why is "research" a problem for a secondary source? Placeholderer (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not their so-called targetted "research" that is the issue, it's what they publish (their own thoughts, findings and recommendations) that make them a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying that all of their research is under this doxing agenda?
- Think tanks publish both primary and secondary sources. Own-thoughts and recommendations are primary sources, but "findings" includes secondary sources, which come from research.
- Thankfully, WP:DISCARD means we don't need to continue this part of the discussion because we both think we're obviously right and have nothing helpful to suggest to each other about primary/secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Analyses? Did somebody mention analyses? Here's another analysis: . Um, I guess that's a secondary source, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure how it connects to HF publishing primary and/or secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Analyses? Did somebody mention analyses? Here's another analysis: . Um, I guess that's a secondary source, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really hope that the 90%+ of comments here that are completely unrelated to anything on the topic of reliability are tossed right into the garbage where they belong. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every single !vote is related to the reliability of the garbage source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "...maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough" (Nope).
- "The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors." (Nope again)
- "...their own communications indicate that they are a security risk" (Nope, not about reliability)
- "Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors." (Nope, not about "reliability"...
- Literally almost every single !vote invokes reasoning which should be discarded as completely unrelated and not based in any policy or guidelines.
- Some !votes at least admit to their not being based in any policy or guideline such as this one, "Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures."
- Would be easy to go on and on... Iljhgtn (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every single !vote is related to the reliability of the garbage source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about doxing? M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I interpreted "so-called targetted 'research'" to be an oblique reference to doxing, but sorry if I misinterpreted Placeholderer (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the think tanks in general, the Heritage Foundation is a garbage source (I think we all agree on that). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Abort reply thread! Abort reply thread! Placeholderer (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the think tanks in general, the Heritage Foundation is a garbage source (I think we all agree on that). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I interpreted "so-called targetted 'research'" to be an oblique reference to doxing, but sorry if I misinterpreted Placeholderer (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not their so-called targetted "research" that is the issue, it's what they publish (their own thoughts, findings and recommendations) that make them a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would the concerns here also apply to something like the SLPC? The HF and SPLC are both widely cited by RSs and if a RS says "HF/SPLC said X" then we might find weight for the attributed fact since a RS gave it weight. I would presume we wouldn't directly cite a claim by either since both are effectively advocacy organizations. Springee (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Research and advocacy are what we would expect from a primary source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the response that I was hoping to see. Their role determines what they publish, which in turn answers the question regarding whether they are a primary or a secondary source. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good philosophical question, especially their place in a well-functioning democracy. Is this helpful to the discussion? Placeholderer (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the role of a Think tank? M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:SPLC, they have a much better factual reputation, and they should always be attributed anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they have a better factual reputation given some of their court losses. Regardless, there seems to be a concern that editors would cite the HF without a RS giving the HF weight on the topic. I agree with that concern. The question is why wouldn't we treat basically all think tanks/activist organizations in a similar fashion. Why should we accept a direct reference to something like Hate Watch but not the index published by HF (I personally think we should oppose both absent a RS pointing to the claim). Springee (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- All the cases against SPLC were dismissed. There's only 3 actual incidents mentioned in the SPLC article, all of which they apologized for and retracted, though one of them only after a $3 million settlement and 1.5 years—that's the longest time it ever took them to retract. Whereas Heritage's "expert"s still stand. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So they have been found guilty of defaming people. Has the HF been found to have defamed anyone? I'm not arguing that the HF is a good stand alone source. Rather I'm arguing that we are inconsistent if we treat SPLC like a relative secondary source but say the HF can't be given the SPLC's record is also quite sketchy. I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources. It would address concerns regarding potential misinformation as well as weight. Springee (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- All the cases against SPLC were dismissed. There's only 3 actual incidents mentioned in the SPLC article, all of which they apologized for and retracted, though one of them only after a $3 million settlement and 1.5 years—that's the longest time it ever took them to retract. Whereas Heritage's "expert"s still stand. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they have a better factual reputation given some of their court losses. Regardless, there seems to be a concern that editors would cite the HF without a RS giving the HF weight on the topic. I agree with that concern. The question is why wouldn't we treat basically all think tanks/activist organizations in a similar fashion. Why should we accept a direct reference to something like Hate Watch but not the index published by HF (I personally think we should oppose both absent a RS pointing to the claim). Springee (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The settlement did not ever proceed to a lawsuit, though it is slightly concerning, but which has already been extensively discussed here.
SPLC is treated like a primary source in that they're almost always used as RSOpinion. It's just that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources.
- They aren't treated like a primary source in that we often use their claims absent a RS establishing that the claim is DUE in an article. For example, if both SPLC and HF say something about a topic editors are likely to cite SPLC absent any 3rd party source (ie a RS article about our topic mentions SPLC) yet we, rightly, wouldn't do the same if HF said something about the same topic (say one of their indexes of X). That we treat these differently seems to be more about the views of editors vs the track record of the sources. Thus far the examples of misinformation etc seem relatively minor and at least to some extent in a gray area (ie we ultimately may not agree but the claim is not absolutely meritless). Of course, the easy way to fix this is just say activist organizations shouldn't be cited without a RS drawing the connection/establishing weight in context of the topic first. Springee (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the consensus summary for WP:SPLC already says.
Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
The problem is with those articles that don't observe Due. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- This is all moot anyway. This RFC is not about the SPLC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree. A simple solution is to say activist/think tank organization's reports/opinions should be assumed undue by default. That would also address much of the argument here about the HF. If a RS says HF said X about the proposed law then we have weight for inclusion regarding of the silly/problematic RSP numbering system. Springee (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no need for a novel policy construction here. WP:PRIMARY works just fine. And it seems like this proposal mostly exists to create a false balance whereby any and all leftist advocacy groups will be declared unreliable just because the Heritage Foundation is a far-right advocacy group that is patently unreliable. I would suggest we should focus on the Heritage Foundation and their clear unreliability issues rather than trying to explode the scope of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who raised the question about activate organizations. However, since the question came up it seems reasonable to look at the logic we are employing. Your argument certainly could support the impression that we should based policy on our feelings/agreement with a group's views rather than on principle. That would tend to move Misplaced Pages away from some type of neutral collection of knowledge (including conflicting views) and towards a collection of knowledge/views that align with the majority of active editors. This is why I think we should apply these rules more on principle vs forcibly based on if we 'like" the group in question. Springee (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. You are mistaken. I'm actually saying we should not be basing reliability decisions for advocacy groups on political alignment but rather on reliability on the basis of existing policy - specifically WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. I will note that there is a tendency of far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation to be less reliable than groups that are not far-right wing. As for why that's the case, I will refer to a preeminently reliable source, Jean Paul Sartre, who developed a core political theory for understanding this factual peculiarity. However, should a right-wing source demonstrate that it adheres properly to our reliability standards then it's reliable. Heritage Foundation is not. Simple as. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll mention that the goal of this discussion is to determine to what extent HF adheres to or violates our reliability standards Placeholderer (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. You are mistaken. I'm actually saying we should not be basing reliability decisions for advocacy groups on political alignment but rather on reliability on the basis of existing policy - specifically WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. I will note that there is a tendency of far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation to be less reliable than groups that are not far-right wing. As for why that's the case, I will refer to a preeminently reliable source, Jean Paul Sartre, who developed a core political theory for understanding this factual peculiarity. However, should a right-wing source demonstrate that it adheres properly to our reliability standards then it's reliable. Heritage Foundation is not. Simple as. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who raised the question about activate organizations. However, since the question came up it seems reasonable to look at the logic we are employing. Your argument certainly could support the impression that we should based policy on our feelings/agreement with a group's views rather than on principle. That would tend to move Misplaced Pages away from some type of neutral collection of knowledge (including conflicting views) and towards a collection of knowledge/views that align with the majority of active editors. This is why I think we should apply these rules more on principle vs forcibly based on if we 'like" the group in question. Springee (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no need for a novel policy construction here. WP:PRIMARY works just fine. And it seems like this proposal mostly exists to create a false balance whereby any and all leftist advocacy groups will be declared unreliable just because the Heritage Foundation is a far-right advocacy group that is patently unreliable. I would suggest we should focus on the Heritage Foundation and their clear unreliability issues rather than trying to explode the scope of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the consensus summary for WP:SPLC already says.
- They aren't treated like a primary source in that we often use their claims absent a RS establishing that the claim is DUE in an article. For example, if both SPLC and HF say something about a topic editors are likely to cite SPLC absent any 3rd party source (ie a RS article about our topic mentions SPLC) yet we, rightly, wouldn't do the same if HF said something about the same topic (say one of their indexes of X). That we treat these differently seems to be more about the views of editors vs the track record of the sources. Thus far the examples of misinformation etc seem relatively minor and at least to some extent in a gray area (ie we ultimately may not agree but the claim is not absolutely meritless). Of course, the easy way to fix this is just say activist organizations shouldn't be cited without a RS drawing the connection/establishing weight in context of the topic first. Springee (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Funny, because I see in the definition of a secondary source their function as a secondary source, almost as if they can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Aaron Liu (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP- Of course, but nothing about that quote, from what I can see there, says anything about think tanks or that think tanks are either always primary or always secondary sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their research is definitely primary. Only reviews, textbooks, etc. count as secondary research sources. And the analyses associated with such primary research is primary. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if so, cited primary sources have their place on Misplaced Pages. Reliability is another thing altogether. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This particular line from WP:SCHOLARSHIP isn't good for making a case against citing Heritage Foundation. The notion of a 'primary research paper' mostly holds in the sciences, especially the hard sciences, where journals publish what researchers call primary evidence or data. Other fields, like the humanities, consider the texts they study the raw primary data (archival documents, historical newspapers, literature, etc.) whereas the publications are secondary sources. If Misplaced Pages actually prohibited publications that do their own research, then we wouldn't cite journalism (like Vox) or book-length biographies (like Alexander Hamilton). The reason to not cite Heritage Foundation is much simpler than a technicality of how a sourcing guideline is phrased. It's simply that Heritage Foundation repeatedly publishes disinformation (about climate science, about political news, etc.) to the point that users cannot consistently depend on it for facts. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their research is definitely primary. Only reviews, textbooks, etc. count as secondary research sources. And the analyses associated with such primary research is primary. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, but nothing about that quote, from what I can see there, says anything about think tanks or that think tanks are either always primary or always secondary sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the definition of what a primary source is. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where do you see that? Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not by us. Think tanks are primary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are used that way. They can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They should not be - they are primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The premise of this chain is a counterargument against "whatever actually reliable thing they say, other secondary sources would" by claiming that Heritage is widely used as a secondary source. That is false. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not false to these professionals Placeholderer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has different citation policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not false to these professionals Placeholderer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you point me to where you answered that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So misleading the public about electoral interference and climate change denial are "generally reliable" behaviours but it's generally unreliable if a left-wing source makes and subsequently corrects an error of fact. I think this line of reasoning is more guided by POV than policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please WP:FOC and keep the discussion on the sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would you like to respond to his point on the sources or the links about the sources here since the beginning, which I've excerpted below for your convenience? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where did you excerpt below? This thread is a total cluster "F". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would you like to respond to his point on the sources or the links about the sources here since the beginning, which I've excerpted below for your convenience? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please WP:FOC and keep the discussion on the sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So misleading the public about electoral interference and climate change denial are "generally reliable" behaviours but it's generally unreliable if a left-wing source makes and subsequently corrects an error of fact. I think this line of reasoning is more guided by POV than policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
- That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
- If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.
+1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
- The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kind of a side point but the Principia is certainly outmoded, maybe theres a better example but this one is just you shooting yourself in the foot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently I misunderstood what outmoded means! I thought it meant "obsolete" but I guess it's "old-fashioned", which I must confess is absolutely accurate for both books then (what I meant to communicate is that both books are timeless, foundational classics, which they can be while still being old fashioned). However, it's still irrelevant to being RS that a source is inspired by something old-fashioned Placeholderer (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think what they mean is more "outdated". Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently I misunderstood what outmoded means! I thought it meant "obsolete" but I guess it's "old-fashioned", which I must confess is absolutely accurate for both books then (what I meant to communicate is that both books are timeless, foundational classics, which they can be while still being old fashioned). However, it's still irrelevant to being RS that a source is inspired by something old-fashioned Placeholderer (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference
: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.
- To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page?Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ...
—Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
- I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is a reasonable statement to include in the article Index of Economic Freedom (in table format, for example), but not in the article Economy of Ireland, unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —Alalch E. 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- From Politics of Denmark: "The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Denmark as "full democracy" in 2016. According to the V-Dem Democracy indices Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index Placeholderer (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —Alalch E. 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —Alalch E. 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree Placeholderer (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Placeholderer is right. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, Alach E. is right. We should not be using think tank indices in article bodies like this. It's a failure of adherence to Misplaced Pages sourcing policy to treat pseudoscientific content like this - and I persist in asserting that a non-scientific economic index is pseudoscientific by appropriating the scientific language of economics without any rigor or scientific methodology - while the Heritage Foundation's hostility to our project has brought this index to attention, it's correct to remove many such indices. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Placeholderer is right. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree Placeholderer (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —Alalch E. 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —Alalch E. 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is a reasonable statement to include in the article Index of Economic Freedom (in table format, for example), but not in the article Economy of Ireland, unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —Alalch E. 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican
: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
- TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical WP:USEBYOTHERS), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the comments in the academy that are distinct from the Heritage Foundation are critical of its methodology. EX: An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index. By: Cabello, José Manuel, Ruiz, Francisco, Pérez-Gladish, Blanca, Social Indicators Research, 03038300, Jan2021, Vol. 153, Issue 2 Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note - it took me a while to find even that because very few scholars bother to talk about it at all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could also have cited The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters ( Studies in Economics and Finance 38 (3), 529-561, 2021), which is also critical, or Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom (Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing 3 (1), 1-14, 2023) or The relation between the index of economic freedom and good governance with efficiency of the European Structural Funds (Papers in Regional Science Volume 101, Issue 2, April 2022, Pages 327-350) which are not critical.
- That’s just from the first page of Google Scholar search results for “index of economic freedom” so I’m not sure why you found it difficult to find anyone talking about it.
- At any rate, a source receiving criticism has very little bearing on it being FRINGE when there is so much uncritical USEBYOTHERS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you seen the book cited that explores that use? I've quoted parts of it in the discussion section below. According to this academic book, Heritage is only used because of the cheap price and pure volume of what they circulate, despite great decrial from the NYT newsroom. You should borrow the book through the Internet Archive link I found and check out chapter 4, "The News Media and the Heritage Foundation: Promoting Education Advocacy at the Expense of Authority". It's quite harrowing. I think it's enough for an IAR argument in spite of UBO. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does the book specifically address the IEF — which is also done with the WSJ? Placeholderer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't remember, and I"m too tired at this point. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does the book specifically address the IEF — which is also done with the WSJ? Placeholderer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters but I had not read it yet and I try to avoid commenting on the contents of papers I haven't read. And even I have my limits with regard to the number of journal articles I can read in a day lol. But, yes, on the brief inspection I gave it (reading the abstract), your assessment of its contents seem accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you seen the book cited that explores that use? I've quoted parts of it in the discussion section below. According to this academic book, Heritage is only used because of the cheap price and pure volume of what they circulate, despite great decrial from the NYT newsroom. You should borrow the book through the Internet Archive link I found and check out chapter 4, "The News Media and the Heritage Foundation: Promoting Education Advocacy at the Expense of Authority". It's quite harrowing. I think it's enough for an IAR argument in spite of UBO. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note - it took me a while to find even that because very few scholars bother to talk about it at all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the comments in the academy that are distinct from the Heritage Foundation are critical of its methodology. EX: An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index. By: Cabello, José Manuel, Ruiz, Francisco, Pérez-Gladish, Blanca, Social Indicators Research, 03038300, Jan2021, Vol. 153, Issue 2 Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical WP:USEBYOTHERS), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
(which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.
" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?
" - This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4, and blacklist: clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it is here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 – All think-tanks should follow Option 2 at a minimum. However, Heritage Foundation is particularly unreliable in that they've devolved into a mouthpiece for disinformation and fringe garbage. Even if some of their older material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like restricting use to only archival websites, if direct links may lead to privacy issues for editors. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and 5 When it comes to reliability, Heritage was already in 3 territory even years ago and, in my opinion, breached 4 in the past few years when it began actively pushing misinformation and false claims across a variety of subjects, particularly scientific ones. So, deprecate on that alone. Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take. Silverseren 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "
Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take.
" seems not to be based in policy or guidelines, but rather in retaliation. Can you explain to me how if that is not the case, what am I missing? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (WP:IAR is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are at that point? We are citing WP:IAR? Are there really no guidelines or policy otherwise to invoke in this instance? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (WP:IAR is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "
- Option 4: Deprecate: My read on the original discussion was that this RFC was started to get opinions on the reliability outside of the security threat- if thats the case then Option 4 would stand given the rampant misinformation. Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4: Deprecate is the best. (However, if the decision is between Option 3 and Option 5, I definitely lean 5.) It is not inflammatory enough to purely block as clearly as an attack site, though it does seem to be a propaganda mill, because some of their links could be usable to refer to a limited range of criteria, mostly what would generally fall under ABOUTSELF. All usage of Heritage Foundation sourcing for claims should be highly qualified and narrow in scope. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4: Deprecate This source does not have a reputation for fact-checking and honesty that would make it a reliable source for inclusion in encyclopedia articles. In fact, it appears to do the opposite, lying to support its political agenda, so much so that it cannot not even be trusted to make truthful statements about itself. Blacklisting on the grounds that it is an actively hostile threat to editor privacy may be appropriate but is not the focus of this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist - Misinformation site by extremely partisan activist group. Not a news site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist - Heritage foundation is definitely unreliable getting close to if not over the deprecate line given their involvement in project 2025. Regardless, given their stated intentions, I'd support blacklisting them as a purely symbolic measure. I'd strongly oppose blacklisting them on security grounds. As others have remarked that's security theater and highly problematic as it risks giving editors the impression we've done jacksquat about stopping them when haven't. It also makes us look like we're idiots who don't understand the basics of the internet. As I remarked elsewhere it's ridiculous to think they'd come up with this complex plan, and then plan to use domains in any way associated with them as part of it. That's like the classic movie/TV trope where some villian has this highly complex plan with some blindly obvious easily resovable flaw they ignored. There are so many reasons they'd never want to do that, including that it would have revealed they were behind the campaign when there's no reason to think they expected it to be public so soon. The fact their plans are now partly public doesn't seem particularly likely to change things especially since fair chance they'd already set a bunch of stuff up to make it less suspicious (with newly registered domains). It's still incredibly unlikely they'd want to make it easier to track what they're doing not to mention they'd need to convince their targets to click on the link in the first place. Why on earth would they do that when they could (to make up a very simple example) set up archive.now to point to archive.today etc (which already has quite a number of different domains) and it's potentially months before anyone realises archive.now doesn't actually belong to whoever the heck owns archive.today? And we all know how often we use archive links to bypass paywalls etc, so who's going to think anything when editor A gets editor B to visit an archive.now link? This is incredibly simple and yet still carries some risk of early detection so I'm not sure if something like this would be part of their plans, still it must be at least a thousand fold more likely than using any domain associated with them. Note that we should whitelist them as needed when specific pages are suitable for citations e.g. if something written by Clarence Thomas needs to be cited or some part of the Index of Economic Freedom. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - Mainly due to the security risks that they have thrown against Misplaced Pages editors. If there was any sourcing from them that would pass the standard reliability policies, they can be sourced without links. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 post-2016; option 3 otherwise - as others have said, blacklisting is security theatre and not an effective response to an organization planning a covert spearfishing operation against Misplaced Pages editors; comments suggesting blacklisting the organization's URL to send a message are akin to disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. The only question for this board is whether or not the publication can be considered a reliable source. Per the initial comments in the thread above, the Heritage Foundation has actively and intentionally published and promoted misinformation since at least 2020 (others say 2016) and for that reason alone it is not reliable and should be deprecated. For any of the organization's publications or opinions that are worth mentioning on Misplaced Pages, independent third-party sources will be available. I'm not saying that Misplaced Pages should not respond to the threat, just that this is not a useful response. An effort to educate and provide resources to users to manage their digital security would be a much better use of our time. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can not support any of the options presented… except possibly option 2… because none of them consider context. The reliability of Heritage Foundation depends on the specifics of what we are trying to verify when we cite them. At minimum, they are reliable as a primary source for verifying statements (with in-text attribution) about the opinions of the Heritage Foundation itself. Whether it is appropriate to mention their opinion in the first place is a matter of DUE WEIGHT - and that depends on the specific WP article and topic. Certainly it is DUE to mention their opinion in the Heritage Foundation article itself… and probably DUE in other articles that discuss US conservative politics. The foundation is very influential in US conservative politics, and so their opinions do matter. It may be rare that it is appropriate to mention their views… but it is not zero. There are (and will be) rare situations where what they say is relevant and needs to be mentioned.
- And, when we mention their opinion we have to be able to cite them to verify that we are presenting their opinion accurately.
- Note: I would say this is how we should handle all think-tanks and advocacy organizations. We should always present what they say as opinion - with in-text attribution - and then assess whether their opinion is DUE to mention given the context of the specific article where we mention it. We should never present what they say as unattributed fact in WP’s voice.
As for Heritage’s threat to dox or otherwise hassle our editors… that is a legal issue and so should be left to the WMF’s legal team to deal with. We can take Heritage to court if they actually act on their threat. And as long as it is JUST a threat, we can ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this had been asked before they announced their intention to dox WP editors, I'd have said 2/3 depending on the issue. Anything else in reaction to that announcement feels retaliatory. Also never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. We play into their hands if we deprecate or blacklist. Valereee (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- How so? Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- 'Not citing the Heritage Foundation on Misplaced Pages will play into the Heritage Foundation's desire to control information on Misplaced Pages' (insofar as the reporting from The Forward indicates the plans to target Misplaced Pages editors are ostensibly about suppressing contributions that the Heritage Foundation deems anti-Zionist) is a take so mind-bending that I'm going to go lie down. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, let's see what she thinks, why she thinks it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- 'Not citing the Heritage Foundation on Misplaced Pages will play into the Heritage Foundation's desire to control information on Misplaced Pages' (insofar as the reporting from The Forward indicates the plans to target Misplaced Pages editors are ostensibly about suppressing contributions that the Heritage Foundation deems anti-Zionist) is a take so mind-bending that I'm going to go lie down. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- How so? Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All HeritageFoundation links should be blacklisted, Option 5. But if there is a way to source their content without using their URL, then I would prefer option 2 or option 3. Admittedly I am reluctant to do my research on their reliability because I don't even want to click into their website. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is this comment (in case you missed it). M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also posted some quotes near the bottom of the Discussion section. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is this comment (in case you missed it). M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 in general, Option 3 for global warming and related subjects. Heritage is a longstanding think tank, that, although biased and agenda-driven, produces a number of useful reports such as the Index of Economic Freedom, which is widely cited in journalism and academia. Heritage should not be considered reliable regarding global warming because they have repeatedly published uncorrected misinformation on the subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Generally unreliable. This puts the organization's publications in the same category as self-published. We would only be allowed to use articles if the writer was an established expert.The website itself could be blacklisted meaning that no links to it could be given. TFD (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 + Option 4: Blacklist and deprecate this fake news disinformation website which also have malicious activities in its online domains. An encyclopedia should not get littered with low quality conspiratorial websites. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 + Option 4 – If anything said there is even remotely notable, it will be discussed in reliable sources which we can then cite. This organization actively takes pride in being a firehose of disinformation, and there's no indication to me that they're even reliable enough to be used in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. Deprecate as a disinformation source; blacklist as a vector for doxxing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 - deprecate and blacklist. Deprecate because they are an active and deliberate source of misinformation - they are liars and they exist to be liars. Blacklist as an active and intentional danger to Misplaced Pages editors - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: Generally Unreliable - Based on the evidence of it's regular publishing of misinfo, the fact multiple reliable sources from news media to academic publishers, have highlighted this issue, means we should avoid using. I could be convinced of deprecation, but looking at the other sources we currently have deprecated, Heritage does not yet have seemed to cross that threshold. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: The Heritage Foundation
What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fact, a lot of the ignorant comments above will likely create a news story or something that Heritage will then use for more fundraising and even more damage. I just don't get how people are so naive to good intentions and the sometimes very negative consequences. Also, I've yet to see even one single argument grounded in policy and guidelines versus anger and fear. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, blacklisting one domain will not prevent them from carrying out their plan. As far as legal implications go, one assumes that suitable WMF people are aware, but the HF plan seems to stop short of committing any crimes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:DISCARD asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would discard maybe 95% of the comments or more. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How so? "A reliable source says Source X plans to target users with cyberattacks" sufficiently goes to reliability; resorting to cyberattack to enforce its POV is not symptomatic of a source that wants to legitimately engage the marketplace of ideas through facts and rigor. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would discard maybe 95% of the comments or more. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:DISCARD asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It takes away one of their attack vectors. The argument that "we shouldn't take away one attack vector because we can't take away all attack vectors" doesn't seem particularly strong to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes soibangla (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is it creates a false sense of security while providing little-if-any protection.
In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.
Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This has balloned in size. If it continues to grow as it has it will need to be moved to a subpage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we can't trust the link, how can we trust the cite, therefore how can they used as a source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be productive to talk further about mis/disinformation. Per @Alalch_E. Aquillion: "The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more." I guess I'll talk about this source by source. I can't be exhaustive with each, so please do go through and check if you think I've missed anything or cherrypicked.
First, on climate change. 1st source: "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand" is a book that I don't have right now, but I have access to a library that has it and can look at it in the next few days if I have time. 2nd, DeSmog. They do give two examples I see of HF individuals saying objectively bogus things about climate change, but they were both taken from personal op-eds on The Daily Signal and shouldn't disqualify HF. Other things DeSmog brings up definitely indicate POV and COI but I don't think can be said to rise to misinformation. DeSmog mentions that HF called attention to a study in 2009 saying the economic consequences of climate change would be felt in poor countries but not the US, but that study was from MIT and Northwestern, not HF. They link to some other reporting including an investigation of Project 2025 (which I watched) but the content didn't seem relevant to dis/misinformation. 3rd, "The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America". It's another book I don't have now, but my library has "Climate Change Counter Movement: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Sought to Delay Climate Action" by the same author, which might be a different edition of the same book. Again, I'll have a look if I can (sorry that's not helpful now).
Second, on the FDA. Source being: "News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education", another book, but with a quote saying HF is complicit in a campaign of "misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record", without further details, and on Google Books an available quote mentions HF donations (possibly showing a COI but can't see full paragraph). My library doesn't have this one, so I can't say much more. (I might want not to further specify exactly what my library has so as to not dox my library)
Third, on elections and politics. 1st source: "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register ‘illegal aliens’ to vote" from Washington Post. This mostly deals with "Heritage Action for America, a conservative group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation", but mentions part of a report by HF that claimed a certain federal bill “would register large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens.” WP says that the bill in fact included safeguards to prevent that from happening, but acknowledges that a very similar California bill did lead to "thousands of erroneous registrations, including at least one involving a noncitizen" — but also that those were quickly fixed. For HF I think this means a bit of a gray area. 2nd source: "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters" from NYT. Starts directly with "The right-wing think tank has been pushing misinformation about voting into social media feeds", and describes an example of negligent lack of due diligence from HF people (reporters?) to claim that noncitizens are registered/voting at a significant scale. I actually have a longstanding problem with loading NYT on my computer, so that's about all I can get to in 5 minutes of loading, but this absolutely seems like a red flag. 3rd source: "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force", from AP. The main event in this article is some bogus scaremongering report by HF "suggesting that President Joe Biden might try to hold the White House 'by force' if he loses the November election", based on "a role-playing exercise gaming out potential scenarios before and after the 2024 election". Tbf, it's unclear from the AP article if the report gives an above-minimal chance of that (I'd look for the report myself but this comment has taken too long already), but it does make me queasy that HF would put their name on that. The article also, however, says "The Heritage Foundation and other pro-Trump groups have continued to promote the same false claims of election fraud that fueled Trump’s attempts to stay in office despite his 2020 loss to Biden" (though for that they link to an article that doesn't mention HF), and "'As things stand right now, there is a zero percent chance of a free and fair election in the United States of America,' Mike Howell, executive director of the foundation’s Oversight Project, said ." Those are also red flags.
It's clear to me from this that HF should be restricted to some degree for use on US elections. What do you all think? Placeholderer (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Pardon the ping, but as an involved editor who's helpfully called me out on something already, do you think this (sub?)section is an appropriate place for such a wall of text or should I put it under the RfC section as "Comment", or does it not make a difference? Placeholderer (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Further pardon requested for the ping, as it turns out the question was probably unnecessary Placeholderer (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If that's what you need, a search reveals that they have tons of funding from cigarette and oil lobbies. I checked the first book, and it throws Heritage into the "greenscamming" bin of organizations funded by Exxon and Koch, though without individual elaboration as to Heritage's false claims. I agree with you on Desmog. Source 3 says similar things, addingpossibly showing a COI
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change and aligning regulatory action with an additional tax and harming the welfare of the American population. The organization cited several individuals in the organizations during the 1990s (e.g., Antoneilli, 2000; Feulner, 1998; Schaefer et al., 1997a, 1997b)
, where "organizations" refers to previously-discussed organizations that publish false information the book details. And yes, the book your library has appears to be the same thing.For the FDA book, the occurrences of "Heritage" when searched in Google Books seem to show that the book expounds on specific misinformation from Heritage. I don't have that book either, though. @Alalch E. Could you provide some more quotes on this one?I hope we can agree here that Heritage is within deprecated territory or at least generally unreliable (GUnRel) for politics. Since pretty much everything Heritage does is about politics, can we agree that Heritage should be deprecated or GUnRel? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what deprecated (to a stronger degree) and GUnRel designation mean. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I should ping @Aquillion, since they's the one above who initially proposed the opening statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Holy heck, it's uploaded on archive.org! Will be a bit harder to search within, though, since it's a photo scan without any embedded text. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for causing so many notifications, but it looks like the Archive's search function OCRs the scan. It looks like Chapter 4 is a case study based on Heritage. I'll take a look. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
general consensus that they are an advocacy think tank rather than an academic research think tank (Weaver & McGann, 2000)
Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received at least $3.5 million dollars in contributions from the industries with the most to gain from the anti-E.D.A. campaign—pharmaceutical, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco manufacturers. (para. 1)
— Ralph Nader op-ed quoted within the book as representative of "the majority view"Davis and Owen (1998) conclude that new media outlets present the "research" or "facts" disseminated by conservative think tanks knowing that it is thinly veiled ideology because such materials provide inexpensive entertainment which means greater profits than producing their own
(p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation. Berliner and Biddle describe}}I'll stop here, since I've dived into too many sources already, but the book goes on to talk about how Heritage's marketing funds made it cheap for newrooms to pander. This FAIR article mentioned goes into a lot of detail on Heritage's funding COIs. The book also mentioned some pretty interesting stuff from Soley's book The News Shapers, which I also checked out:Berliner and Biddle (1995) argue that the public perception that education is in crisis is manufactured by conservative think tanks and others who deliberately misuse and misrepresent research and who use the "compliant" press (p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation.
- It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
| Quotes on explicated mislabeling of Republican politicians as "scholar"s and other dressings-up |
|---|
|
- There's an entire subchapter on Heritage. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I see I definitely think at least GUNREL for specifically (US) elections (maybe post-2016), but that seems to be the focus of these problems. I think more variety of political topics would be helpful to say for politics in general Placeholderer (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- After reading Aaron Liu's recent-er comments I see I'll have to update my opinion — there clearly is more political stuff to look into. I'll be a bit busier/quieter in the next few days but shall try to get my hands on those books unless someone else summarizes them first Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion is now up to three quarters of the size of the last Telegraph RFC, which was greatly bloated. I've already preemptively archived four over sections to try and keep the size of the board down. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- it's decision time soibangla (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it feels like the useful part just started! Placeholderer (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't meant to stop any discussion, just a heads up that it might be moved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it feels like the useful part just started! Placeholderer (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- it's decision time soibangla (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Special:GoToComment/c-Aquillion-2021-03-24T12:54:00.000Z-Springee-2021-03-24T03:58:00.000Z is a very interesting comment from 2021 that says there's consensus that think tanks are presumed GUn and also discusses the SPLC point raised above. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Daily Signal
The Daily Signal is a link aggregator and reprinter with some original content. It was part of the Heritage Foundation up to June 2024 but has supposedly been spun out now. I would personally be inclined to treat DS as GU at absolute best, but we might want to think about its status too, both before and after the spinoff - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
References
References
- ^ Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
- ^ Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
- Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
- Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
- "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 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)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 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)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 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 sourcesare 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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)
- 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)
- Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.
- 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)
- 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)
Sources for Chapel Hart
Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for Chapel Hart. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.
- https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
- https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
- https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847
Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.
Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.
The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. Lazman321 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- My assessment:
- The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality free newspaper that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
- The DRG News source is labeled as being from The Country Daily, which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They might be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
- Southern Living is a reliable source.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- My assessment:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.
- 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)
- Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following:
- I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing
- 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)
- Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:
- 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)
- Reprinting external content isn't MPN
- 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)
- 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
TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not
neutrally worded and brief
as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation
Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.
For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters
I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/
Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.
There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.
I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, I'd argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.
I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. NotQualified (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. NotQualified (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. signed, Rosguill 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error NotQualified (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- > Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for 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)
- I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. NotQualified (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. NotQualified (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
- "If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
- Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
- I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
- In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. NotQualified (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
- If we can agree that at least nearly all the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? NotQualified (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. NotQualified (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.
That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) - If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
- I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. The New York Times report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as The Telegraph and The Spectator. Deadline profile him here—it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in high regard. In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because other news outlets have not dispatched their own reporters to cover trials and sentencing, so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. NotQualified (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (WP:WEIGHT / WP:BALASP). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New York Times says
No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.
which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort ofunduly represent contentious or minority claims
we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Surely that's a WP:WEIGHT issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a WP:RS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
- > If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
- And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
And what if it isn't.
- WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m just here to say that a source being generally unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on WP:RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). CNC (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. NotQualified (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nah. If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per CommunityNotesContributor, that it isn't showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- @The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are two issues here, neither of which is really a WP:RS issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be attributed if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said
In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton
. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / WP:RSOPINION venues, is the WP:DUE issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that this is solid advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for Bering Strait
See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 @Doug Weller My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. The Kip 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
- Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Words of the founder Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Need context before coming to RSN
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per
Slaterstevenits founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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
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)
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)
- Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
NASASpaceFlight.com
Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on NASASpaceFlight.com's use as a reliable source in articles related to SpaceX, specifically in its use in Starship flight test 8 and Starship flight test 9.
At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.
Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source
"should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."
which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:RS calls for
"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
. A Google books search appears to show WP:USEBYOTHERS, and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per WP:USERGENERATED.
Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.
Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. RachelTensions (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.
no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for WP:GNG. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. RachelTensions (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.
well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? RachelTensions (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)