Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:30, 24 January 2012 view sourceFladrif (talk | contribs)6,136 edits →Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content?: JN&M not indexed for MEDLINE← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:20, 17 January 2025 view source Simonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,954 edits →Survey: Jacobin: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{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 = 113 |counter = 464
|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(5d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=14}}

__TOC__
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

<!-- <!--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 19: Line 15:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> -->
<onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
<onlyinclude>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Soomrani ==


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== external infomation is out of date, unsure how to proceed ==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


===Discussion (Bild) ===
hi there
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:
I was reading this ] and found that the table information relates to table from 2007. I am unsure how to add the new table as a image to wiki. It currently is just text on another page on wiki ]. I was wondering if anyone has more experience than me and can update the page. I haven't done this before.
* {{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
Sam
* 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.}}
== Political science source in climate change articles ==
::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
:::::These are the key points from the foreword
:::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
:::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
:::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
:::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
:::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
:::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
:::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==RfC: NewsNation==
Dunlap, Riley E. and McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Climate Change Denial: Sources, actors, and strategies". In Constance Lever-Tracy. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0415544785.
<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
What is the reliability of ]?


* '''Option 1: ]'''
Can it be regarded as a reliable academic secondary source? Or is it tertiary? Can it be used widely in articles on the politics of climate change? ] (]) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Option 2: ]'''
:Would be glad for any comments. ] (]) 15:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


::At an initial glance, it seems to be reliable (has someone argued that it isn't? What were their concerns?) ... The principle appears to be a respected academic. ] (]) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
::On ], someone thinks it is too tertiary in nature to be of use. ] (]) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


===Survey (NewsNation)===
:Of course it is a reliable source. What I was saying is that it is a summary of other papers and a tertiary source. And by the way climate change denial is not an academic study of political science. ] (]) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''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)
::It is the other way round: 'climate change denial' is an entirely appropriate field of study for social and political sciences. ] (]) 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Did anyone have a chance to look at the paper itself? It doesn't appear to me to be a summary of papers. It does of course refer to the existing literature and brings together many ideas that the authors have been developing over a number of papers. These are perhaps the two most important authors in the new literature on the politics of climate change. ] (]) 21:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


===Discussion (NewsNation)===
What statement is it being used to support that is at issue? ] (]) 02:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
*For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have given up interest in the area. ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


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


The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
I would put it in the ], but i'm afraid people won't see the new info. ] has added new sources to try to cover the museum info in the ] article. However, these concern me a lot more than his previous attempt (which was overall still useful, just not for what it was trying to be used for). The sources include pages, which at first glance seems like they would be useful, as there is at least commentary with the images, albeit short. But if you reduce the URL to find out what this site is supposed to be, you end up , a fan site for Christa Jacobson. So...I don't think those two pages are reliable.
* '''A: Geni.com'''
* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
:They should be:
* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
Also added was a link to , which I have no reason to believe is reliable. There's no listing of who writes it or what the website is being published on. So, anyways, are these sources reliable or not? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
:Anyone? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:00, 1 January 2012 (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.
::Why is everyone responding to other sections below, but not this one? :( <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
*First one to tripod, no, not reliable. Second one, also no, I see no evidence of editorial control. ] (]) 01:39, 2 January 2012 (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)
:* Okay, thanks. :3 I'm still going to wait until 1 or 2 more people respond here before taking any action. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


=== Preliminaries ===
* Can someone else please respond to this section? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


:Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agree with the comments of Darkness shines
::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)
::As above, is unreliable as it is a self created website
:: looks like a self published website as well. No indication of reliability nor even who runs the website. ] (]) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) :::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I had no idea this board existed. Now that I do, let me ask. What would constitute a "reliable source" for this? There are many different sites which have photos taken by people who have visited these museums and taken photos of the swords (I myself visited the Iga museum in person). How are multiple first hand reports (blogs, photo-albums, etc...) and in-person visits from a variety of different people with similar photographic evidence not reliable evidence? The official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum website has a photo of the display in question, but unfortunately it's very small. Before I attempt to find new "reliable sources", I would appreciate any guidance or suggestions you may have. Cheers. ] (]) 03:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Per ], the first step is that reliable sources need to be published. The only alternative to that is for them to have been sources made by an expert in the field, which would fall under ], but those should be used sparingly. So what you're looking for is published information, such as news articles, books, papers, things like that. A random photograph that anyone took isn't reliable because we have no proof that it is what it says it is. Only if it is known that the person or place where it is being hosted is reliable, with the person being an expert or the place being a published location, then we know it is reliable. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 06:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::Ok, well I have a few questions then. Is an official website considered a "published" location? And am I to assume that unlike the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words", on Misplaced Pages a photo (or multiple different photos from different people for that matter) is worth zero words? And also does what you said mean that if I was to find a "published article" talking about one of the museums featuring a photo clearly of the sword the Misplaced Pages article is about, but not mentioning it by any one of its names, it would be insufficient? What if a published location like has a photo of the same sword seen on many visitor report blogs and photos (like these ), calls it by name, and lists "(c)Ueno City Tourist Association" on it? Is that sufficient? I know the Iga-ryu Ninja Museum is not mentioned by name, but "(c)Ueno City Tourist Association" and "Copyright © 2011 Igaueno Tourist Association" which is what's listed on the official website refer to the same thing (see ]). The small photo of the display is listed under on the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum website. I assume it can't be used by itself and can't be used in conjuction with any of the other links listed above to coroborate it? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand all the rules. Cheers. ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::: I'm sure there do exist reliable sources on the topic. The visitor pictures on blogs and self published sources are not suitable. I don't see any indication from web-japan that it is an official website of anything, it seems to be self published as well. ] (]) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: Which site are you refering to when you say that it's not an official website of anything? The one I listed as being the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum site? Because it is indicated on web-japan, see and . Or do you mean web-japan itself which is and also says on the museum section that it's ? Cheers. ] (]) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: I don't see any mention of it being the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum site; this one appears to be . Web-japan appear to be sponsored by the MOFA but it is not a goverment website. I am unsure if it is reliable; need more input from others. ] (]) 10:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::: There seems to be some confusion here. I'm not saying Web-Japan is the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum site, just that they refer / link to it directly and . I clearly stated above that the official website for Iga-ryu Ninja Museum was http://iganinja.jp/en which is the same thing as yours http://iganinja.jp/en/index.html And how is it possible that a site about Japanese tourist destinations like museums sponsored by the might not be considered reliable?! Cheers. ] (]) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Academic Conferences ==
::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 ===
Hi all, I've been directed here from ]. There is a dispute at ] (the full conversation is at ] although it wanders off into a separate dispute as well.
:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


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


=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
We are aware that this has been covered on this board before, but the results of those discussions are disagreed about. Anyone who wants to comment here, at the dispute thread on the talk page, or at the dispute noticeboard would be very welcome to do so.
:'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
Thank you very much in advance. ] (]) 07:39, 31 December 2011 (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)
:I don't think we can give a straight yes or no to conference proceedings. Some reports of proceedings are very strictly peer reviewed and just as good as any edited collections of academic papers. Others are hardly reviewed at all, and the papers may be tentative work-in-progress. We can be guided by the editor's introduction, by the publisher's policy, whether the proceedings are part of a series, and other indicators. Also on whether the papers have been subsequently cited. If an author has subsequently published a revised version of the paper in a journal, or makes the same point in a peer-reviewed source, then we should use that other source instead. ] (]) 09:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
::Agree, mostly. In computer science in particular, high-class conference proceedings (e.g. published by Springer or AAAI) are the primary means of scientific publishing, and are equivalent to good journal articles. They are fully peer reviewed. However, just as with a journals, there is a spectrum of conferences, and some are less reputable. As an example, the proceedings of ] or ] are high-quality sources equal to any journal in the field. On the other hand, everything that starts with "World Multiconference..." is, to phrase it carefully, "less generally accepted". --] (]) 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree that it truly depends on the conference, and perhaps on the paper and author as well. All of my examples are also in information technology, where I have attended conferences ranging from highly peer-reviewed, to an approval process that did not imply endorsement, to presentations what essentially amounted to "we have released a new version of the software, and here is why you should upgrade." The latter might be reliable for a list of features, but probably not for an analysis of the competitive ecosystem. For example. In other words, maybe. HTH ] (]) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:It depends also what it is a source for. Here there are a number of factors:
:* How remarkable is the claim?
:* How is it worded? (cf. Foos are bars... X's preliminary study showed foos are bars.... X has been studying whether foos are bars... )
:* Is it an early result where it make sense to use this reference until something else is available?
:'']&nbsp;]'', <small>12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />


: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)
Thank you very much Judith, Stephan, Elinruby and Rich - Sorry for not making much contribution - I wanted to make sure that I was getting a community opinion without influencing with my own views. Given that there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast rule in general - can I ask about the specific case? Would you guys have an issue with the conferences ASSETS, IUI, and SLPAT.
: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)
::::* ASSETS - Peer reviewed (acceptance rate 37% )
::::* SLPAT - Double blind peer reviewed (can't find acceptance rate)
::::* IUI - Double blind peer reviewed (acceptance rate 29%)


== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
being used to support ] added paragraph? That would let us bring in a lot more modern work in the field even if we restrict ourselves to just those conferences. ] (]) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::All seem OK to me but you need views from people who know more about ICT research. ] (]) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::I read that paragraph previously, and there is nothing exceptional about it, it is made fairly clear that the proposed solutions are being researched, therefore I would accept any reference supporting that (apart form a fraudulent grant submission {{smiley}}). The only thing I have a possible issue with is the first sentence, a good AAC may or may not need "new utterances" programming manually (and if so, often not by users) depending on the utterance and definition of "new", and, possibly, the interface. And therefore it is there that I would look for clarification in the reference, and for stronger support for the statement (which is an absolute one about the subject, rather than a meta statement about research). And indeed briefly checking the reference this does seem to have been a rather sweeping extrapolation:
:::::{{Blockquote|At the simplest level, people with Complex Communication Needs (CCN) can cause a pre-stored message to be spoken by activating a single switch. At the most sophisticated level, literate users can generate novel text using input methods ranging from a single switch to a full keyboard.}}
:::::(For me, one of the most interesting things for me, about reading papers these days is how much authors say without supporting references, which would be challenged here.)
:::::'']&nbsp;]'', <small>18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
::::::Well, papers are read by reviewers, who are supposedly knowledgeable about the domain, so they can apply an expert version of ]. They are intended for an expert audience. And finally, researchers are ''expected'' to present ], not forbidden from it. --] (]) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Just as a quick point, I think it's actually this sentence in the source that was used for the first sentence, if the paragraph goes back in I'll add the direct quote as a comment.
::::::{{Blockquote|This results in a situation where new utterances must be prepared in advance either by the user or a carer, with a large time and energy cost.}} ] (]) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
:::::As I wrote on my talk page: It's not my field, and I'm really too busy to check this in detail. However, my first instinct is that conferences associated with the ACM should be acceptable. Workshops are not, generally, at the same level - in general, Workshops will also present work in progress, and first results. However, there are some prestigious conferences that simply continue to be called "Workshop on...", so that is not a strong criterion. --] (]) 21:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
So if I can summaries this - the answer in general is roughly 'it very much depends', and in the particularly case of these three conferences there are no particular warning bells being thrown up? (Which is lovely, of course). Thank you all so much for your help, my plan now is to take some more advice at dispute with a view to either reinstating the paragraph to see what happens, or reopening the dispute in general. Thanks again.] (]) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br>
2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")


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


]: 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>
Are entries and sources from Terry Manners reliable? Manners's biography of this topic is considered unreliable and biased. --] (]) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
:The wikipedia article does seem to overly rely on the opinion in the book. If can find no significant mention of it in reliable sources to ascertain it's reliability. To me it doesn't seem a suitable. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::I don't know which statements to remove, but must I remove Manners's bio as a source? Would this imply: I must remove whatever is cited by Manners? --] (]) 04:54, 16 January 2012 (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):
== when is youtube a good source? ==
*
*
*
* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
*
*
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
*
''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? ] (]) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Jacobin ==
Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. ] has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:


<<big></big>ref>person(s), "the title of the production", who published it, the date it was published.</ref>


Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
In stead of, for example:
:Addendum: I think {{noping|The wub}} sums up my thoughts well. {{tq|It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place.}} ] (]) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<<big></big>ref>Mr G., "", Do Try This at Home, Season 2, Episode 1, 2014</ref>
:Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: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. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. ] (]) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Even if correct this is irrelevant. ] (]) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... ] (]) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions.
:::Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started ''after'' someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things.
:::Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion.
:::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This has already been demonstrated by @] and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. ] (]) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. ] (]) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".


:Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1
::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)
] (]) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


:You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious ], reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Misplaced Pages articles must adhere to a ], our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral}}. To use political perspective (such as the ''Jacobin'' magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* The IP address above is completely incorrect. It's actually very simple about when you can use Youtube. If the video is hosted on the channel of an official news organizations, like the official Fox News or CNN Youtube channel, then the video are both reliable and don't violate copyright. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::I didn't think he was asking for cases where it is obvious. I thought the question was where the line is. ] (]) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (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. ] (]) 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)
*I have not clicked on all of them at the Republican article but so far a couple are perfect examples of when YouTube can be used. Example: is a primary source (so use it with care) but it should be OK. The YouTube channel is verified as being official with the link to it from . There are some concerns overall (not enough secondary sources, refs are not formatted correctly) but those are a whole other issue. More info can be seen at an essay I started: ].] Follow-up:Didn't realize we were looking at it as an "abstract". There are too many variables to give an answer here which is why YouTube videos should be judged on a case by case basis.(]) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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)
*It is only acceptable when it is the YouTube channel of something that otherwise conforms to ], like Fox News, and then under the requirements for other broadcast media. It's never acceptable if it's a self-published source (see ]) unless it's about itself: say, ]'s YouTube Commentaries become popular enough to be relevant to Misplaced Pages, etc. For example, I could make ten YouTube videos on why space aliens are real and how they put on suits of skin to become our leaders and usher in the ]; those videos could then be used to artificially lend more ] to an extremely fringe cause. From that example, it should be clear why such sources are never acceptable. ] (]) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (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)
::Did you really have to pick Faux News as your example? To be a reliable source, there ''must'' be a reputation for fact checking, not just a large audience. There are in fact some channels, but ] has made a living for ''years'' out of spotting the errors on Faux. ] <small>]</small> 17:14, 19 January 2012 (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)
== An official Facebook? ==
::::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)
I know Facebook and other social media sites are generally not reliable sources. However, if a post/status is made on an official Facebook or other social media site of someone involved in a show's production, can that be used to source something on the show's article? Specifically, I'm wondering if a post like made by ] on her official Facebook (or posts to her Twitter or WhoSay, where she has also posted things like the Facebook post I linked to) could be used to source international airdates on the article ]. - ] (]) 03:17, 3 January 2012 (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)
:She happens to be right, but I'd suggest a source such as , the online version of the magazine ]. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 10:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. ] (]) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Okay, I do understand that if a better source is out there, it should be used. But what if her social media is the only/best source, since she's posted about other countries as well? Or is it still unreliable because it's Facebook/Twitter/etc? - ] (]) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (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.''
:::Practice seem to be if you can get away with it then... but if you use Facebook/Twitter/etc, an editor will be able to delete with an edit summary that it violates ] and to restore would actually invoke ] or an act that can be seen as edit warring. Just because an editor states there is "no other" or "this is best" does not mean it will be accepted anyway. Applicable reasoning:
::::::::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)
*]
*This is just a quick check and there are probably others. ] (]) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (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)
:::::Okay, makes sense. I won't use her. Thanks. - ] (]) 19:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)

:::::::::::::::And this makes sense thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] and made-up colors ==
::::::::::::::::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)
The website ] allows its users to make up colors and color names. I've just removed one such from an article, as a spamlink; but thought I should come here to establish some consensus before proceding further. Thoughts? Comments? Seems to me like ] and an excuse to add spamlinks, but I am not always right in my analyses. --] &#x007C; ] 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:If you mean , I'd suggest your removal was justified on at least three fronts:
:# the content has a promotional tone and certainly does seem spammish;
:# the content isn't noteworthy unless reported by independent sources;
:# we can't suggest that "sunny orange" is vermilion just because COLOURlovers, an unreliable source, says it is.
:According to our article, ] is a social networking and blogging site and shouldn't be used to source anything except, in limited circumstances, articles discussing itself. ] (]) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If ] is able to nominate a color of the year, then I don't see why the users of Colour Lovers shouldn't be able to nominate THEIR own color of the year and have it be identified in Misplaced Pages like the Pantone color of the year is. Isn't that what ] is all about--the users providing the content rather than having content fed to them? ] (]) 08:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:I'm not quite sure what Web 2.0 has to do with the matter of reliable sources, which is what this noticeboard addresses. The ] would appear to deprecate COLOURlovers. I suppose that Pantone is a reliable source because they've been widely accepted as one of the leading entities in the field of color management for decades. If you think there's a problem regarding the use of Pantone-related content, however, by all means bring it up on the talk page of the relevant article. ] (]) 06:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

:The difference is that Pantone is recognized around the world as a reputable and hugely notable entity and the Colour lovers website is some nothing silly site with no recognition by reliable sources as having any notability. ] (]) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that COLOURlovers an unreliable source and back when I used to be a active editor I used to remove it when I encountered it. At one point I tried to put together a guideline on sources for color coordinates ]. Note that a bunch of stuff that probably should have been on the talk page ended up directly in the article page itself. The other issue is that there is a bias towards RGB coordinates and one to one mappings of RGB in many of the sources used even though that really doesn't make sense. Most ]s are vague and represent collections of similar colors. On the other hand their have been concerns with using sources such as Pantone since they are copy-righted. See also ]. ] (]) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a result of this section I investigated the site and our article about it and decided to put the Misplaced Pages article ]. So far only one other person has commented. Anybody else want to give their input? ] (]) 18:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

== Indonesian News Websites ==

Hi all, I am doing an expansion of ] and hoping to bring it to FA in the near future. A fellow editor has suggested that I use several sources to show that numerous acts, including , , , , , and , were influenced by him. However, we've never had a look into the reliability of these websites. In order to have a discussion to cite, I'd like us to look into them.

First, www.kapanlagi.com is an independent Indonesian celebrity news website with editorial control and paid staff. It is often quoted in more mainstream media, such as , and has been and is among the .

Second, www.okezone.com is a celebrity news website owned by media giant ], also with editorial control and paid contributors. It is sometimes quoted in the mainstream media, like .

The third, Inilah.com, is news portal with that sometimes has articles reprinted in more mainstream media, like .

Any feedback would be welcome. ] (]) 05:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
*Bump. ] (]) 01:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

== Criticism of concordats ==

{{la|Criticism of concordats}} is a relatively recent creation, by {{lu|PeterBrietbart}}. My concerns about the article's sourcing are twofold:

#The article appears to extensively reference the concordats themselves, to make synthetic claims critical of them.
#Many of the secondary sources that are in the article appear to be to online publications of uncertain reliability and/or prominence (examples: ).

Is there enough well-sourced material here to be worth saving? Or would I be better off merging what little clearly-reliably sourced material into ] (of which this article appears to be a ])? <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 09:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

*I have proposed this article be merged at ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 02:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

== Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source? ==

As I am having problems with two users, ] and ], who keep repeatedly deleting every citation i make from Encyclopedia Britannica, I want to ask if Encyclopedia Britannica can be accepted as a source in Misplaced Pages or not. I have seen that scores of articles use at a source, so we have to establish if this source should be allowed in Misplaced Pages. (] (]) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
::See for example ]. There are several articles involved in a consensus building exercise including ], ], ] in which many sorts of sources are being offered up for examination including, primary sources--contemporary news paper accounts, secondary sources and tertiary sources. In this case EB stands for http://www.britannica.com rather than ]. -- ] (]) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:A reliable source for what? As is made clear at the top of this page, we need more information. What is it being used as a source ''for''? I'd also suggest you read ] - the Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, and we quite explicitly state that "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others". There is no yes-or-no answer to your question. ] (]) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:EB is, at best, a tertiary source per many past discussions here. In addition, the online version solicits revisions from readers, which has also been established at RS/N. And since "RS" has nothing to do with "truth", EB is pretty much ruled out as a source - you probably should look at the sources the EB cites instead. Cheers. ] (]) 00:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Appending: The OP seems to also be posting related complaints at AN/I concurrently. ] (]) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::I have added '']'' article from EB as "Further reading" source rather than reference. If you want, you can still add EB articles into "Further reading" section; don't forget, ]! Cheers, ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::"''EB is pretty much ruled out as a source''" What?! That's the craziest thing I've read on Misplaced Pages all day. ] (]) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

::Since when was EB ruled out as a source? I've never ever heard that, especially when we cross-post public domain content from old versions of it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:::Multiple discussions on RSN and elsewhere - if a fact needs a cite, the EB is where you look to ''find'' a cite, but as a tertiary source it is deficient for most WP purposes. And since the online EB solicits revisions, it is even less an RS. Cheers. ] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) By the way, the 1911 edition was used to "populate" Misplaced Pages at the start, and is now generally regarded as having been a mistake. It was only "public domain" at the start because of the odd US copyright laws of the time, and most uses on WP are being removed over time. See ], and the fact that there is a specific template for such articles ] (]) 12:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::You mean discussions ], where you're the only person saying it is an unreliable source? I think you're really the only one or one of very few here that thinks Britannica isn't a reliable source. As Andy pointed out above, it does depend on what you're using it for, but that's true for any source. As a whole, the Britannica is reliable, it's just not as good as a secondary source, since it is a conglomeration of secondary sources, but tertiary sources are still perfectly reliable, especially for general, big picture information. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::I fear you have missed a number of discussions on this - including opinionf from Jimbo, Gwen Gale and a number of others about it as a source. ''Meaning, once editors begin to dig at all into a topic, encyclopedias are out, gone, toast, the end. Stay away from 'em, other than as a means to find out what to look for and where, but even that can be way dodgy, owing to the wanton systemic bias of most any tertiary reference''. etc. also show remarkable unanimity that non-specialized encyclopedias are tertiary sources at best. ditto. Sorry - I am far from the only person with this view. shows a view on a GA page. ditto. ditto. ditto. and another. and another. But you could only find s single discussion? I find literally hundreds of them. Cheers - EB was, and remains, "tertiary". And it is ''specialized'' tertiary sources which are usable. Not "general'' ones. ] (]) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::It's nice that Jimbo and Gwen Gale have opinions, but personal opinions aren't policy. Our policy states that reliable sources are those who have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Clearly, Encyclopedia Britanica has such a reputation. I mean, are you honestly trying to say that EB isn't a reputable encyclopedia? ] (]) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::'''And well over two dozen other editors and admins''' ... and so far "tertiary sources" remain "tertiary sources." And remember "reputable" != "reliable source" per ] so that cavil fails. The fact is that '''Misplaced Pages requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopedia articles are'''. And that should end the issue utterly. ] (]) 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::It depends on who wrote the EB article. If it is written by an acknowledged expert, then it becomes an article by a secondary source and is then better than a secondary source written by a layman.

::::::::::Collect, I think you are making a mistake in assuming that all secondary sources are of the same type of quality. For example I have recently been involved in a discussion over the year in which a man was allegedly knighted by Queen Elizabeth I. We have found a secondary source that uses primary sources that does not list the man as one who received a knighthood in that year (but the source may not have surveyed all the primary sources). However, it seems that for this fact many modern day secondary sources rely on Victorian secondary sources, which rely on an 18th century source that cites a 17th century source. We have not yet found a secondary source that cites a primary source. But clearly when (or if) such a secondary source is found, it will be "better" than all the sources that cite older secondary sources. A secondary source that does not cite primary sources, but relies on other secondary sources is no better or worse than a general encyclopaedia as a source, and many many books support facts with citations to other previously published secondary sources. An good example of this is the propagation in may English language books published from the 1960s until the late 1990s of the incorrect figure of 130,000 killed in the bombing raids on Dresden in February 1945. German historians had provided the correct figures back in the 1970s, but these were ignored in many books and articles in favour of ] incorrect figures published in his book ]. It took a decade after he was discredited in court before the correct figures became generally accepted (and were stated as a fact without hedging in ]).

::::::::::BTW where is the alleged fact that Misplaced Pages requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopaedia articles to be found in the ] or ] policies? -- ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Nothing wrong with citing tertiary sources in general, but if there are better sources, they should be preferred. ] (]) 04:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:Yup. Another pointless argument about abstract 'reliability'. As far as Misplaced Pages policy is concerned, there is no such thing. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited ''for'', I suggest that we close this 'debate', and all do something more useful instead... ] (]) 05:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, it isn't an RS issue at all, it's a copyright issue. Brittanica is very much an RS. The 1911 edition was used appropriately to populate our early articles about botany, for example. But if we absorb lots of content from a tertiary source that we're basically in competition with, that can cause problems. ] (]) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

::How is it a problem? -- ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

:I'm surprised we're even questioning EB's use as a source. If EB is ruled out, then we ought to erase millions of other far more dubious sources which are gaily quoted on Misplaced Pages but have no verifiable standing - e.g. random websites, newspapers and magazines which may just be one person's uninformed (and possibly biased) opinion. --] (]) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

::Misplaced Pages has certial rules about "tertiary sources." '''It has nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" but to do with the desired nature of Misplaced Pages's sourcing.''' And opinions are citable ''only'' as opinions in any case, and most "random websites" are utterly unacceptable, so that sort of argument holds no water. And if something can be found in a tertiary source, it should reasonably be findale in an acceptable secondary source, just as we also rule out most primary sources on the basis that important information should be findale in a secondary source. Cheers. ] (]) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:::The basic policy about tertiary sources is 'Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.'
:::So yes one should avoid using them for particular facts but they can be used to help with the summary and overall structure and with assessing weight. And primary sources can very often be more reliable than secondary sources, just we must not trawl through primary sources for new things but only use stuff which has been mentioned in secondary sources. Basically primary sources give no notability but may be more accurate and have some weight. ] (]) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

::::While there is nothing in ] against using tertiary sources, there are strong restrictions on the way that primary sources can be used, and unpublished primary sources may not be used. -- ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not always clear cut whether something is a secondary or tertiary source. For example is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as secondary or tertiary source? -- ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use tertiary sources for particular facts as well. I think the current policy formulations are often somewhat misunderstood. Imho it is a mistake or misunderstanding to take taking that policy all too literally. The notion that tertiary are per se "inferior" is rather misleading. First of of all there is often no clear cut distinction between secondary and tertiary and more importantly the quality (and domain) of a source is much more important than a formal distinction between secondary and tertiary. Meaning a high quality tertiary source (say an academic special subject encyclopedia or a standard textbook) is often better and more reliable source than some mediocre secondary source. Another thing to keep in mind, is how WP articles are actually written. The (ideal) situation, that a domain expert with an overview of all relevant secondary (and primary) sources compiles them into an article, is simply not a workable scenario for the bulk of our articles/content. Instead many WP articles are written by non experts with only a limited or even no overview of the relevant secondary sources. Such authors usually compile the knowledge of (academic) textbooks and (academic) encyclopedias into WP, which are usually at least partially tertiary sources. From that perspective you might even argue that the bulk of our reliable sources is tertiary to begin with.

As far as the original problem (editors deleting any EB references (or any tertiary reference) is concerned, I'd even consider that vandalism, that is, people removing EB references without replacing it by another (superior, secondary) source. Now there can be individual cases where you can consider an EB reference as insufficient or inappropriate, but that needs to be judged on case by case basis. Also the very recent (user based) content additions of the EB need to be viewed with a greater scrutiny. But then again I find it hard to image a scenario where no reference is better than an EB reference.--] (]) 06:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

*It seems to me the whole 'philosophy' behind the RS guidelines is to maximise the accuracy of relaying information. A good secondary sources should rely on primary sources, so are one step away from the facts. Tertiary sources rely on secondary sources and therefore are two steps away, so you get an escalation of the chinese whisper effect. That doesn't make tertiary sources unreliable, just less reliable than a secondary source by its very nature; also a good tertiary source like EB is better than a poor secondary source like the Daily Mail (where we've actually had instances of them ''making up'' stories (I don't recall similar discussions about EB). So in general, if something is good enough for EB it probably should be good enough for Misplaced Pages, but the aim should always be to seek out sources that put us closest to the facts. ] (]) 06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Well yes there is potential "whisper effect". However high quality (scholarly) tertiary sources are usually written by experts that looked at all or most relevant primary and secondary sources, which means (ideally) there's no whisper effect at all in such a scneario. Also instead of seeing it from the whisper effect perspective, you can also see it as an error removing filter perspective, meaning good tertiary sources add an additional level of expert scrutiny and are without possible errors and mistakes still contained in original primary and secondary sources. As far as "closest" to the facts is concerned, you could argue that's an argument for primary rather than for secondary sources. But the problem there is, that the perceptions of facts might differ and that for an encyclopedia the simple stating of facts is not enough either (knowledge versus information). Encyclopedia needs to contextualize, connect and explain facts and also consider different perceptions, incomplete information/"missing facts and such. That's exactly where the secondary and tertiary sources come in.--] (]) 07:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::::''"Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, <u>in context</u>, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. "''
:::: I agree with ]. There is no "abstract 'reliability' without exact context. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', ..." without any conclusion due to lack of the context and the fact there is no abstract general reliability.--] (]) 07:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::I added the context as in insert at the top of this section. -- ] (]) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::I am sorry but I can't see the context you added. Does it contain any of below information requested for this page:
::::::* The article in which it is being used. For example ]
::::::* The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
::::::* Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
:::::: I am not following this discussion so if there is a context with above mentioned information please talkback me on my talkpage. --] (]) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

== Question regarding Huffington Post and relability ==

A question came up at the discussion at ]. The question is in regard to the use of a blog on Huffington Post, and whether this is considered a reliable source. What is the general consensus for HP with regards to being used as a reliable source? ] (]) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:I don't think there is any consensus, but a blog is only reliable for citing the '''opinions''' of its author. ] (]) 04:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, I was thinking that as well, but it's good to have an involved party chime in. ] (]) 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::For this issue (asserting reliable coverage for purposes of ]), HuffPo is unquestionably reliable. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::HuffPo allows all sorts of people to post blogs there with little or no oversight as long as they are willing to put up free content HuffPo can put ads all over. Being mentioned on a blog page on the site somewhere is nothing like our normal standards for GNG. It's like trying to say if something appears on blogspot.com it must be notable. So I would have to disagree quite strongly with your assertion. ] (]) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

*Ummm, nothing on the seems to qualify her as a professional ], so why does qualify as either a reliable or notability-enhancing source? This is the problem with HuffPo, although some of its content appears expertly-authored, and thus reliable, a good deal of it isn't. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:Agree with Hrafn here. Unless the reviewer has a demonstrated reputation as a film critic, the review does little to establish notability. ] (]) 08:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

*Taking a view of HuffPo as whole, I would suggest that their editorial oversight is, at best, very uneven -- I have heard of quite a bit of pseudoscientific nonsense being published by it (perhaps because their authors were friends of ]). I would therefore suggest that it might be appropriate to treat it as effectively equivalent of a ] published by its author: where that author is an otherwise-published expert on the topic it should be considered reliable, where the author is not (as appears to be the case in this example), it should not. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

*Where the HuffPo blog is erratic both in what it covers and when it is written by the author proposed as the source, it is clear that it is a "blog" and not a source which has any notability or reliability per WP policy at all, and is not, in this case, even usable for "opinion." We have no reason here to assign any notability to the author as expert in the field at all. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

*I don't believe the Huffington Post is a "blog" in the sense of being a self-published source, I'm under the impression they have an editorial staff, etc. They may advertise themselves as being a blog, but they're basically a published media source. I would agree that some of what shows up there is erratic, and I'd put it more at the level of the ''Daily Mail'' or ''TMZ'' than the staff blogs of the ''Washington Post'', but it's still a "published" source. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:Content on Huffington Post varies widely. Much of it is just pure blog content with no oversight. It may be that after AOL bought them ought they turned it into something more like ] where basically anyone off the street can get a blog on it than the online publication it used to be. ] (]) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

*Keep in mind that the ''context'' of why this question is being asked has more to do with notability of the movie, not the reliability of HP. I would say that in this context, HP is an acceptable source in making a determination of this film's notability. ] (]) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:*''Why?'' You have offered no argument or substantiation to back up your bare assertion. HuffPo does not appear to have consistent editorial oversight, the author in question has no subject-expertise. What basis in WP:RS then do you have for declaring this piece a reliable source (and thus relevant to ]'s "significant coverage in <u>reliable</u> sources...")? <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

::*I try to focus on the big picture of what policies actually mean. The issue here is whether the the world at large has given this topic significant attention. HP is an award-winning and hugely popular site. See ] Yes, one can quibble over whether the HP is a reliable source or a questionable one or whatever. None of that really matters for the purposes of this discussion. ] (]) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:::*The "big picture" is that the internet is ''chock full'' of ] (many of them "hugely popular", at least for a time) covering every manner of non-notable topic. This is why WP:N specifically requires ''reliable'' sources (and why questionable sources are routinely dismissed in AfDs). This has the additional "big picture" advantage of ensuring that we actually have a ''bare minimum'' of reliable sources with which to write an article, before committing Misplaced Pages to keeping the article. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::::*I'm sorry, but your post assumes facts not in evidence. ] (]) 05:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::*The only 'facts' (as opposed to interpretation) that I stated above was that there are many popular websites of questionable reliability, and that much of their coverage is on topics which (due to their lack of coverage in more reliable sources), Misplaced Pages does not find a suitable topic for an article. I would have thought that this would be patently obvious to any, even casual, observer of the internet, but I can give you numerous examples if you think the point requires substantiation -- particularly in the area of bizarre conspiracy theories (an ever-popular, if ever changing, field). If you want substantiation of dismissal of WP:QSs at AfD, I'm fairly sure I can dig up some of those as well. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::*Yes, please provide a link to a discussion where consensus was reached that only unquestionably reliable sources are to be used to determine notability and that's the reason why this specific wording of ] was chosen. ] (]) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

== Is YouTube a RS for ]? ==

A of shortwave programs originated by Cooper is featured in the article. The list includes comments on the subjects of the broadcast, all sourced solely to YouTube. - ] (]) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:YouTube isn't a ''source'' for anything - it consists of material generated elsewhere, and uploaded to the site. On that basis, the question should be is the original material a reliable source for what it is being cited for (with the caveat that it may have been altered before being uploaded). Then again, material is often uploaded to YouTube in breach of copyright - which is in itself a sufficient reason to be wary of linking to it. Given that the multiple links seem to source nothing but a list of radio broadcast titles, I can see little merit to doing anything beyond deleting the list itself, per ]. ] (]) 21:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::Andy is correct... YouTube is not a source... YouTube is a venue. The source is the person who posted the video to YouTube. There are several issues here...
::First, in assessing this source, we need to ask whether we have a reasonable expectation that the YouTube videos are reliable "true copies" of Cooper's original broadcasts. In this case, I have to say: "No, we do not have such a reasonable expectation." The videos were posted to YouTube by an anonymous blogger going by the name "Conspiracy Scope". This anonymous blogger could easily have edited Cooper's broadcasts in some way (so that they no longer are "true copies" of the broadcasts). Indeed, you could say that "Conspiracy Scope" ''has'' altered the original... since he has added video to what was originally an ''audio'' broadcast.
::Second, as Andy has pointed out, we do not know if Conspriacy Scope has permission to post a copy of Cooper's broadcast... if not, we violate copyright laws by linking to it. ] (]) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Surprisingly, I agree with Andy for the most part (saying "YouTube isn't a source for anything" could be confusing to a new editor). A couple of the uploaders at YouTube (axis4peace4 and ConspiracyScope) are not RS as they do not have a proven "]". Although it might sound weird, the community has objected to including videos unless it can be verified that they were uploaded from RS since there could have been some modification. There is also a question of copyright but I doubt he had that work copyrighted (unless it is automatically assumed for short wave broadcasts). Also note that even if those videos were from a primary source, they would not assert notability (mentioning since it is up for deletion). ] (]) 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Just FYI, under current copyright law, everything is automatically copyrighted at the moment it is created. No copyright notice or registration is required. Whether the broadcast is protected by copyright depends on things like when it was made, whether it was pre-recorded or live, etc. You just can't assume anything that can be copied is free from copyright. In particular, since these broadcasts were made in 1993 and on, they are protected by copyright unless they were explicitly put into the public domain by their creator. ] (]) 00:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the insights. What would be a RS for the "episode list"? Wait, I think I can answer that: a program listing published by a radio station (in Cooper's case, a shortwave outlet that rented air time by the hour) might qualify as an acceptable source for a list of show titles and broadcast dates. Unfortunately I think SELFPUB Cooper fan sites are where the current info has been gleaned from. - ] (]) 02:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::One further point. Sourcing material may often be ''necessary'' to justify inclusion in an article, but it isn't in itself ''sufficient''. The list of broadcast titles tells the reader nothing of any real significance about their content - as I suggested earlier, I think the list itself is of little merit, regardless of issues over sourcing. ] (]) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I agree. I'll remove per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I doubt the fans won't revert it. - ] (]) 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, the list itself was reverted and explained in an angry note left on my Talk Page saying, "''These broadcasts exist. They are verifiable by simply listening to them, whether you listen to them on youtube or not."'' - ] (]) 14:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

== USA International Business Publications isn't reliable? ==

I am trying to use USA International Business Publications for a citation and another editor has repeatedly refused to allow me to to cite them but won't explain why they aren't considered reliable or provide a link an article explaining why.
What's more a number of articles cite USA International Business Publications.
If there is nothing wrong with the group I'd like to report this person's behavior. --] (]) 08:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:As far as I can make out, IBUS is a fly-by-night book-on-demand shop. Their website is not even half configured (try their or their or their page). Unless you have good evidence otherwise, I'd call then non-reliable. --] (]) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Your "respectable source" isn't a ] because, ''as you have been told'', it is a reprint of a Misplaced Pages article. Even if you like what it says, you cannot use Misplaced Pages as a source for itself. - ] (]) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:And in case CatholicW needs actual evidence of that, try comparing the text starting "In response to the rumours circulating over Kim's health and supposed loss of power" onwards on of the book in question with the matching sections of . USA International Business Publications appears to be totally self-published and copying Misplaced Pages articles, their books should be removed from any article they are used as a source in. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 10:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::I went through and yanked a bunch right after posting here. Most were fairly harmless: which is the largest in a particular group of islands and such. In any case, they're all "citation needed" now. - ] (]) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

== Diamond Calk Horsehoe Company/ Otto Swanstrom ==

The article is reliable. To confirm its accuracy or to expand on its content please contact me at:

Harry W. Deckard

The Law Office of Harry W. Deckard
808 West 10th St. Suite 100
Austin, TX 78701

(512) 589-2698

== War Diaries ==

Hi several articles in the ] have War Diaries for references. There have all been made available in there original uncorrected form by the Australian War Memorial site. These are obviously primary documents, filled in by several persons over a length of time. But are they considered reliable? I would suggest not, but was looking for some other opinions. Here is a link to one of the diaries used ] (]) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:Can we say ]? I'd consider them reliable for individual ''experiences'', but not for most <u>factual</u> information. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 09:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::I included small numbers of references to a Royal Australian Air Force operations record book (which is the RAAF equivalent of a war diary) and a personal file in the National Archives of Australia in the ] and ] articles with no complaints at all during their FACs. Hawkeye7 also referenced several war diaries in the FA ] and (from memory) several articles which have passed A class reviews, so there's no generic problem with using these primary sources in articles. My personal approach is to only use them to add extra details to topics which are explicitly covered in secondary sources and where there's a clear-cut need for this information, and I think that's the approach most other editors take. The official war diaries held by the AWM are one the bedrocks of Australian military history and have been heavily used by virtually all serious Australian military historians, so they can be presumed to be a broadly accurate records of the unit's experiences. They are primary sources though, so they need to be used in moderation and with great care. You might be interested in ] for an indication of the kind of effort which went into ensuring that the war diaries were of a good standard. ] (]) 10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::OK if they have been accepted at FAC, will accept that. ] (])
:::That sounds more pompous then I meant. ] (]) 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:They are obviously primary sources. However, they will have been written at the time, as the commanding officer saw the situation: he may not have been able to see the wider picture. Subsequent writing by historians who have been able to compare them with other sources and one war diary with that of the next unit should provide a more balanced synthesis. ] (]) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, there are limitations on using smaller units, like regimental diaries to describe the operations of divisions. But description of some complicated operations particularly in the reports often written by commanding officers which are appended to the diaries of divisions and sometimes brigades, can be helpful. Normally the diaries are written by adjutants or intelligence officers so the writing is quite high quality.--] (]) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking a read of ] and paying particular attention to the section on demonstrative versus illustrative writing. In particularly, I'd suggest only using war diaries when cited by scholarly accounts; and, only then to the extent that they're cited (ie: the section or action cited). I would strongly advise not using them for analysis or context. I would strongly advise using them only where cited in the broader historiography, and only then for material unlikely to be included in a scholarly monograph as lacking interest for the scholarly community, but of interest to the encyclopaedic reader. (ie: movement dates, march orders, times of contact and withdrawal, timing of bombardments, reliefs and changes in staff not of academic interest, etc.). Be cautious, don't interpret them, rely on other's interpretations, only use them for illustration. ] (]) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

== Naval Memoirs by Admirals of the Fleet ==

I wish to contribute to the existing very brief article on the ] which has serious issues at the moment. The available sources seem to range from brief mentions on non-academic websites on the one hand, to the more or less contemporaneous memoirs of the senior Admirals involved on the other. Specifically: "The Crisis of the Naval War", by Jellicoe published 1920, and "The Dover Patrol 1915-1917" by Bacon (who commanded the Patrol during this period) published in 1919. Having read the relevant policies and guidance, would I be right to conclude the such sources are not considered "primary" but nevertheless are "first hand" and therefore lack the required independence for use as reliable sources in general? But would they be considered reliable sources for basic factual information, such as numbers of ships, dates of events, and roles of the personnel iyou won't nvolved?
Might they be considered reliable sources for other material and if so what sort?
I assume that other indpendent secondary sources would be essential for such matters as establishing the contribution of this force to the various campaigns and eventual outcome of WW1? ] (]) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:Your understanding looks correct to me. Memoirs should be used with care, but can be assumed to have gotten the basic facts right. As you note, they're note useful for assessing the contribution the forces under the command of the author made, unless you make it clear that it's the commander's opinion (eg, "In his memoirs, Bacon stated that the Dover Patrol had been very successful..."). In regards to sources on this, I think that the official history of the Royal Navy in World War I should have material on the Dover Patrol and is a reliable and independent source. ] (]) 10:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::Jellicoe and Bacon ought to do for certain matters, but bear in mind that one of the reasons Jellicoe was sacked at the end of 1917 was because he was protecting Bacon, whose failure to adequately close the Channel to U-Boats led to his own dismissal at the start of 1918. Hood had been sacked in 1915 because Churchill thought he wasn't aggressive enough, something I doubt you'll find (but I'll check my copy) in Churchill's ''The World Crisis''. Modern secondary sources are necessary to lend some perspective. &mdash;] (] | ]). 13:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you both for your useful responses and guidance. Might I ask if you know whether the official Naval History is available online and if so where? Finally, given the wealth of material on Misplaced Pages relating to other aspects of the Navy in WW1 could you speculate as to why there is so little in the existing Dover Patrol article itself? For example, is this a very contentious subject that is unsuitable for a novice in such matters? Perhaps this latter point would better be answered on this page ] ] (]) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::::The official naval histories (five volumes) by ] and ] will give some details on the formation of the patrol and the actions it took part in. It's not necessarily all that accurate because it was working from most but not all the official British records, and only from published accounts on the German side, which weren't necessarily all that accurate either. Revised editions were published of the earlier volumes only a decade or so later. Volume Two is available for download . I think the main reason why no one has edited the Dover Patrol page is just lack of interest: I've been on Misplaced Pages for six years now editing mostly naval articles and don't remember looking at the article once until this week. &mdash;] (] | ]). 10:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the references and online link. It would seem that the official histories are all in copyright still but one volume has slipped through the net. I've contributed a draft of a replacement article via my user space - as explained here: ]. ] (]) 08:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
*You need to look at how more recent historians have regarded these memoirs. I was recetnly looking at a WWI history which cited some one's memoirs and referred to them as unreliable. It all depends on how far the author relied merely relied on his own memory and how far on officail records or contemporary diaries. Even then he is inevitably giving his own POV on the subject. Try to use the work of more recent historians, who will have considered the memoirs against other historical sources. Corbett has a good reputation as a historian. A current article may only be short, because no one has taken the trouble to find out about it and write something longer. Be bold, others are likely to be watching the article and will pull you up if you go off the rails. ] (]) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

== Google+ ==

Has Google+ been discussed as a reliable source here? I tried to search the archives, but due to the name the results were less than useful, even for "Google Plus" in quotes. ] (]) 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
: It's a social network. It would be the same as Twitter or Facebook. --] (]) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't something about Google+ specifically that I was unaware of. ] (]) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I hate to tell you but G+ is being presented as a reliable source. I have just learned at
] that it can be used, and if "localized consensus approves the inclusion of text" then that apparently is all that is needed. ] (]) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:External links policy is not the same thing as reliable source policy. We do link to some things that we should never use as sources. ] (]) 18:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::In that regard it appears that G+ can not be used as a citation or reliable source. ] (]) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

== Penumbra (band) ==

The page of the band 'Penumbra' on wikipedia, says that the band is active from 1996 till present.
But I did some reasearch on some different information sources, and I came to the conclusion that the band has split-up in 2009, cause the only sourses that say Penumbra is still active, are wikipedia and sites based on wikipedia. Metalarchive says they've split-up, and their last.fm biography stops at 2009. Their Myspace has a comment about them being split-up. So I think it's pretty clear Penumbra isn't active anymore. I edited the wikipedia page saying "1996 - present" to "1996-2009". I would appreciate it when this edit gets confirmed, except if anyone thinks the band is still active, I don't know them personnaly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm like 90% sure they've split-up in 2009.

== ''Illustrious Americans'' (1896) ==

The book "]" by ], published 1896, is used as a source in ]. I have some reservations about using such an old source, especially in a field where there are plenty of modern sources, but would welcome some additional opinions. There already is a somewhat acrimonious discussion at ] that might profit from some cooler heads, too. --] (]) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:This is a very old source to be citing on such an important figure. We have had 115 years of further historical research since, during which historians will have refined theri views on the subject. If writing a book on him, it would be appropriate (indeed usual) to include a historiographic discussion of the changing views, but not in a short beiogaphic article, which is all WP can offer. ] (]) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

== www.fansshare.com news articles for ] ==

Hi, this board seems kinda swarmed, but I hope somebody can have a look at this. Basically I am looking for sources to expand ]. Now www.fansshare.com has an . The question is are they reliable? So far I have determined the following:

* The site doesn't seem to have an "about" page describing how it works and who is behind it
* The sites name and slogan ("by fans, for fans") seems to indicate content is user submitted and this is clearly the case for images and comments to news articles.
* However, if you they seem to have a professional team of editors: "''We work out of Los Angeles and require a writer who can commit to office hours on a 8am until 6pm basis, Monday to Friday. You will be working with a team of 10 who are located in-house and externally across the world.''"
* No name or pseudonym is given as author of the news articles.

What do you think? '''Yoenit''' (]) 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

:That site raises BLP alarm bells to me, I wouldn't touch it. --] (]) 12:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:The name alone rules it out, I would think.] (]) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

== I have these references for my article yet administrators keep saying they are not relabile enough ==

Retrieve Date : 2012-01-09<br/>
No 1 : http://www.gamespot.com - Alexa Ranking : 429 , Google Page Rank : 8<br/>
No 2 : http://xin.07073.com - Alexa Ranking : 3,122 , Google Page Rank : 5<br/>
No 3 : http://www.mmorpg.com - Alexa Ranking : 9,362 , Google Page Rank : 5<br/>
No 4 : http://www.bbgsite.com - Alexa Ranking : 17,043 , Google Page Rank : 4<br/>
No 5 : http://www.onrpg.com - Alexa Ranking : 20,987 , Google Page Rank : 5<br/>
No 6 : http://mmohuts.com - Alexa Ranking : 25,108 , Google Page Rank : 6<br/>
No 7 : http://browsergamez.com - Alexa Ranking : 80,844 , Google Page Rank : 5<br/>
No 8 : http://www.monstermmorpg.com - Alexa Ranking : 87,933 , Google Page Rank : 3<br/>
No 9 : http://gameonline2.com - Alexa Ranking : 165,623 , Google Page Rank : 1<br/>
<br/>
The articles used as references<br/>
<br/>
By Ange Perdu (2011) : http://mmohuts.com/browser-games/monster-mmorpg<br/>
By Remko Molenaar (Proxzor), OnRPG Journalist Co-Written by Darren Henderson (DizzyPW), OnRPG Editor-in-Chief (10-12-2011) : http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/MonsterMMORPG/review/MonsterMMORPG-Fight-to-the-Top<br/>
By Qing Lan (2011-12-09) : http://xin.07073.com/haiwai/539191.html<br/>
By GameSpot administration : http://www.gamespot.com/monstermmorpg/platform/webonly<br/>
By MMORPG.com administration : http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/731/MonsterMMORPG.html<br/>
By bbgsite.com administration : http://gamelist.bbgsite.com/goto/monster-mmorpg.shtml<br/>
By browsergamez.com administration : http://monster-mmorpg.browsergamez.com/<br/>
By gameonline2.com administration : http://gameonline2.com/online/monster-mmorpg<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This was my submission : http://en.wikipedia.org/MonsterMMORPG<br/>
<br/>
Now this is a browser based mmorpg game. It is most fit at this category and same genre with the games there : http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games<br/>
When i look the games there listed, 90% of them has lesser authoritative references links than me. I really do not understand how the reviewers are deciding whether a link is authoritative or not.<br/>
So i believe that the references are enough to prove that MonsterMMORPG is a notable game to be listed on wikipedia. Thank you.<br/>
] (]) 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:I tried to tell user ShareToGain, on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help), to focus on the better links (such as ) and dump the less credible references (such as and ), but ShareToGain is determined to use all of the links. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note that some of the generally more notable references (gamespot) have very minimal content (almost database/directory style for this particular game)
::Note that it is not particular for this game. GameSpot does not make full reviews for browser games yet (at least it is what i am said) but they do analyze the game and decides whether the game is notable enough to be added their game listing or not. Also there are very good and not very good reference links and what should really matter is sum of the reference links authority to decide whether game is notable or not.] (]) 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

== Non published article hosted on dropbox.com ==

] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is dated for March 2012, in the future, and is hosted by a source not of the Magazine in question. Is this a reliable source? Can this be used to ] the content of the article? --] (]) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted previously to RightCowLeftCoast:
The article IS ALREADY PUBLISHED. Go to the bookstores and check the newsstands and buy the magazine. Skin and Ink Magazine (http://skinandink.com) publishes in advance, and dropbox.com is an open sharing file, just like how Misplaced Pages is supposed to be used.

As most print publications are barely surviving these days, the magazine encourages people to buy the publication instead of reading its entire contents online. The PDF page on dropbox.com serves as a reference since the article is not available online. Clearly the cover with the title is on the magazine's homepage (an indication that it's already been published) as on other magazine retailers' site (e.g. http://www.comixzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=07447050214203). ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:Please sign additions to talk pages, as requested on your talk page.
:Please see ]. It is not up to me to provide a reliable source; I can question the source as reliable. The reason for my posting this concern is that I am looking for other opinions to form a ] as to whether the article hosted on a third party site is in fact a reliable source.
:I have checked the magazine's website and have not seen the MARCH 2012 magazine hosted, so cannot independently verify whether the article in question is published or not. --] (]) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

::If the magazine article is a published reliable source, ''the article'' can be cited as a reference. However, it is hosted on Dropbox in violation of copyright and the citation ''cannot link to it''. ] (]) 02:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to the PDF article has been removed to adhere to copyright policy, including the one posted on this talk. As noted, the March 2012 issue was officially out on newsstands on January 10, 2012, with advance copies released a week before. RightCowLeftCoast: Please do your research before you start flagging away.] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:If it is in fact on newsstands, as verification need not be online, it may meet VER, but that doesn't mean that a request to verify cannot be made. --] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
*Some academic journals will undertake an on-line pre-publication of articles, someties only to subscribers (e.g. society members). This is a form of publication, as much as putting it on a more public website, but it may be unwise to provide a link to it, as it is liable when the website is altered after it is published as hard copy. Alternaively, you need to watch for that happening to update the link/citation. The fact that a publication bears a date that has not yet arrived is not too concerning: magazine publihsers frequently do this, so that it looks like next week's issue early, rather than last week's out of date one. Nevertheless, a dropbox item may potentially not be the final version, so that you need to be wary. ] (]) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

== Blog by claimed "expert" ==

In , different days, different IP editors have tried to add a reference to a blog. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. However, as it has been raised twice, I would like the opinion of other editors where the following link is to be considered a RS:
*http://www.andrewerickson.com/2011/07/general-chen-bingde-pla-chief-of-general-staff-becomes-first-chinese-official-to-confirm-publicly-that-%E2%80%9C2700-km-range%E2%80%9D-df-21d-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-is-in-development/
An IP editor claims the person to be a "foremost expert", and I don't have an independent verification of the claim. The individual appears to be an Associate Professor at the U.S. Navy War College; but that doesn't explain the removal of information hosted at a consulate website, which is a reliable source. --] (]) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:The expert exception pretty much requires that the expert has been previously published by an independent publisher in the field of expertise. Just saying they are an expert is not enough, ask what books or journal articles of theirs have been published. If they have a reasonable bibliography of published (not self-published!) material, they probably qualify. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:I looked at the blog. Those U.S. Naval Institute Press books of which the expert is the first listed co-editor would tend to indicate that the expert is qualified. Most likely the same information is also in the books. It would be better to cite the books, if possible. ] (]) 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::Yes. Unless the blog is outright fraudulent, the author would seem eminently qualified to comment on the range of Chinese missiles. --] (]) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:It does meet as the writer is an expert. However judgement should be used. This is really an anomaly in rs. The consequence is the blogs of experts who are politically involved (e.g., Chomsky, Gingrich, Ignatieff, Krugman) become elevated to rs. ] (]) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

] is clear on this one - a named expert, ''recognized as such'', writing ''in his sphere of expertise'', is a "reliable source." If editors do not "like" a source countradicting what they ] then they must, perforce, find sources by other experts with disparate views. Too often we find editors insisting "but that expert is wrong" or "others disagree with that expert" in an attempt to remove writings by a person generally acknowledged to be an expert from an article. Cheers. ] (]) 06:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:The editing dispute appears to be specifically about the maximum range of a missile (either it's 2000, 2700, or 3000 mi.) Since he is a recognized expert, might not there be other reliable sources that echo his opinion? That may help defuse the "sourcing to a blog" problem. - ] (]) 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

::There is no "sourcing to a blog" problem, since it meets the "expert" exception. Also, the date is most likely ''also'' in one of the expert's books. That's where I'd suggest looking for a replacement for the blog cite, even though there is no need to do this. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: The provision for using experts writing ''in their own field'' dates to March 2009. ] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

== Ludovico Arroyo Bañas ==

I would like to call in to question the references used to support the content found at the article ]. The two major references used is an essay hosted on , and affidavits that I cannot verify the existence of.

I am looking for community opinions as to whether the references used in the article meet ].--] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:Though question. Normally I would say that Angelfire is not RS, but reading through the page I noticed a few things:
:The article is well written. The authors are introduced and to me seem to be capable of providing an overview of the topic. Further, the page has a bibliography, indicating that some of the information is from other sources and not primary:
<small>
:*Historical Calendar, National Historical Commission, Manila 1970
:*Philippine Information Paper submitted to the Trade Union Seminar/conference for Asian Labor Leaders September 14 to October 14, 1978, Federal Republic of Germany
:*Reyes, Edmundo A., A History of Amateur Radio in the Philippines, Quezon City, 1974
:*Reyes, Pedrito , Pictorial History of the Philippines, Quezon City 1953
:*Stevens , Frederic H., Sto. Tomas Internment Camp (1942-1945), Limited Edition 1946
:*Telecom News, Bureau of Telecommunications, Manila
</small>
:And finally, the author left his email address, maybe he can be contacted to clarify which parts are primary sourced by him and his co-author and which parts are from RS.
:To me those are signs that, maybe, the use of this source should not be dismissed outright. Which doesn't mean it is 100% proof RS, the "unreliable source" tags are absolutely justified.
:Finally, I can imagine that free web hosting sites like Angelfire are popular in countries were internet infrastructure is set up differently than in the US or Europe. For the authors, it might be a viable way of self publication. That should be taken into consideration too.
:--] (]) 12:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

An editor has removed a claim on the ] article based on a YouTube video by someone named Ben Swan reporting for something called Reality Check. I never heard of either him or Reality Check, and it isn't clear if the person who uloaded the video has the rights to it. See ] for a link to the video. I don't think this is a reliable source from which to remove the information from the article. ] (]) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

== ffmpeg.org ==

Hi, can anyone tell me if ffmpeg Hall of Shame can be considered a reliable source to document a copyright violation? In other words, if the "Hall of Shame" lists program X as being in violation of ffmpeg's copyright can we consider that a "reliable source" and include those claims in the article about program X? My POV is that it is a ], a ], with a clear conflict of interest, and therefore not a ]. It would also be a violation of ] as we are reporting unsourced accusations and as a consequence cause ] problems. Feedback welcome. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:I would say no. It's a cheap-shot attack page. Unless they took the alleged offending parties to court and won or settled out of court, which would be in the news, it's just their assertion, and even if they claim to provide "proof", could not be considered a reliable source. ] (]) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:Agree completely with Yworo on this. ] (]) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

== Book by Donald R Hale ==

Hi folks, I just obtained a copy of , but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source (for ] primarily). Its author has written of civil war books, but I don't think he was an academic historian--he seems to have been the president of a couple local history societies . The book I have was published by , it's apparently a ]. So do you think this book is a reliable source? ] (]) 23:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

*:After reading your question, I just reviewed ] again and noticed these policies that might be helpful here: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes" and also along the lines of the citation index: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." It seems like it would be worthwhile to confirm what type of references are listed in the book's bibliography as well. These are a few thoughts I had on your question and as you might have noticed, there are quite a few editors who seem to be extremely well-versed on sourcing issues. Maybe your question will catch their attention as well. Good luck.] (]) 05:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::*Good thoughts, thanks. I did notice that the authors of list Hale as a good source in their research. ] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::From my reading of the Wiki policy, this tends to give reliability to the source because this reflects that Hale's book is considered a reliable source by other authors, at least these authors, according to the full ] guideline on this:
:::"Usage by other sources Shortcut: ] How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." There is also this section of ]: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It sounds like you are going in the right direction.] (]) 04:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

== Sources in ] ==

Look at me, dragging obviously unreliable sources here again because of POV-pushing users who ].

In ], we have a recently added section on ensoulment (= the point at which a human gets a soul) in Judaism. The section is already poor, because it was written by an agenda-pushing user without regard for the ] given to various points of view in reliable sources, but I've ] when I can find time so this isn't about that. What we have is the claim that a text supports ensoulment at conception, cited to these lovely, lovely sources:

*"Does the Soul Survive? A Jewish Journey to Belief in Afterlife," a document by a paranormal theorist hosted on a "shamanic healing" website, which mentions the text in a footnote as support for its claims about reincarnation (incidentally, it doesn't support the text this user is citing it for, but when has that ever mattered...)
*"Divine Seeding," a PhD dissertation from an evangelical Christian seminary, which attempts to use the text as support for its theories about the virgin birth of Jesus
*An 1899 translation (the first such) of the primary religious text

I've argued that when you have to resort to Christian student papers, loopy fringe material, and analysis of primary documents to write about Judaism, what you are writing does not belong on Misplaced Pages. PhD dissertations have been judged reliable in the past, but all reliability discussions are contextual and the fact that this user apparently can't produce anything by scholars who study Judaism (or, y'know, actual published academics regardless) that discusses this text doesn't say much for the worth of this paragraph he has repeatedly inserted. (And this is completely apart from the ] issue.) –] (] &sdot; ]) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:The straightforward statement "The ''Chronicles of Jerahmeel'' picture the soul as entering into the sperm even before conception" seems to be quite adequately sourced in the words of the book itself and in what a published Ph.D. dissertation says. ] (]) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

::Two problems with the Chronicles of Jerahmeel: it's a primary source, and we don't know how noteworthy it is. We require reliable mainstream scholarly secondary sources for both interpretation and to establish noteworthiness so we know how much weight to assign. A dissertation from an evangelical Christian seminary falls far short of the mark here. Evangelical Christian seminaries do not exactly have a reputation for top-notch scholarship. Ph.D. dissertations are sometimes reliable for factual data they may contain, but rarely for conclusions. If the statement about ensoulment in the Chronicles is truly noteworthy, it will have been discussed in far more reliable sources. If the dissertation is all you have, then that indicates that the statement is of little importance in modern Judaism. As far as historical Judaism is concerned, top-notch academic sources are required. In either case, "Does the Soul Survive?" is clearly not reliable. ] (]) 09:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The ], "one of the most important and comprehensive anthologies of Hebrew prose" ( is clearly notable. It is not cited as a primary source for when animation actually takes place: it is instead quoted as "picturing" the soul as entering the sperm, as it ''explicitly'' does without any need of an "interpretation". That this Jewish work does picture the soul as entering the sperm is not a "conclusion" reached by the Ph.D. dissertation: it is instead a factual datum that it mentions. ] (]) 10:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::No. "An important and comprehensive anthologies of Hebrew prose" does not mean that it is an authority on Jewish thought on reproduction. As for your "picturing" argument, that seems like a poor defense of OR to me. The noteworthiness of the Chronicles' statement on ensoulment still needs to be backed up with solid scholarly sources. The noteworthiness of the book as a whole is not the question here, but of the statement itself and its relevance to modern Jewish beliefs on ensoulment. Furthermore, the concept of sperm did not even exist until the invention of the microscope, and the concept of fertilization as we understand it was not worked out until the 20th century. Interpreting a pre-modern text in terms of modern biology is OR. ] (]) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::I would have thought whatever was taught nowadays should be given as the major point of view and the others mentioned as other ideas. I've come across that story in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel before and I viewed it then as just a pretty story and still do, it could be mentioned but should have very low weight. The idea of sperm is not a stopper, the idea of the seed has been around for a very long time and that's all sperm means. Basically the weight needs to be got right but I see no problems with anything as a reliable source. ] (]) 11:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::The space given to Aristotle, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc., makes it clear that article is not about ''modern'' views. The concept of "sperm" or "seed" has existed for millennia - you must be thinking of the concept of "sperm cell" or "]" - and "]", from Greek ''sperma'', meaning "seed", is used by the Chronicles of Jerahmeel in its sense of "semen", Latin for "seed", the only sense that the word had then. People did not have to wait until the 20th century to have a concept of "conception" ("fertilization" is used neither in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel nor in the account of it in the Misplaced Pages article). Again Misplaced Pages is only saying, as stated in the Ph.D. dissertation, that the idea of the soul entering the semen (let us use this less ambiguous term, both here and in the article) even before it is placed in the woman's womb is found in this Jewish writing. Other views of a human soul as entering with the first breath after birth are also mentioned in the article. Misplaced Pages is not made to say that the soul does enter the semen before conception. It is not even made to say that this was a general Jewish belief. ] (]) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with Dmcq that it should be mentioned though with low weight. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I think it is fairly clear from the Christianity section that modern views should be made prominent and others noted as historical or apocryphal. The lead doesn't say it is historical. ] (]) 11:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::If y'all want to get into a discussion of due weight, I'd be happy to do that as well, but right now let's deal with the fact that none of these sources are even reliable. –] (] &sdot; ]) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Why are they not reliable sources for the article? ] (]) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Because a website promoting reincarnation and a seminary student paper about the virgin birth of Jesus do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by ] that would allow us to cite them when writing about Jewish beliefs. As for the primary source, it's long understood that we can't just cite religious texts - there needs to be reliable secondary-source analysis, that's why we have ]. –] (] &sdot; ]) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Roscelese has removed the mention of the ''Chronicles of Jerahmeel'', alleging an agreement on this noticeboard that Has it really been agreed here that the half-line mention in the of the ] article of what that book says is devoid of reliable sources? ] (]) 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:I don't see any justification for mentioning it at all unless it has been mentioned in serious academic sources. The secondary sources used are clearly unreliable, and the use of the primary source borders is basically OR. ] (]) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::My opinion is that the section "Judaism" offers several different Jewish views on the timing of ensoulment. From an outsider point of view every possible timing of ensoulment is more or less mentioned. The Chronicles add one more timing to the collection, the timing of ensoulment in the sperm before conception. The Chronicles of Jerahmeel is, as I understood, an accepted primary religious source. Primary sources should be used with great care, for religious primary sources maybe with even more care, I don't know. The sentence in question: ''"The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture God as making the soul enter the semen even before conception."'' correctly reflects what the primary source says and it is correctly attributed to the source. I think that there is no original research or synth in the representation. The next question is whether the view from the Chronicles is worth mentioning or undue. As the whole section lists up different timings of ensoulment and this accepted primary source merely adds another one, I would say that it is not undue to make a tiny mentioning. I believe that my opinion is backed up, because this timing has also been mentioned in a dissertation. A dissertation may not be a good source to state something as fact, but in this case the dissertation is only used to show that the timing of the chronicles has been noted and discussed in a scientific paper. So I think that it is no problem to mention the timing from the chronicle and that only the dissertation should be used as proof for "noteworthiness" of the timing, the other secondary sources are not neccesary. Generally, I agree with Dmcq. --] (]) 11:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::"How the section currently looks" is not a very good barometer because the current section is poorly written with the aim of promoting the view that Jews believed in early ensoulment, in contrast to the ], as I elaborate on the talk page. I'm meaning to get around to overhauling it in a NPOV fashion but time is a constraint. With this in mind - keeping in mind, I mean, that the gist of the section, once written properly with reference to reliable sources, will not be "Jews' beliefs about when ensoulment happened were all over the place, but they liked the idea of ensoulment at conception, just like us Catholics" but "Jews did not develop a unified theory of ensoulment and what we know about Jewish philosophers' thoughts on it generally comes from other contexts and from when something does ''not'' have a soul; the earliest pseudo-consensus was for 'formation' at 40 days, but the prevailing view is ensoulment at birth" - it's even more evident that this section is Esoglou trying to shoehorn in something that more closely suits his beliefs, regardless of ]. As Dominus Vobisdu has pointed out, student work from an evangelical Christian seminary does not meet the academic standards we consider when talking about RS. –] (] &sdot; ]) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Surely the phrase can only be judged in its actual context, not in line with some non-existent hypothetical context pictured by Roscelese. Roscelese's hypothetical context is not the only one that could be presented. Even today there are Jews who say: "According to the Divine Plan, G-d infuses each microscopic drop of semen with a soul. This soul is a living vitality of its own, the source of life, and cherished by G-d, who has commanded us not to waste it. ... Each drop of semen is more than a "potential" life - it is already a living soul. For this reason, the willful sin of spilling semen in vain is considered like the spilling of blood - like taking the life of a person." And there are Jews who say: "It is forbidden to discharge semen in vain ... It is stated in the Talmud that the offender incurs the punishment of 'death by heaven' as these actions are considered the equivalent of ''murder''." So this idea, which existed among Jews in the time of the ''Chronicles of Jerahmeel'', also exists among Jews today. And so this is an alternative hypothetical context that would show up even more clearly than now the unreasonableness of Roscelese's deletion of the mention, even just as something in the past, of the existence among Jews of an idea of ensouled semen.
::::I agree with POVbrigand and Dmcq, who have rightly said that in the actual existing context, the context in which all of us except Roscelese are judging it, the statement, "The ''Chronicles of Jerahmeel'' picture God as making the soul enter the semen even before conception", is reliably sourced. ] (]) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm having OR issues here too. I do not get any sense of how the Jerahmeel statement represents anyone's view other than its author. Even our article on the work doesn't give a sense of that. We need some secondary source for how much this viewpoint was accepted. ] (]) 13:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:And yet, it is demonstrably a historical Jewish view (one moreover that exists even among today's Jews), like the historical Jewish view of ensoulment at birth and the historical Jewish view of ensoulment when the child first answers "Amen", for neither of which is information given on how widely or narrowly it was held. These views may have been minor ones, but they were Jewish views. ] (]) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::And the ] may or may not be a historical Christian view (the jury is still out on "historical"). But it's inarguable that it's unimportant in the history of the mainstream of Christian theology, because there's is next to no ancient reference to it. We need to know whether these things ''were'' minor or not; if nobody discusses them, then it's safe to assume that they are minor. In Judaism, the rabbis discuss the heck out of everything, so if ensoulment is even an issue for them, the Talmud should discuss all the options. ] (]) 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

:::Well it doesn't seem to be a real issue because there isn't this idea of original sin. They discuss things ad nauseum when it might matter in actual life, not angels on the tip of a pin sort of stuff. ] (]) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Although the intention was just to present the view of the ''Chronicles of Jerahmeel'', discussion above has gone instead to whether that view was shared by anyone else. For that reason I have now information on ideas in other Jewish sources. ] (]) 08:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== Powerpopaholic: usable as a source? ==

I'm in the process of trying to clean up an article that's up for deletion (]) and most of the links were unusable. The sole site that survived is a blog called "Powerpopaholic". I'm almost entirely sure that this blog is unusable as a reliable source, but before I completely remove the article's remaining sources I wanted to double check that this blog is non-notable and not usable as a reliable or trivial source. The blog is only sporadically used on Misplaced Pages, with most of the links that I found belonging to a similarly titled blog that is now dead in the water. Here's a link to the website: .] (]) 13:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
: makes it pretty clear that while the person may well be wonderful, the blog falls squarely under the WP definition thereof. Not RS as a source. ] (]) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

== ] query about historical material sourced to Skepdic where original source is dubious and in any case challenging its inclusion ==

I originally brought this up at FTN, partially because I wasn't sure if this was mainly fringe, RS or NPOV, but in the course of the discussion, or at least my thoughts on the matter, I decided it is really an issue about sources and how they are used, so I'm copying it here and will put a note at FTN asking people to move here

The issue is a sentence that says "In the past, a number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations, and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century." It's sourced to Skepdic.

On the talk page, I've written:
:Let's make one thing clear, when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." My concern is that by making a statement that engraved stones were taken to Spain without any evidence that these qualify as 'Ica Stones' we are misleading our readers. I'm also saying that we have problems with the sources for this claim. As another editor wrote recently at RSN, "Sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable simply because they are one type or another. What makes a source unreliable is how we use them."
:I've tried to trace where the sources got this from to see if that provided any evidence that any stones that can legitimately be called 'Ica Stones' were found and taken to Spain. I found which says "One student of prehistory, JR Jochmans, claims that a Jesuit missionary, Father Simon who accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast in 1525,". But Jochmans is not what we think of as a typical 'student of prehistory' but someone who among other things claims to have 'ghost co-authored' the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" by Rene Noorbergen and other strange stuff. I can't find anything about this Father Simon. Other sources (eg ) use the claim (ie Father or Padre Simon found some engraved stones, Spanish explorers took them to Spain in 1562) but no one has any sources for this.
:We have no reliable sources justifying our origins section. The fact that real engraved stones may exist/existed in the 16th century is not sufficent reason to suggest that they are the 'origins' of the Ica Stones or bear any relationship to them.

I've had a response, focussing on my statement that "when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." - the argument is that Ica Stones should refer to any stones "found in or near Ica." and that the sheer volume of stones speaks for them being old. I'm not sure if this is an RS or NPOV question, but it's certainly a fringe one and I strongly disagree that the phrase Ica Stones refers to anything else than these stones decorated with dinosaurs, etc. ] (]) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

:This is all very odd. There are only two respectable sources here, Carroll<ref name = Skepdic>{{cite book |author=Carroll, Robert P. |title=The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions |publisher=Wiley |location=New York |year=2003 |pages= |isbn=0-471-27242-6 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref>and Coppens.<ref name = Fortean>{{cite journal|last=Coppens |first= P | title = Jurassic library - The Ica Stones |journal=] |month=October |year=2001 |url=http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/259/jurassic_library_the_ica_stones.html}} Available without registration at </ref> The point at issue is simply this: were there any engraved stones known from before 1966, when Javier Cabrera Darquea started his theorising? and if so, should the article mention them?
:Coppens says "Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father – Bolivia Cabrera, a Spanish aristocrat – gathered from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930s." Later on he relates "The Soldis’ interest began in 1961 when, according to Herman Buse, the Ica River flooded and “uncovered in the Ocucaje region a large number of engraved stones which ever since have been an object of commerce for the huaqueros who found them” ". Similarly we have "Santiago Agurto Calvo, then rector of the Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, who bought many and, in 1966, began excavating pre-Inca tombs around Ocucaje. In an article that year, he described the designs as “Unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings in elaborate and fantastic compositions.” "
:Coppens goes on to say "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century". As to what the older stones showed, he says "While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine” stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones."
:Coppens sums up "It is quite possible for the engraved stones, if authentic, to have a simple anthropological origin." and "It seems increasingly likely that the Ica stones have been fabricated, but it is difficult to believe that they are all – estimates run to 50,000 pieces – made by one poor, uneducated farmer. No independent study has been made, if only to separate any possibly authentic artifacts from the fakes."
:Carroll adopts a similar tone, ending with "Are the stones authentic? If by authentic one means that they were engraved by pre-Columbians, then the answer has to be an unqualified 'not all of them.' Some engraved stones are said to have been brought back to Spain in the 16th century. It is possible that some of the stones are truly examples of pre-Columbian art."
:All I'm saying is that the article should admit the existence of old stones and appraise them in the same way as the sources. I am at a loss to understand Dougweller's motivation in trying to exclude such content. ] (]) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
===references===
<references/>

::I thought you'd decided on my motivation, your edit summary talks about suppression of information. I don't think you've addressed my concerns. One is whether by 'Ica Stones' is meant 'any engraved stones from Ica', or the actual subject of the various fringe publications on what they call 'Ica Stones', ie stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. I'm arguing that a badly sourced comment on some engraved stones which may have been sent to Spain is irrelevant and misleading to our readers. I'm also arguing that we have no reliable source for the statement - no mainstream historian, no historical texts we can somehow check, nothing but Carroll and Coppen repeating what a fringe writer said a long time ago. Do you really believe there could possibly be such '15th century' records? Before Columbus? Maybe that's just carelessness on the part of Philip Coppens (who by the way is not ] but a fringe writer, eg . He's simply not an acceptable source for an historical claim like that.
::I also note that an editor has replaced the passage without discussion on the talk page. Not only that, he replaced other material I removed which concerned a statement that there were collections of these stones at two museums although my edit summary said "This is from the author's personal website, not a reliable source (not just because it's a personal site but also because he isn't a reliable source for this". The reason for replacing the material was "there's nothing unreliable about the report. When I went to the regional museum of Ica, they were there. I'm not sure about the others, but if what it said about that one is true, the others probably are too." which is clearly irrelevant to our policy on sources. Then he removed the descriptions which are key to the article, saying they were obviously fakes. That's a bit confusing - what I gather from that is that he agrees that the dinosaur etc engraved stones are fakes, which I agree with, but then what's the point of the article?

::So I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists and do not have dinosaurs, etc., to back up your claim that 'Ica Stones' as a phrase is not specific to such fringe claims. I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source for the claim about 16th or 15th century stones being found and sent to Spain. What I think is necessary to make a claim that similar stones were found in by Spanish explorers is a clearly reliable source from an archaeologist or historian about such stones describing them as having dinosaurs, heart transplants, star maps, etc. ] (]) 08:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:::*Dougweller says "I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists ...". I am asking Dougweller not to indulge in such silly rhetoric. As he must well know, I am not aware of any proper published study of Ica Stones at all by mainstream archaeologists, and if I knew of such I would certainly cite it. As for "I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source ...", they are certainly imperfect sources, but the best we seem to have. If they're not good enough, Dougweller should be listing this article at ] and have done with it. But if we're accepting Carroll and Coppens, which I think reasonable in the context, Dougweller has no justification in his attempt to cherrypick their testimony as he clearly is trying to do.
:::*One can often see discussions of collections of artistic or historically significant objects where fakes may occur amongst the genuine things. Normally the approach is to try and concentrate on the genuine ones, and ignore the fakes. This is I think the first time I've seen someone say "let's ignore the genuine and concentrate solely on the fakes". If I were to go to Ica, find an andesite stone and scratch a picture of a dinosaur on it, apparently according to Dougweller this will be an "Ica Stone", but if I find one in an ancient tomb, it won't. Weird!
:::*Dougweller asks rhetorically, above, "what's the point of the article?". My answer to that question is that it should be a description of inscribed andesite stones found at or near Ica, with as good as possible an analysis of their probable origin and significance. It would really be illuminating if Dougweller could give us his answer to the question, particularly as he raised it. ] (]) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

::::As I note above, I've moved it here. And I repeat, the phrase 'Ica Stones' is clearly specific to a large set of stones inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. It is not used by archaeologists to describe 'inscribed andesite stones near Ica'. My question was about another editor removing descriptions of stones on the grounds they were fake, but the point of the article is that it is about a set of stones that fringe sources claim are inscribed with images showing dinosaurs and men together, heart operations, etc, and that mainstream sources say are hoaxes. ] (]) 19:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::So if a stone isn't "inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc." it isn't an "Ica Stone" at all? and they aren't Ica Stones if there are "fringe sources" which don't "claim (they) prove either a YEC perspective or something similar"? I think we need a little attention to our basic logic. ] (]) 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::I don't claim to understand the last part of your statement/question, but yes, I'm arguing that the reason we have an article called 'Ica Stones' is that there are a body of stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc with that name. Ah, perhaps the reason I can't understand what you've written is something went wrong with what I wrote and some words got deleted. I've rewritten it leaving out the YEC bit as I can't recall exactly what I wrote (although I do know that one of the fringe writers takes a YEC position on this). And there are no reliable sources saying that such stones were taken to Spain. And even though we can verify that a source, Coppens, claims that there are text saying they were taken to Spain in the 15th century, we also shouldn't use that just because we can verify he said it (in case anyone misses the point, I'm sure Coppens meant 16th century but that's not what he wrote). ] (]) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent|5}}
I was trying to force you into a ridiculous position, but you seem to have gone there quite voluntarily. You're saying
that a stone is only an "Ica Stone" if it has "dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc" on it. Otherwise we are to deny or ignore its existence. Cabrera's collection has thousands of stones. Only a few have dinosaurs or high tech stuff on them, so we are not to take any notice of the rest. We are to assume that the reader has no interest in the possible anthropological or historical significance of the many stones which are probably ancient. We are, according to you, to be focussed solely on the "set of stones that fringe sources claim" support the strange theories held by a tiny minority. What you are asking for amounts to gross POV-pushing. It lacks common sense or a sense of proportion and is insulting to the intelligence of our readers. ] (]) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

:Great, so all you have to do to show I'm pov-pushing is find some archaeological sources that use the phrase "Ica Stones" but don't use them to describe this fringe view but as a label for a set of stones of general archaeological interest. And maybe you could drop the personal attacks? Find a peer reviewed analysis of these stones, discussion in some books on the archaeology of the area, that sort of thing. Do the work that's needed to back your views. I've looked and couldn't find use of the phrase outside of discussion of this fringe view. ] (]) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

::I'm sorry if you see my criticism of your position as a personal attack. Perhaps I can remind you that on a previous occasion you were kind enough to my request for a source as "repugnant" while also lecturing me on the need to use ]. Now you're demanding I find sources which I would indeed dearly wish to find, but ignoring my suggestions, based on ], as to what this article should say in the mean time. ] (]) 13:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Just so others don't have to bother, what I said was "The suggestion that calling Holocaust denial pseudohistory contentious (and doubting that there is a source saying so) is to me repugnant." I stand by that. Are you really arguing that Skepdic is a good source for such a vague claim about Spanish texts? ] (]) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Since discussing things with you is neither productive nor pleasant, I shall stop. ] (]) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

== http://sevensixtyeight.com/ ==

I'm wondering if this would be a reliable source to use for ]?--] (]) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
:It's a local pop scene website, . I'd say definitely not for an article of such global subject matter. --] &#x007C; ] 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
::Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". No evidence for that here. ] (]) 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Agree that the source is not reliable. Consensus is that sources for that article have to be of the highest standard. This site is far from it. ] (]) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

== Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon ==

Has several sources. I fear that almost none of them may meet ] though as not being sufficiently "on point" to say much about the film. Will someone kindly examine that article? The ''best'' of the lot seems to be boxofficemojo.com, but the others seems a teeny bit inadequate at best, or only tangentially mentioning the film. (bcmagazine.net as a source for "as many onlookers claim that Zhao Zilong's armour resembles the samurai's" and asianbite.com for " the costume she wore was made from faux fur instead.") Cheers. ] (]) 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

== teenage scholars in theology ==

Is this anonymous, titleless article on a music website, a source that can be cited on the Misplaced Pages?
And what about this anonymous homework paper by a Texas teenage prodigy "noel12"? Amazingly enough, the article was written when the said scholar was 15. Some Misplaced Pages editors insist that these two sources are valid and are unwilling to remove them from a protected page. Please clarify the matter so that there is no further argument over such an obvious thing.--] (]) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

:In principle they might be cited for the opinions of their authors (or, at least the 2nd one could) - but one would need to show that they were in some way qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject, and that their opinion was worth taking into consideration. Otherwise: no chance. But what are they being cited ''for''? We can't make definitive statements in regard to abstract questions. ] (]) 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

::Sorry, I did not indicate that it was the ] article for the fear of word-bricking . The 10th and 11th citations here were nonsense till someone just removed them.--] (]) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

There is a "caution, primary sources" tag on the criteria compliance section of ]. The sources in question are written by the authors of the method, but they are also peer-reviewed academic papers; as such can't we count them as reliable on simple mathematically-verifiable facts such as these? ] (]) 02:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:In some senses they are primary sources because they are written by the "authors of the method" however, if they are peer reviewed and published in respected journals then they have received editorial oversight that gives them a higher value as sources, even so context is important. If they are being used to support health claims then there is a higher standard and you may want to read ]. Good Luck--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

== The Making of Modern Israel ==

The book ''The Making of Modern Israel'' by Leslie Stein has been cited in ], and other hot-button pages, in support of contentious and novel assessments of the historical narrative. I have never before heard of the book or the author, and am struggling to ascertain its reliability. Although there are nearly 70,000 Google hits for the title, almost all are Amazon or other bookshop sites. Looking closely, I have found one critical review on ], and one, possibly supportive, behind a pay-wall at ]. I have found precisely 0 reviews at Google News archives. Although Stein is described on the Amazon website as a "Senior Research Fellow at ]", he is neither a historian nor a Middle East expert; his field of studies appears to be development, and in particular the Japanese economy. Given this, and in the apparent absence of any serious peer reviews of the book, can it be regarded as a reliable source for contentious statements? <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
:Here's some stuff I found in a 2 minute search. Not sure how you only came up with Tikkun.
:*polity quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
:*Israel Studies Review (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
:*The Australian Jewish News
:Then I stopped looking. ] (]) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::As TDA notes, Google gives different results, depending not only on geography, but also on previous searches. I had seen the first site you quote, but blurbs are certainly no evidence of anything. I too can't actually read the ISR review. It's significant that the review in Australian Jewish News (which I had not found in my Google search) states "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; this does not inspire me with confidence in the book's reliability. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:I found these links: . Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::How did you came to the conclusion that he is a partisan source?--] (]) 05:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth". Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}This should placate the editor who opened this discussion<p>
*The book is from a well-known publisher ] that publishes scholarly texts.<p>
*It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with ]. It is readily available and verifiable per ].
*The author has published a number of scholarly texts
*The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website
*And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
**"Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--] (]) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The contentious information is :
:''Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population.<ref name= "Modern">Stein, Leslie, The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Polity Press (Cambridge 2009), pp. 73-74</ref> They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.<ref name= Modern/>''
As mentionned here above, this is a wp:rs source.<br/>
But more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : ''if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs'' is pejorative. But the information that <u>some historians argue</u> (this part is important !) that Arab wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book ''1948'', Efraim Karsh in ''Palestine Betrayed'', Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in ''Nazi Palestine'' argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... ] (]) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

* Regarding the author, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:: One of the reviews above says concerning Stein's book that "Stein estimates that the victorious Israelis expelled half of the 800,000 Palestinians displaced." This doesn't dovetail very well with the text that's being proposed based on this book. Cheers, --] (]) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:::@Dailycare : on the contrary. It proves this guy is very neutral.
:::* about half of the Palestinian refugees of '48 were expelled (particularly during operations Nachshon, Dani, Hiram and Yoav). Morry writes this in his book ''1948'' and this explains why several historians compare or claim Israelis performed an ''ethnic cleansing''.
:::* but Morris also claims (and several others given here above) that, would the Arabs have won, they would have done the same.
:::If Leslie Stein reports both these points of view, it is good for his reliability.
:::(It seems it is a ''tertiary source'').
:::@RolandR : "This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not."
:::He seems to look a little bit like Morris. He is one-sided as a person but reliable and more neutral in his profession. I underline I don't know this ''author'' but he seems worth reading even if disappointment could come after this reading. A good review by Daniel Pipes is of course a very bad point.
:::@all : another review : ''"On the whole, it is not easy to judge Stein’s “The Making of Modern Israel”. He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad. The strong points of the book are to be found when he describes domestic developments and political decision makings. Yet the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic. Consequently he rejects findings of the so called New Historians like Avi Shlaim or Ilan Pappe right out of hand, with the partial exception of Benny Morris. But even the latter’s works are hardly incorporated when reaching critical conclusions. Thus the weakest point of the book is the almost total declining or ignoring of most of the findings of the New Historians."''
:::] (]) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: If Stein says that the Israelis expelled half of the refugees directly, then does Stein really say that it was really the ''Arabs'' who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the area? I think that's a key question. If Stein says both things, then it would be easy to agree with the reviews of Stein that say he's very partisan. Cheers, --] (]) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

== thepeerage.com ==

I am wondering if is ok to use as a source for basic biographical data i.e. birthdates, marriage dates etc. It looks SPS, but it seems to be pretty well sourced by reliable sources. I have tried to search for some of the sources it uses online, but to no avail. ] (]) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

:No, I'd think not. Apart from other issues, it cites Misplaced Pages, and e-mails from private individuals, as sources: . ] (]) 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::It is an acceptable source, but not strictly ], as some of its sources are not. Where its source is Burke or Complete peerage, it is quoting a ], and so is itself one. If it is quoting WP, we have a circular argument. If it is quoting provate information it is rather too close to ] for comfort, unless the informant states precisely where his information came from. Thepeerage.com is a massive comilation, and is very frequently cited as a source in WP, but if it conflcts with a better source, the better one is to be preferred. ] (]) 00:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:::If it quotes a reliable source such as Burke, we should use that. Of course we should actually ''read'' the source, not just copy the reference across! ] (]) 08:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

::::It's a self-published site written by someone who does not appear to be a published expert on the topic. It does not qualify as a reliable source. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree. It isn't a reliable source in our terms. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 09:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::As per Will Beback, as a self-published web site not by an established expert it is not a reliable source. Let me add, though, that the citation of a "reliable source such as Burke" is not a good metric. The Burke works are of variable reliability, depending on the edition and the time period being covered. Unlike Complete Peerage, these are not presented in a scholarly fashion, lacking footnotes or bibliographical information, and in earlier times served as little more than a credulous vehicle for the vanity of the families whose pedigrees were being presented. Experts in the field only use Burke's publications with extreme caution and only for material nearly contemporary with the publication date. The routine unqualified citation of Burke's volumes for earlier times tends to speak against the reliability of a web site, not for it. OR is not a concern. Sources are allowed to do OR, and reliable sources should do OR. It is just Misplaced Pages editors who are not to. The failure to cite precise source details speaks not to the propriety of the OR, but again to its reliability. ] (]) 20:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not going to search right now, but I think we've had this discussion before. And agreed it isn't a reliable source, which is the case. We shouldn't be using it. ] (]) 10:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

== Is BET a reliable source? ==

Various artist's sales are based on confirmations by either VH1 or MTV, so I was wondering if BET, short for Black Entertainment Television, is regarded reliable as well? Thanks for your replies. ] (]) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
: Yes, ], "90 million homes ... launched 1980... mainstream rap and R&B music videos" can generally be considered similarly reliable for artist's sales. --] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
::I wouldn't view BET as similarly reliable, especially for sales figures. For example, BET claims that R. Kelly has sold 150 million records, in fact, R. Kelly's from those music markets covering 90% of the global sales are only 50 million, which translates into some 70 million in actual sales. The 150 million claim is clearly an inflated figure for R. Kelly and that alone suggests that BET doesn't use enough resources to get their information correct. Therefore, it cannot be considered as reliable as MTV or VH1 for example, neither of which has a history of publishing such outrageously inflated sales figures.--] (]) 01:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
::: It's a verifiable published source. I can't seem to download that compressed file from that other link you're pointing to, so I don't know what it is supposed to be. Can you summarize what it says and who it's published by? --] (]) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}} {{outdent}}
This discussion has really dragged on, especially for something that was prompted by a reddit thread related to one sentence in what appears to be an opinion article. Are editors aware that we have whole articles on ], ] and ] etc? Have editors been following the deconstruction provided by social media users of corporate media coverage of the assault on Gaza? Are editors aware that the BBC employs Raffi Berg, a former CIA propaganda unit employee with Mossad connections, to head its Middle East desk and whose "entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel"? What about when an IDF embedded CNN reporter visited Rantisi Children’s Hospital with an IDF minder and swallowed the minder's claim about a roster of Hamas members watching over Israeli captives? The document was actually a calendar, with days of the week written in Arabic. Sorry to go off on a tangent but some perspective is needed and, in the scheme of things, a reddit thread is hardly cause for starting an RFC about reliability. ] (]) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The figure within must be verifiable, and the 150 million as claimed by BET, doesn't agree with R. Kelly's available certified sales. The file that I've put together and uploaded are the certified sales of R. Kelly which I've retrieved from the certification-databases of the certifying bodies such as ], ], ] etc.. I just tried to view it, and it seems to work for me.--] (]) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
: Ah, I see. Yes, the doc downloads for me now too. You've searched a number of databases for sales of multiple individual albums, added the numbers together, written the results in a Word doc, and uploaded it to a file sharing site. I'm afraid that is pretty clear ]. It is not a routine, obvious, and correct calculation that anyone could be expected to trivially perform. Do we know that the databases are in each case correct? Do we know that you copied the numbers correctly? (There aren't one or two figures to add up, there are lots.) Do we know that you got all the albums? Did you miss any? Did you confuse any with any others? (In several cases, your own doc says you had to look it up under another performer's name... are you sure you got the right one each time and every time? Can we be sure you did?) I'm afraid that doc is not close to being a ]. It may be the ] (or even ]!) or it may not; since it's not a trivial judgment, we go with with the reliable sources; in this case, that's ]. --] (]) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::The databases are of those associations which issue certifications in each market, yes they are correct. These are routine and trivial calculations at the ] where ] intends to use BET as a source. Nothing is copied from the databases, the certification-awards are converted into figures by following the corresponding award-levels provided directly on the sites of the certifying bodies, criteria for , criteria for , , the sources are listed on the uploaded doc.. Every Platinum/Gold/Silver award is converted, nothing is missed. And no, it's not an original research as the certifying bodies do provide the levels for certification-awards. All one has to do is follow the release date and apply the levels provided on the same sites. The document is not provided on here to pass as a reliable sources, the sources the certifications are taken from are reliable. ] states: ''The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context''; and BET in our case is not reliable. --] (]) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Well, I think you're pretty clearly matching the results of your own research against that conducted by a national cable TV channel. If some other reliable source came up with a different number for R. Kelly's sales, we could cite them. Until then, though, BET seems to be what we have. --] (]) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
claims 50 million records for R. Kelly which immediately agrees with his available certified sales. There should never be such a gap between artists' certified sales and their actual sales as it is with BET's claim.--] (]) 04:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
: That would be better, except it's from 2007, so can't be compared to the 2012 BET article. Kelly just might have sold a few records in the last 5 years. In fact, if he had sold 50 million by 2007, I'm even more wary of your figures from that Word doc that say he had still only sold 50 million by 2012.--] (]) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

::No, Times' article can't be compared to BET's, not because it's from 2007, but because BET is rather lousy when it comes to getting its facts right. R. Kelly's sales have been quite poor since 2007 (see ]), so a few millions on the top of the 50 million wouldn't make BET a better source and it most definitely doesn't make his available certified sales which I've put together on one sheet questionable. As I explained above, the Certified Sales are often less than the Actual Sales, because not all albums/singles/videos reach the required levels to be certified. Artists like R. Kelly whose popularity is mainly concentrated on the U.S. market, could not have sold 150 million records that easily. That figure is only possible when artists experience widespread popularity all over the world. BET could perhaps be an OKAY source when supporting statements about music events, but sales figures do take a lot of research and require careful calculations which I doubt BET has the right staff for.--] (]) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Looks like we need a third (or rather fourth) opinion. Anyone? --] (]) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

== celebritynetworth.com ==

Was added to ] as a specific source for his "net worth" and I doubt it meets ]. I do note that it is used as a source for about thirty articles, in some cases for no actual apparent reason, and suggest that if it is not RS that it be removed from them. ] (]) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

:It looks highly questionable: "Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law". . It gives no indication of how it comes by such figures - I see no reason to see it as anything more than guesswork. ] (]) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::My exact view. ] (]) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
::I don't disagree with the ultimate conclusion, but I ''do'' think it's inappropriate to read a perception of unreliability into the presence of legal boilerplate. This sort of standard disclaimer is common and entirely unremarkable. For example, the New York Times offers, in part, the following :
:::<small>''THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY CONTAIN INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY FACTS, ADVICE, OPINIONS, VIEWS, STATEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE WEB SITE.''</small>
::(In all, it runs to four paragraphs of ALL CAPS SCREAMING LEGALESE explaining why we can't hold them responsible for errors or omissions.) You'll find similar terms on the web sites of many of our generally-considered-reliable sources. ](]) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Yeah. Maybe you're right - but we have no indication whatsoever of where they get their numbers from, or whether they give a damn about their accuracy (not that they define what the figures are supposed to represent anyway...). ] (]) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
::::The terminology strikes me as very odd. If someone claimed to evaluate my net worth based on what they think I have in the bank, I'd be highly offended (and humiliated). Maybe it makes more sense in US English!
::::Setting that aside, how we could ever claim to report the value of someone's property and investments is a mystery to me. If the total amounts to anything much, internal revenue services spend man-years trying to get it clear, and even they often fail to come up with complete results. How can we possibly claim to have reliable sources on this? This item shouldn't be in the infobox at all. NB. The ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'' does indeed insert a figure called "estate" in its biographical articles, but (a) it is dealing with dead people, and (b) the source is specifically post mortem calculations by lawyers etc., and (c) they claim no knowledge beyond that. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 10:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

== Terrorism ==

Are ]' works, including ones specifically on Terrorism, not RS for the reasons proffered on ], to wit that he was not an "expert" in the field (''He was not an expert on terrorism or anything else for that matter''), that ''Getting a BA with a C average and being a popular journalist with the Trotskyist and popular press does not make one an expert. The fact he co-authored an instant book on Callaghan and wrote an alternative narrative for Cyprus do not make him an expert either'' and that ''Hitchens' opinions on terrorism as just not notable''. I suggested RS/N as a good place to ask this question, but do not think it likely the other editor would do so expeditiously. Cheers. ] (]) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

:A reliable source for what? He was certainly a reliable source for his own opinions (of which he had plenty), but what exactly is it proposed he be cited for in relation to the ] article? Clearly, not every source on a subject needs to be written by an 'expert' - but some things probably should be sourced to those recognised as having relevant expertise. ] (]) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

:An editor said he was surprised that the article ] did not mention Hitchens' 1986 Harper's magazine piece "". I replied that Hitchens "was not an expert on terrorism or anthing else for that matter". Collect then replied that he was "a British Trotskyist" who studied at Oxford and had a career in journalism. But as I explained to Collect, the issue is not an issue of rs, but of weight. How much weight does Hitchens' article have in terrorism studies? Collect has not even explained what part of the article he believes should be added to the article. There is no evidence that this article has become part of the study of terrorism, and the editor who mentioned it was doing so in order to point out the contradiction between Hitchens' views in 1986 and after 2001, which may be important to an article about Hitchens but is irrelevant to the article about terrorism. ] (]) 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Please actually deal with what I '''wrote''' instead of possibly misleading people here about what you claim I wrote. '''The words you ascribe to me were clearly a quote from a source which I clearly indicated''', and were not a claim made by me whatsoever. The sources clearly also indicated that Hitchens was a major journalist who had written on topics about politics etc. and chopping words from the sources and acting like they were claims made by me personally is a quite irresponsible tactic in a post here. Cheers - but '''please''' when you are quoting a post, be sure ''not'' to imply that the editor wrote what he has quoted from a reliable source! ] (]) 04:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::I would hope that everyone would agree that 'former Trotskyist' was more applicable in Hitchens' case, and yes, he seems to have changed his mind on the issue of terrorism, so maybe he can't really be cited for his own opinions either. ;-) The point remains though that without further details, it seems difficult to answer this one way or another - though the fact that Hitchens changed his mind is clearly more relevant to his biography than to the 'terrorism' article. I'd suggest that unless someone makes a concrete proposal, we leave the matter undecided - there really isn't any point in doing anything else. ] (]) 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Since there's doubt whether he's a recognised expert on this subject, one way we find out is by verifying whether his views on this subject are cited and taken seriously by confirmed experts. That would also apply to any older article by him: if recent reliable sources ''on that subject'' cite it and take it seriously, we have reason to cite it too; if not, not. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== Ugg boots and the Peoria Journal Star ==

Hi! There have been various claims that this should be brought here for discussion, and that makes a lot of sense. So:

The article in question is Davis, Jim (December 26, 20011) "Ugg kicking it in the U.S.", '']'' . The author is a freelance writer who is a partner in a Chicago law firm. There are two claims from the article that are in dispute:
* "By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots alone."
* "In the case of Uggs, even some Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of making counterfeits."
The arguments in support of the source's reliability are primarily that the newspaper would do fact checking, and would be more careful for a freelancer. Arguing against it, the article is written in a tone that suggests that it may be advertorial, there is no additional support in other publications for the claim that Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of counterfeiting, sales figures for Australian manufacturers (which is largely a cottage industry) would be unavailable (and again, no additional support in other publications), and Deckers, whom the article is about, are known to use Chicago law firms to protect their IP online, although there are no substantiated claims that Deckers ever used the author's particular law firm.

Anyway, this has been kicking around for a while, and although consensus is currently against using it, the idea of bringing it here for neutral evaluation seems fair enough. The discussion is at ] - hopefully I summarised the main points ok. - ] (]) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:While a newspaper does qualify as a reliable secondary sources, the listed statements make strong unsupported claims. If no other sources can be found that mention the same facts, while not quite a ], the statements seem more opinion than actual verifiable facts. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to quote them as an opinion piece (<i> Jim Davis wrote...</i>) like in ]--] (]) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
::I guess that would be a way forward. :) My only concern there is that it would seem to be providing authority to Jim Davies, in the sense that it would read like we're reporting Jim Davis' opinion on the basis that it carries some weight. I'm happier attributing claims to an individual, I think, when that individual has recognised expertise. But I guess that's also a matter of how you read the attribution. - 06:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Since you say Jim Davis "is a freelance writer who is a partner in a Chicago law firm," I will ]. Thanks for doing the research and confirming that for us Bilby. There appears to be only one person named Jim Davis fitting that description (a partner at the McAndrew firm; Deckers is a client of a rival Chicago firm), and he specializes in patent and trademark law, which means that he has recognized expertise and his opinion does carry some weight. No conflict of interest, recognized expertise, what's not to like? ] (]) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
::::The difficulty is that Davies is not an expert in sales of ugg boats in Australia, an given the lack of other sources, I can't see why we should regard him as having any specialised expertise on the matter. In regard to the second claim, accusing Australian manufacturers of being guilty of counterfeiting is a very strong claim, and I think warrants a very reliable source. I don't see a freelance writer with a possible COI in a small paper as being sufficiently reliable, without at least some other support to the claim. - ] (]) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::You've already established that there is no COI, since Davis is apparently a partner at McAndrew Held & Malloy, not the firm employed by Deckers. Mainstream fact-checked news organizations often cite their sources, but not in all cases and there isn't any mention of such a requirement in ]. We already know about the Vaysman case, involving a manufacturer in Melbourne, Australia who was ordered by an Australian court to stop counterfeiting UGG brand boots, and that's been confirmed by several reliable sources published in Australia. Davis is in a position to monitor legal and trade publications that may not have an online presence and are not susceptible to Google searches by Misplaced Pages editors; and in my opinion, this is most likely where he got the disputed information. We have obtained a neutral opinion from ], a previously uninvolved editor. Unless there's a reversal of this opinion by previously uninvolved editors, let's accept it and move on. ] (]) 13:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::The source says "manufacturers", and you've shown one person who sold counterfeit boots (not even clearly a manufacturer). Simply, I don't believe that a puff piece by a lawyer in a small newspaper is enough of a reliable source to accuse multiple Australian manufacturers of counterfeiting, or to trust data that hasn't been published anywhere else and is unlikely to be available even to experts in the field. So far, the only person to believe it is sufficiently reliable to express as facts is you. This does suggest that you are in the minority.
::::::In regard to Davis, it has never been shown that he doesn't work for Deckers, who employ at least one Chicago lawfirm, and who are particularly active in IT-related cases. The tone of the piece is so glowing about the company I'd be inclined to assume that he did have a COI, but we haven't shown that, either.
::::::As an aside, as mentioned before, ] doesn't guarantee that specific articles should be taken as reliable, but instead judged on a case-by-case basis.- ] (]) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::We have an opinion from a neutral third party and I don't care to watch everyone repeat all these arguments. ] applies. No COI has been proven. Unless you can prove that Deckers is a client of the McAndrew firm, rather than a rival firm, you have only suspicion, innuendo and guilt by association based on geography. If that principle (or lack of principles) is applied across the board, no editor from Australia should be allowed to participate in the editing of this article. Unless there are more opinions from previously uninvolved editors who can be trusted to be neutral in this dispute, it's time to accept Luke's decision and move on. ] (]) 16:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}The writer in the news article makes a number of claims about sales figures, salary figures and employment numbers. Davis makes so many specific claims that the entirety are called into question. Where does he get his facts? We cannot determine, he says nothing about his sources. The implication is that he was fed figures by Ugg boots promoters, because the tone of the piece is "puff" promotion. As an information technology guy working in a law firm (not a partner in it!), Davis appears to have no expertise in the topic. I cannot recommend using any portion of the newspaper puff piece as a reliable source. ] (]) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

:] seems to have discovered evidence that Mr. Davis is an attorney in patents and trademarks, and a partner at the McAndrew law firm. I'm inclined to believe him. His area of (non-exclusive) practice appears to be IT related technology, according to his bio. But that doesn't disqualify him as an expert in patent and trademark law. If you have something negative about Deckers to add to the article from some other source, let's discuss it. (Personally, I believe the only negative material has always been described with tender, loving attention to detail in the section about the ] case.) But is there anything negative about the company that hasn't already been described at tiresome length, and can be added? And if not, how is the accurate representation of positive facts by Davis fairly described as a "puff promotion"? The ''Journal Star'' is a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. The two of you appear to have an issue with the way Davis wrote his article. That doesn't undercut the reliability of the facts he presents. All these objections are addressed by ]. ] (]) 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::P&W, I cannot believe you are still editing Ugg boots. I cannot believe you have not been RfC'd and been given a lengthy topic ban. Dang.
::Bilby's research appears to me to be a case of mistaken identity. IP specialist and Law Partner James L. Davis Jr went to , not . The partner of a law firm is rarely, if ever, inclined to write for a backwater newspaper, not with their time worth tons of money per hour but the news item paying peanuts. IF the partner in a law firm writes an article, he is never credited with just his high school in Peoria and his university without mentioning the law firm partnership. I beliieve that our Mr. Jim Davis is a right-wing political hack who is definitely NOT a partner at a Chicago law firm but rather a mere IT guy. I credit him with Daily Caller pieces such as this: . The Daily Caller Davis is "The suburbs" mentioned in this DC bio corresponds neatly with the PJ Star bio which says Davis lives in Glendale Heights, a suburb of ChiTown. There's a world of difference between an IP specialist partner and an IT specialist employee. The IT guy, who often sits around doing very little at more than one company I know, definitely can find the time to write articles for online opinion sites and for small newspapers. But IT guys are not experts in Ugg boots sales figures! Not a reliable source. ] (]) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Just as a brief aside - I didn't identify Davis. That was made by another editor on the ugg boots talk page. If it is incorrect, then that just continues the mystery as to who it is, and reinforces that we have no idea as to whether or not he has any special expertise on the subject. - ] (]) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

== Is a source necessarily reliable if a secondary reliable source uses them? ==

An article I'm editing has a press release sent out by the article subject's company, it was copied almost verbatim, and made up the entirety of, articles distributed by 2 other news providers/aggregators, with credit for the info going to the subject of our article listed at the end of the articles. It was not independently reported on by either 3rd party news provider. If either of the news providers are deemed to be reliable, does that then infer "reliable" status onto the primary document/press release? (If it's relevant, the 2 secondary sources are www.prnewswire.com and www.thestreet.com) -- ] <small>]</sup></small> 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::I think this depends on the concrete context/case and what reliable refers to exactly. If you mean that content of the press release becomes automatically "factual" if a few newspapers more or less copy it verbatim, then the answer is no. If it is just used to give a reliable description of the company's position, the press release alone might be good enough and the news providers don't really matter much.--] (]) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

::: The news item in question deals with an event, and notability, if these secondary sources just push out the press release without any other journalism attached, does that make it notable? I will paste the actual links here, but I'd rather get opinions that can't have any subject bias attached first. -- ] <small>]</sup></small> 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::::In reviewing the sources you provided it seems to me they are mostly press release distributors. If that is the case, I would think that until the story is picked up by a news agency such as the AP or AFP, or Reuters, to name a few, it is not yet published and therefore neither the original press release, nor the reproduced ones can be conspired reliably published by a secondary source.--] (]) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::A press release is only usable as a ]. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
:::::# the material is not unduly self-serving;
:::::# it does not involve claims about third parties;
:::::# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
:::::# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
:::::# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
:::::But keep in mind that if the information is truly worth reporting, secondary sources would have reported it. So, yes, they can be used, but they should be the exception, not the rule (so to speak). ] (]) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== The Urantia Book ==

I am new here so please forgive me if I express something not entirely clear.
There is a long discussion about reliable sources for ] article on Misplaced Pages. The neutrality of this article has been disputed for a long time. The Urantia Book, over 2000 pages in volume, is basically religious-philosophical book but contains also information from all areas of human knowledge. One of the most quoted sources in the article is Martin Gardner critical book "Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery" - Prometheus Books 1995. Credibility of this source as well as it accuracy was often questioned in ]. Is this book reliable source for all critical statements in The Urantia Book article? Below I attach all opinions on this subject from discussion, including mine opinion, in chronological order:

''I understand from reading the archives that you consider Gardner to be a reliable and credible published source. At one point you seemed to say that referencing ubthenews would be like referencing ubhoax.org - and the thought came to my mind that Gardner's book is the equivalent of ubhoax. It does not pretend to be neutral. It ridicules and has a rude tone toward the book and movement. It is not of the tone that you would find from an academic scholar. Gardner may have a reputation from previously published works, but it is still possible that the quality, and thus credibility, of this work was not very high isn't it? When you called him third party, (I believe it was you in the archives) you make him sound as if he were neutral towards the book, and not in the 'pro or con' parties. But reading his book shows that he is clearly in the 'con' party. How many verifiable major blunders would it take for you to see that his book may not be all that well researched and that it often stretches and does not stand up to close scrutiny from someone who knows about the book? Maybe we could start a list, because Gardner, for example, even talks about Jesus' having traveled to India in his book, which he did not do in the story in the UB. In reviewing Gardner's book, the credible and neutral third party source, the Library Journal, in its April 15, 1995 issue, said "Given the lack of scholarly distance from the subject, the patronizing tone, and the gross editorializing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library." Gooch was much more neutral toward his topic of study, and he seemed a bit perturbed by how unfriendly Gardner was toward the book. He calls Gardner's book 'scabrous' (p. 48) and Gooch finds it worth mentioning that Gardner 'admitted' to him (in a telephone interview) that 'The Urantia Book is remarkable among these types of books claiming divine revelation, in that it is occasionally well written...', Gooch goes on to say that 'This response mildly echoed the much harsher appraisal in his book...' (page 22). His book was written for a skeptical publisher by a skeptic who set out to debunk the book, in stark contrast to the neutral perspective of the sociologist or historian of religion etcetera that lends credibility. It is more in the 'anti-cult' genre, like ubhoax, than the neutral. Do you think it might be considered to add a remark about Gardner's having aimed to discredit the book from the get-go, or about his many inaccuracies (which I imagine myself and others here can be demonstrate if you wish), or about his 'lack of scholarly distance from the subject,... patronizing tone, and ... gross editorializing' as noted by a very credible reviewer? (and which is also clear to anyone who reads his book). Best regards... Mwcm1975 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)''

''] published in ] for a quarter of a century and has been writing works about ] for over half a century, including perhaps the most classic work in the field.''
''Gardner is a valuable and fully ] published reference. Not only is he a good representative of skeptical POV, he did collect a lot of factual historical information, as well as evaluating science and plagiarism claims, which are useful to the article's criticisms sections. When you say things like Gardner "aimed to discredit the book from the get-go", you need to back that claim up with a reference from a reliable source, otherwise it's just hearsay. While Gardner's tone and writing style in his book weren't what would be considered ] on wikipedia, the information he published certainly can still be utilized and doesn't need to have caveats alongside it about him. I'm not sure even if you have a specific dispute with anything the article currently says, do you? ] (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)''

''The main source of criticism in this section is Martin Gardner book - Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery.''
''Sandra Collins, SLIS, University of Pittsburg, wrote in the conclusion of her opinion about Martin Gardner book : “Given the lack of scholarly distance from the subject, the patronizing tone, and the gross editoralizing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library”.''
''I find this article about The Urantia Book rather far from neutral point of view. Jaworski (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)''

''Martin Gardner was intimately involved with TUB, and including his opinion as if he were an unbiased observer or scholar breaches NPOV (and also, in some twisted way, self-publishing/self-reference). This must be revised or removed: in any case, the extant statement is not referenced even as-is. ] (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)''

''At the same time this article is full of one man - Martin Gardner – opinions. His opinions are quoted 12 times in various parts of this article ] He had bachelor degree in philosophy but his opinions on the subjects of astronomy, physics, biology etc. are regarded in this article as ] . His findings are 16 years outdated and biased. Because lack of scholarly distance from the subject his book was not recommended to any library. All his biased opinions should be removed from this article except for fact, that he wrote critical book. Jaworski (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)''

More information about ] and his work can be found in Misplaced Pages article. Most of his articles published in Scientific American are about ].

There are a few web sites related to The Urantia Book including , and . Are these web sites reliable sources for a history of movement, current news and events, readers beliefs?
The Urantia Book Fellowship publishes the Fellowship Herald. There are a few articles evaluating scientific information in The Urantia Book. One – Scientific predictions of the Urantia Book part II – was written by Irvin Ginsburgh Ph.D. physicist (),
another – The Coming Scientific Validation of The Urantia Book – by Philip Calabrese Ph.D. award-winning research mathematician () Are these two articles a reliable source?

There is a web site devoted to scientific investigation of The Urantia Book, conducted by group of .
Is this web site a reliable source? Can this web site be mentioned in The Urantia Book Misplaced Pages article? ] (]) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:The Herald publication are certainly not RS for any neutral/3rd person description of the urania book. I'd regard Martin Gardner in general as a RS on the issue (for criticism), but the criticism (ideally) should not rely on him alone.
:In general however I have to say the notion that the book provides scientific revelation or would matter for science is inherently nuts, so most people/scientist probably won't even bother with it as they don't take it seriously to begin with.--] (]) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:Looks like Jaworski tried to remove this section (see page history). I restored it, and would like to add that Martin Gardner is very clearly a reliable source on this topic. Most other sources don't take it seriously enough to bother discussing it, so Gardner might be the best source. There may be others also. I get the idea, though, that Jaworski isn't going to particularly like what any of the reliable sources have to say on this ] topic. 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

== YouTube (sort of) ==

{{La|Rick Snyder}}

An editor removed the following material from the article: "In January 1976, he enrolled at the university (]) and earned a ] with high distinction in 1977, then a ] from the ] with distinction in 1979, and a ] from the ] in 1982." The edit summary read: "YouTube is not acceptable reference". I raised this on the article Talk page, and the editor agreed it wasn't a copyright issue - it would seem that he just has his own blanket "policy" that one can never cite to YouTube.

The video on YouTube is from a little-known website news source, AmericaJR.com. It is AmericaJR's official channel, so there's no copyright issue. The normal question would then be whether AmericaJR.com itself is a reliable source (that was questioned by another editor). However, as I pointed out on the Talk page, except for a nothing introduction at the beginning of the video, the entire video is just Snyder's speech. We're not citing to any content provided by a reporter from AmericaJR.com. So, the only real issue is whether we can cite to Snyder (]) for the material in the article. This has nothing to do with YouTube or even with AmericaJR.com, although both are "providing" the content.

At the moment, as I pointed out on the article Talk page, the YouTube cite is back in the article. It wasn't reinserted by me, but by a bot rescuing the named ref. The original removing editor hasn't commented further.

Assuming Snyder's speech supports the material, does anyone see a problem citing the video of the speech?--] (]) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

:One reason why we do not usually accept Youtube as a reliable source is the difficulty of verifying that the content is what it claims to be. On what authority should we accept that this is an authentic unedited video of this person's speech on that particular day? ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::*Surely there is a better source for his academic record than the crappy copy of this speech. ] (]) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::::LOL. In response to Cusop, although AmericaJR may not be the world's best news source, it is probably good enough to accept the fact that the video has not been edited, and, partly in response to Niteshift's comment, you'd think that if they edited it, they would done a better job. :-) My guess is I can find other sources for his academic record, but the story about what happened when he approached UM would probably be harder. At the same time, it's not terribly important material, more just a cute story.--] (]) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::*And you've already answered my next response....."cute stories" aren't important. A solid source that shows where he went to school and when is much better than a crappy recording that makes you waste 10 minutes to find out the info, is from a questionable "news source" and leaves this many questions. ] (]) 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I question if AmericaJR is actually RS. I cannot tell if they have a reputation for fact checking an reliability. But their page attempts to solicit writers on a volunteer basis. The writers appear to be students and not professionals. I'm on the fence. There should not be any issue with using the video as an inline citation if it is RS. As someone else pointed out: How hard would it be to find an alternate source if needed? ] (]) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

== ] - use of Google Groups and webforums ==

This should be more fun than my earlier (and unanswered) post above about another article. Here we have an article heavily sourced from Google Groups, a webforum which seems not to exist any more (Enigmapublius.org which I can only find through Wayback and a whole section based on what looks like a private webpage at . I've deleted some of the original research which was either unsourced or where the sources didn't come anywhere near discussing the subject of the article, but is this heavy use of Google Groups and a webforum appropriate? Thanks. ] (]) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
:A lot of what's in Google Groups is actually ] posts. Those, like webforums and blogs and private websites, add up to a huge steaming pile of "not ]"! --] &#x007C; ] 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
:It should be noted also that a great deal of this article is from ], and the forum discussions are also heavily drawing from a forum user called ''Chinagreenelvis''. This again reeks of ] violations. --] &#x007C; ] 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

== 'Inspire', magazine allegedly published by al-Quaeda in the Arab Peninsula ==

Thomas Joscelyn, who has bylines in ''The San Francisco Examiner'' and is also styled "Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense Democracies" and "Senior Editor, ''The Long War Journal''", is named as the author of material about ] on the website . His opinions and analysis there are variously cited in the Misplaced Pages ''Inspire'' article (e.g.: "According to Thomas Joscelyn, the chief purpose of Inspire is to spread AQAP's propaganda to the West.")

Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, author of ''Jihad in Saudi Arabia'' (Cambridge 2010), ''al-Qaida in its own words'' (Harvard 2008) and ''The Meccan Rebellion'' (Amal 2011), and contributor of op-eds to e.g. ''The Guardian'' and the ''NYT'', has an , which is also numerously cited.

In light of Joscelyn and Hegghammer's credentials, are their articles in longwarjournal.com and jihadica.com reliable sources? ] (]) 10:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


:That was only one aspect. A much larger aspect was related to open questions from the last RfC and the questionable close that seemed to have moved it (correctly?) from "yellow" to "green". ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Joscelyn has been mentioned in the NYT as knowledgeable on the topic, and Hegghammer has been cited by the NYT as "But one noted scholar of jihadism, Thomas Hegghammer of the Norwegian Research and Defense Establishment, cautioned against drawing ... " as well as writing for the NYT himself. Yep - both (and especially Hegghammer) are noted in the field, and the later quite notably so. Hegghammer is mentioned in a great many books on the topic, and Joscelyn is cited in several books on the topic as expert. Cheers - they both meet WP standards. ] (]) 12:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you. I think you may have misunderstood the question. There was no doubt about Joscelyn and Hegghammer being notable (as I tried to make clear by referring to their credentials). I was not asking for confirmation of that. My concern was with the two blogs. TJ and/or TH in, say, ''The Guardian'' would clearly be RS for commentary within their specialist fields - I was not sure whether the same applied in the case of their publication by these two particular blogs. I now think the blogs are acceptable, so no additional input is needed unless someone has a counter-argument. ] (]) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Blogs associated with experts are usable ''within their fields of expertise''. I had thought that was clear. Cheers. ] (]) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
*I disagree. We have WP:SPS which allows us to be lenient with "experts," but we also have ], which states that exceptional claims must have multiple reliable sources backing them and that a source which makes an exceptional claim found in no other sources is therefore to be questioned. The article relies ''heavily'' on Hegghammer's and Joscelyn's writings, but if they weren't published in a reliable source, we can't source them for all kinds of REDFLAG claims based on their famous names alone. –] (] &sdot; ]) 07:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


==RfC: Jacobin==
== Center for Systemic Peace ==
<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}}
{{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}}
Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
* Option 1: ]
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]
— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


An editor has questioned the reliability of a from the {{plainlink|url=http://www.systemicpeace.org|name=Center for Systemic Peace}} as a source for human rights. While not as high-profile as ] or ], CSP seems to be fairly widely cited and referenced in both and . --] 10:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
== Taliban ==
*'''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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Are the sources used in the below content suitable for the fact that the Taliban use terrorism as a tactic?
*'''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)
<blockquote>They use ] as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals.<ref name=Skaine>{{cite book|last=Skaine|first=Rosemarie|title=Women of Afghanistan in the Post-Taliban Era: How Lives Have Changed and Where They Stand Today|year=2009|publisher=McFarland|isbn=978-0786437924|pages=41}}</ref> <ref name=Shanty1>{{cite book|last=Shanty|first=Frank|title=The Nexus: International Terrorism and Drug Trafficking from Afghanistan|year=2011|publisher=Praeger|isbn=978-0313385216|pages=86–88}}</ref>{{reflist}}</blockquote>
* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear.&nbsp;
:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed.&nbsp;<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
:I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.


:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
{{unsigned|Darkness Shines}}
:Both should be reliable on Taliban politics. I can't get more than a snippet for Skaine so couldn't check if it supports that statement. Shanty, on the other hand, is very clear. ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


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


: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)
Is there a subpage which lists books that include Misplaced Pages content without attribution? There have been several discussions in the past about publishers such as the Gyan Publishing House (e.g. ], ], ]), but people keep re-inserting their books as references. Once in every few months, I've to embark on a cleanup spree to remove these. ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think such a list, perhaps even modifying a bot as well, might be a good idea to detect cites to questionable sources. However it's done, though, we can't get since some publishers existed before Misplaced Pages. Not all of Gyan's publications could have copied Misplaced Pages, for instance, so a rather detailed list would probably be needed. ] (]) 08:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
:: I've created a page at ], linked from ]. ] | ] 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
::The problem with Gyan/Isha is a little different, while many of their recent publications are reproductions of WP content, quite a few of the earlier ones are reproductions of other author's/publishing house content. Sitush (I think) had picked up one "recent" book of theirs which was used as a source here but was actually copied from an out-of-copyright work from the UK. While some other publishers (notably Motilal Banarsidass) also republish out of copyright works, they retain the original info (author etc) and do not pass it of as new works. With Gyan there really is no way to tell which one is really a new work vs copied from out of copyright works, copied from copyrighted works, unattributed copy etc. &mdash;]''']''' 06:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
:::Would a wider net, plagiarism by publisher/publication/source be best? I bet there are more, and I assume a single publication might rip off several other sources at a time. If there were a list or chart by plagiarist, it might help editors identify original sources and replace citations instead of simply removing. ] (]) 06:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Add Kalpaz to the Gyan/Isha mix - they seem to be the same outfit. Some examples of Gyan weirdness (which includes seemingly plagiarising their own authors!):
::::*Compare with
::::* with
::::I have come across at least 100 example pairs, and some triplicates. Probably more, but I binned my list in utter disgust. Which is unfortunate given current developments but was based in part on having the support of ] regarding the issue. - ] (]) 07:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::BTW, SpacemanSpiff is correct in thinking that I've found examples that pre-date WP but were copies from earlier (and still copyrighted) works. I'll see if I can find that darn list ... - ] (]) 07:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
Has anyone come across Int'l Business Publications? ] has removed many references to that publisher identified as Wiki "reprints." I thought that user might find this discussion interesting and left a note. ] (]) 07:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*] includes both print and online sources, but is a list of publishers rather than pages/titles. To get on the list, websites and publishers don't have to be ''only'' mirrors and forks, but I wouldn't put a webpage on the list necessarily for a single instance. For instance, if the fan club of Joe Smith copies his bio but has no interest in any other Misplaced Pages content, I would note the copying on Joe Smith's talk page, but not at Mirrors and Forks. ] is on the list. Int'l Business Publications isn't, ], but I can't say that I've never encountered it. There are so many. :/ But and the charge seems fair. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:25, 23 January 2012 (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. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== Thepeoplesvoice.org ==
*: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)
Several articles are using the extremely anti-Semitic http://thepeoplesvoice.org as a reference. This site is basically the left-wing equivalent of '']''. It should not be confused with ] organization, whose name it stole. For an example of its unreliability, see , which is full of completely fabricated quotes.{{unsigned|Ghuvar5356}}
*: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)
:Ignoring the rather contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict (because ), that , and , and that , such as claim that the recession and militarism are still a problem , all lead me to think that they really don't have much in the way of fact-checking or editorial oversight, and seems more like a large blog.
:::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)
:An unsatisfactory number articles read like Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.
::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:I could also argue that , which prevents them from qualifying as a reliable source.
:::::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)
:I am inclined to say that anything they cover of value would be covered by another site, even an independent one. ] (]) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (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)
::Ok, looking through the , I'm mostly reaching an opposite conclusion as to its use:
:::::::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)
::*It is used in ], to simply establish that he wrote a book. This is more or less equivilant to citing a press release, I guess it could stay.
::::::::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)
::*In ], it is used to link to a ] video, in a section discussing Russia Today's claims as their claims. The site is not being used itself, but as a redirect.
*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::*In ], it is used to source "Traditionally, local Waziri religious leaders have enlisted outsiders in their feuds, though it's not always that way, as local Waziris claim they are against the foreign militant presence there," but its simply reprinting . It is actually plagiarizing the article, so I removed it completely. There is a link for a Pakistani newspaper, which could be a reliable source, but the link is dead and the only copy of the page on Internet Archive , except that it was an opinion piece. I have failed to find any other sources, but I've only done a cursory glance over Google.
: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)
::*In ], an interview with Paul Watson is used to source the statement "In 1977, Watson was expelled from the Greenpeace's board of directors by a vote of 11 to 1." This is a rather non-contentious primary source.
::*In ], it is used to reprint a letter by Vanunu to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Seems reasonable to use.
::*In ], it is citing something originaly sourced to , from , While it will not kill Misplaced Pages to use the article on thepeoplesvoice until another source is found (as it is otherwise extremely plain), another should be found.
::*In ], it is citing something that was originally sourced to Esquire. I've changed it to cite that instead.
::*In ], it was citing something for the Israeli ], which is a different organization. I have removed this
::*In ], it is being used as a primary source, since the article is by the founder of the Second Vermont Republic.
::*In ], it is citing an interview with the subject of that section, ]. It is a primary source.
::*In ], it was being used as refspam for a petition. I have removed it.
::*In ], it is in the further reading section, not as a reference. If you feel inclined, you could suggest on the talk page that it should be removed.
::] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


== The Heritage Foundation ==
:::Reprint a letter? I'm not happy about that. ] (]) 10:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
] 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)
::::I realize that some of the places where it's being cited aren't contentious, but we should still replace or remove it where possible (basically for everything except interviews between the subject and the site, like ]). We shouldn't give the impression that it's an acceptable source. –] (] &sdot; ]) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


:We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== External Link Approval ==
::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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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)
I've come in contact with a source that I believe would be a tremendous addition to Misplaced Pages pages dedicated to countries. The project is called "International Futures" from the Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver. International Futures is a long-term forecasting and global trend analysis project that has gained credibility and international notoriety in the policy community. It is the world's largest integrated and endogenous model for global forecasting, and publications from International Futures can be found without much effort.


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)
I've posted a few external links to country pages, but it has been brought to my attention that I should start a conversation on this message board to seek consensus. I think that it's a tool that has a great deal of utility, and the forecasts add something new and interesting to country discussions. I believe it's a valuable addition, and I'd like to see these forecasts on more country pages. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


The web based version of the model can be found at http://www.ifs.du.edu/ifs/Ifs.aspx (] (]) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)) : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 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 ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Do you have any independent reliable sources that confirm what you are saying about the site? (That it "has gained credibility and international notoriety in the policy community") ] (]) 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


'''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Their work has been sourced in some very credible projects that I've come across.
:::United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Reports - here's the latest http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/papers/HDRP_2011_08.pdf
:::The African Futures Project with the Institute for Security Studies - http://www.ifs.du.edu/assets/documents/Africa%20Futures%202050%20ISS%20Pardee%20IFs.pdf
:::The UN's Global Environmental Outlook - http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp
:::The US Institute for Peace - http://www.usip.org/publications/vulnerability-intrastate-conflict
:::The US National Intelligence Council, Global Scenarios 2025 - http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_global_scenarios.html
:::And their work is hosted by Google's Public Data Explorer (Although I've been told that this data is not as current as their website) http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_
::I apologize for being so vague in my first message. I appreciate that you wouldn't take my word for it! It's difficult to find independent sources that verify their work, but I think that some of their clients and projects may speak to the quality of their work. I've been in touch with International Futures to get a list of some of this recent work, so if there's any other questions regarding their work I can contact them easily. Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you! (] (]) 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC))
::::*While I could not see any red flags concerning reliability I will have to interject that you are asking for input specifically concerning an "external link" at a reliable source noticeboard. The appropriate place for these discussions (external links) would be on the ]. However, since you asked and there appears to be possible reliable source application, and so I don't have to chase this around, I will add my two cents.
::::I have only briefly looked at the futures model and I can not see any actual benefit, in response to your '''''tremendous addition to Misplaced Pages pages dedicated to countries''''' comment, it would have as to to being ] place on a multitude of articles.
::::*Unless there is some serious reason against use the actual best location to determine acceptance of use is on the individual article talk pages. If you do not find some particular opposition for use on Misplaced Pages and you feel there is relevance, inquiring there (talk pages) will likely give resolution and avoid deletions.
::::I did not look at your use in articles, '''''however'''''! if consensus is for use (or just as importantly not specifically against), I would advise to do so sparingly and use the link for the model concerning the country the article is about and not the main page link. For relevance actual use would probably be best when there is a section concerning something regarding the future in an article. Many articles already have somewhat of a problem with the number of external links (external link clutter) so even if the site is reliable, and there is relevance, you might still find opposition on some articles if you do just "indiscriminately" place the link. With no opposition as to reliability as a source, and where there is relevance for use, the link might be able to be used in an article as a source, or possibly used in a "See also" section.
::::If you start to inundate Misplaced Pages with the links you will more likely than not find opposition as I for one would be against it. If there is opposition, especially link deletion, as to relevance (or other reasons) in a particular article it would be best to leave it out unless you are active in contributions to the article and wish to pursue inclusion.
::::It might be a cool site with some neat forecasts for the future but these are "forecasts" of what "might" happen if no catastrophic events take place. In the real world such things as major earthquakes (among other things), overnight changes in the government, economic plunge, and other examples, would render, in my opinion, the "Scenario Analysis" section might be considered just a cool tool for ] fun. Since the world (markets, future allocation of resources and many other examples) do depend on such future analysis, I can also see (my opinion at this point providing some negative reasoning I overlooked is not brought up) where the site could have encyclopedic relevance when used properly in particular articles. ] (]) 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


:Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] on marital breakup ==


'''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Should http://www.contactmusic.com/news/vanilla-ice-and-wife-split_1232480 be considered a reliable source for a ]? Someone claiming to represent Vanilla Ice says at ] that there is no breakup. —] ] ] 20:24, 20 January 2012 (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 ] 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)
== Help evaluating reliability of blogs ==


* '''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)
This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation between ] and ], so I'll take it over there if you guys think I should...


=== RFC: The Heritage Foundation ===
We have an article on ]. The article's creator is using the blogs Racked, Catster, and Fashionista as sources. Here are links to the specific article/posts:
<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
and , , and . Any comments on the reliability of these sources would be appreciated. If you're a notability expert as well and feel like commenting on those aspects, it would be seriously appreciated (and save me a trip to ]). ]]/] 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}}
:Just a quick look at their about pages, Fashionista has an editorial staff and is backed by a publishing company, so likely reliable. Catster is a mix of expert and community posts, so you would have to check if the specific author would be reliable under ]. Racked I can't really get a handle on. (their about page is here) ] (]) 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 1: ]'''
:Hi, I'm the person who wrote the article. One of the sources is also a newspaper, if that helps (El Imparcial). Not sure if that's under consideration here or not but just wanted to point that out. I'd like to work on this article more but also don't want to put a lot more time into if it is going to be deleted. So I'm interested to hear the outcome of this discussion and open to specific feedback. ] (])
* '''Option 2: ]'''
::Akritenbrink, I think you're OK here. Go ahead with improving the article. Nothing is guaranteed at Misplaced Pages, but I know '''I''' won't be nominating it for deletion based on the coverage shown here. ]]/] 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
* '''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)
== ''Arts & Opinion''; book review ==
*'''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. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
*:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
*::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
*::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment.
*::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. ] (]) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. ] (]) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::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)
May the arts/culture/politics magazine '''' be used as an RS--for the specific purpose of mentioning a book review that is contained in the magazine?--] (]) 22:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
* I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
:I don't see why not. Ith has an editorial board and contributing authors, articles are not written by the editors, and it publishes on a regular schedule. I don't see anything in the couple articles that I browsed that make me nervous. I'd say go for it. ]]/] 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above.
::I'm not so sure. Its editorial people don't appear notable, they do write quite a lot of the articles, and the list of major past contributors includes (the first one I checked) a "reprint by permission" of an article that Noam Chomsky had actually published elsewhere. I'd gladly be persuaded that ''Arts & Opinion'' is independent and reliable, but I'm not persuaded at first glance.
:*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories.
::Tell us what Misplaced Pages article this is about, and which book review. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:*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)
:::If you look at ''Arts and Opinion'''s submission guidelines, they also solicit submissions of reviews rather than writing them in-house. Not very professional. This is because Epeefleche wants to use it to attest the notability of '']''. –] (] &sdot; ]) 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:::*The wp article is about the book, which is the subject of the book review. The sentence in question in the wp article is "A 2008 review of the book in ''Arts & Opinion'' by Bassam Michael Madany describes the book as a "much needed guide to understanding the true nature of Islam, and its attitude to the rest of the world".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.artsandopinion.com/2008_v7_n4/madany-muslimsoldiers.htm |title=Bassam M. Madany reviews Robert Spencer's Onward Muslim Soldiers |work=Arts & Opinion |date=2008 |volume=7 |number=4|author=Bassam M. Madany |accessdate=January 17, 2012}}</ref> The AfD by Ros on the article has already closed, as a "keep".
:::{{Reflist}}
:::--] (]) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
::::...a non-admin close which looks like it's about to be reopened for being improper. In any case, it's irrelevant; the publication's editorial policy is questionable and in particular its process for running reviews from whoever feels like submitting them disqualifies it as a reliable source. –] (] &sdot; ]) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
*More responses here would be appreciated, as Epeefleche and another user are persisting in restoring the material even though there is no consensus that it is cited to a reliable source. –] (] &sdot; ]) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (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)
* I see that is by Bassam Michael Madany who "was the Arabic Broadcast minister of Back-to-God Hour, the radio ministry of the Christian Reformed Church, from 1958-1994. He is the author of The Bible and Islam: A Basic Guide to Sharing God’s Word with a Muslim". for interest which appears to be about bringing "the Gospel to Muslims" and spreading "the liberating Word of God". I don't see why his review would be considered significant or the source reliable. It falls more into the "questionable" and "promotional in nature" areas of ] I would have thought. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 12:44, 24 January 2012 (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)
*'''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)
* '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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)
* The instructions for submissions state "PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE NON-PROFIT. WE DO NOT REMUNERATE." That sounds kind of like "we print whatever we can get people to send us for free" to me. --] 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Could you point me to where you answered that? ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::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 &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
:That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
:If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations.
*::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed.
*:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
*:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::It is a reasonable statement to include in the article ] (in table format, for example), but not in the article ], unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —] 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? ] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::From ]: "The ] rated Denmark as "]" in 2016. According to the ] Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index ] (]) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —] 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC ] (]) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —] 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I disagree ] (]) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::@] is right. ] (]) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
*::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::] is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical ]), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. ] (]) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::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">—&nbsp;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''' –&nbsp;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. ]&#xFF5F;]&nbsp;]&#xFF60; 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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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)
The use of the science magazine ] is being disputed at ] (]) for not being a RS.
: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)
The line in question:


: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)
* In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.
::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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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)


This is obviously a reliably published science magazine with an editorial board. Perfect RS for the line. --] (]) 08:42, 21 January 2012 (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 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)
*It has a full editorial board and has been in print since 1932. It seems reliable enough for that statement. ] (]) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


:There is already an existing source to verify the statement. Current Science is a low grade low impact journal without peer review. There is no sign of quality control, the paper in question was accepted the very next day on being submitted; recieved 9th February 2008, accepted 10th February 2008. Current science is not a magazine, it claims to be a journal. ] (]) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (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)
::Further pardon requested for the ping, as it turns out the question was probably unnecessary ] (]) 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is a borderline case. A couple of points to consider: (i) The paper is what the journal calls a "general paper" (i.e., broad discussion "of interest to readers outside the field" rather than a research article or scientific correspondence. (ii) The journal's abysmal 0.78 impact factor speaks to its reputation in the relevant academic community. (iii) The fact that the paper was received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and then accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008) is quite odd. ] (]) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (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)
::A peer reviewed journal is a good source to verify this statement.
::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)
::(i) the line for which it is used as verification is not "a new concept or cutting-edge research", but only a (secondary source) remark about previously claimed results by a researcher in the field. A "general paper" in a peer reviewed journal is a good as a "journalistic piece" in a science magazine.
:::That's exactly what deprecated (to a stronger degree) and GUnRel designation mean. ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::(ii) Impact factors a greatly overrated. The closest thing I could find in the policies is "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." I do not think that an impact factor can be directly translated to the reputability of a journal. Please also consider that this is a Indian journal, it is wrong to misinterpret "reputable journal" as "high impact factor journal", as it would push a "only big western/USA science journals count" notion. Furthermore, for the line that is verified this whole discussion about impact factor is irrelevant.
::Actually, I should ping @], since they's the one above who initially proposed the opening statement. ] (]) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::(iii) Well, we don't know what happened between the author of the article and the editor of the journal. Maybe for "general papers" a weekend is deemed enough time to review. To me the article reads like it could have been published in a science magazine as well. I don't know how long science magazines normally would take to proof read an article before publication. Be aware that your interpretation of this being "quite odd" is only one possible interpretation.
:::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)
::I do not think that, for this verification use, it is a borderline case. --] (]) 10:08, 23 January 2012 (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)
:::Science magazines usaully have their own writers; it is '''NOT''' a science magazine, they don't even self-identify as a science magazine. There is no other possible interpretation of a review process that takes one day, it is most certainly out of the normal by '''any''' definition. It is only reliable for the ''opinion'' of the author, that is all. ] (]) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (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 ===
::::You also deleted another reviewed paper from Current Science . That paper was received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. It is clear that Current Science has a normal peer reviewed process. --] (]) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::No it is not clear. Please provide some sort of evidence to back it up thanks. Someone on an editorial board looking at a paper is '''not''' peer review. They have poor editorial control if any paper is accepted after one day, one day just isn't enough time to do the fact checking necessary. There is also zero evidence that they engage in peer review. edit: What I would posit that occurs is a standard spelling and grammatical check but nothing more by the looks of it. ] (]) 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::''"Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)."'' What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?
:::::::Are you willfully ignorant? I specifically explained to you that someone on an editorial board looking at a paper is '''not''' peer review. Notice how the blurb you pasted does not mention peer review at all in any shape or form, ergo it does not have a normal peer review process. It is impossible for the process of submission, editorial review, finding a peer, the peer review and then a reply to the editor, subsequent corrections etc to take one day. Also at no point does it mention that the apparent "detailed review" will be conducted by a peer. ] (]) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (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)
* '''good source''' : Very relevant to that time frame. ] (]) 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


=== Reference Subsection ===
== Tax professor citing Treasury for FairTax ==
{{reflist-talk}}


== Catholic-Hierarchy.org ==
{{resolved|Found original Treasury source () ] (]) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC) }}


'']'' 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 a reliable source for the statement, "the U.S. Treasury Department says a revenue neutral sales tax rate would be 64%, or 89% if high evasion is expected," in the ] article? ] (]) 18:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


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)
:Paul Caron (the TaxProf) is not the source; ] is the source, in an editorial in the '']''. If the statement is used, it should be sourced to Bartlett's writing, not Caron's blog. (Note that I am not addressing the suitability of the statement or the reliability of Caron's blog, only how this statement should be cited.) ''']''' <small>]</small> 18:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


:Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: So we have a blog quoting an editorial citing a statement by the treasury department? I'd say no, from the combination of the editorial and the number of hops required. If you can track down the actual statement by the treasury department, and it does say that, without requiring interpretation, or if you can find a Wall Street Journal article - not editorial - that says the treasury department says that, I'd say OK. From our article on ], he seems to be a rather polarizing figure, so I'm leery of taking an editorial from him as strictly reliable for something so obviously controversial. --] (]) 20:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::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}}— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that {{tq|when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead}}. But, alas, the data aren't public (or, if they are, I can't quite find them). — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The core BLP problem isn't going to go away though... At best we can say that the source is usable for dead figures but I don't see a policy or guideline path to genuine reliability (even if just on technical grounds). Theres also the general problems that come with online databases (don't count towards notability, almost never due, etc). If it isn't covered in other sources then its almost by definition a level of detail that isn't due. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-''CH'') sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. ] (]) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. ] (]) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Sure. But also this isn't ''just'' a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has ''explicitly'' been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Unless it comes back with the result that its not self published it doesn't matter... Self published is self published regardless of underlying reliability. There is no way in which self published works become non-self published by being accurate, its still treated as self published. ] (]) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Does this source even exists? ==
== Findmypast.co.uk ==


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)
{{user|Moneysuch8}} is replacing book sources with links to the index of . Actual details are hidden behind a paywall. Any opinions on how good a source this is? --] (]) 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:Commercial genealogical site != generally accepted as a "reliable source." Cheers. ] (]) 21:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::Such sites usually have their information sorted by subscribers, effectively turning it into a user-generated source. Even if they are sorted by professionals, it's kinda ] to say "this record is indeed about the person this article is about." ], though not the most popular name ever, is not uncommon eough that we can conclude its the same individual, especially when it contradicts prior sources (unless more sources are found showing the first sources were wrong). ] (]) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


:If it is a hard copy book (or similar), it may not be on the internet. That said, a lot of library databases are in English, so have you tried searching for an English language translation? ] (]) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry - nonsense. Users CAN NOT edit birth records for England and Wales. What are you talking about?!!?!? You're complete making that up - if you can log in, every record even has a scan from the birth register.
: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)
Also, in regard to the original post - I replaced one book source as no editors are able to view that. Even if findmypast was all hidden behind a paywall, which you are incorrectly claiming, that doesn't make it any less useful than an autobiography of an artist very few libraries for example would ever have.
::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 ==
] (]) 22:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)}


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.
And in regard to ], it certainly is an uncommon enough name to use the service. There are few Howard Payne's born in England since 1970, and there is only one recorded for Liverpool whcih also has the middle name Elliot. An article from a website which likely sourced the information from Misplaced Pages itself isn't reliable.
*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
] (]) 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)
] (]) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. ] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== AllMovie ==
*It isn't nonsense. Libraries have books which users can check for free. Books are generally better sources as they go through a fact-checking process. --] (]) 22:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


is an online movie database, currently listed under ] with other ] sites as "no consensus". The site has changed significantly over the past few years, and it's my opinion that we should either separate AllMovie and mark it as unreliable or expand the description to explain why it shouldn't be used.
No, I was referring to the claim that anyone can edit the England and Wales birth records on findmypast.co.uk. That is complete nonsense.
Re your comment - official records are "generally better sources" than any book.
] (]) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:Moneysuch8, do not twist my words. I said "sorted," not "edited." Reread my original post in this thread.
:Also, Google books keeps scans of most books. The insistance on using findmypast is starting to seem ]... ] (]) 22:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


] 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 ].
:{{ec}} Findmypast is partly behind a paywall. You can search for free, but if you want to see the primary records, you have to pay (). It's not clear how much editorial oversight the owners of the site have over the data. I'm curious why Moneysuch is so interested in adding links to this particular service to so many articles.--] (]) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (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)
Isee Ian Thomson is now stalking my edits. Creepy. And is repeatedly claiming that he has some consensus to revert my edits, despite the only response to this question prior to him giving it any attention was in support of using findmypast as a source. Claims that I am affliated are verging on delusional. It's clearly a reliable source, and I don't believe it's right that you are stalking my edits with no conensus backing you up. You've even reverted the edit to ], despite the fact there is only one Kunal Nayyar born in the UK at any point. And is also citing this discussion to back himself up that you can't use the site as a reference which is totaly incorrect.


:Good catch, and I agree with your proposal. AllMovie's blog post , dated March 24, 2024, suggests that AllMovie's transition from independent content to Misplaced Pages mirror occurred around the beginning of 2024. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- ] (] &#124; ]) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:Accusations of stalking aren't appropriate in this forum. So, ''why'' are you focused exclusively on this website?--] (]) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (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)
Because it's a great source for referencing birth details? And reverting every edit by someone, and using this discussions to pretend they have a consensus that you can't use findmypast as a reference is stalking. Is it acceptable for someone to revert all my edits, citing this discussion and claiming it is against using the reference - when that isn't correct and the first person to respond to it was in favour of it? Please answer me that.


*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.
] (]) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
: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)
:Can you find any support for the source in this discussion except you? Can you find any dismissal of the points raised against the site, except your attempt to avoid the issues of ] and user-generated sources? Again, you do not have proof that you have the records for the individuals in the articles. I'm simply removing instances of that source, and could only be considered stalking if ]. ] (]) 23:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


== MintPress News ==
*(cross-posted to ])I'm going to step in here (as an uninvolved admin) and put down my foot. Findmypast.co.uk is behind a paywall; they require registration and payment for every single record they find which matches the searcher's criteria. I can assume good faith up to a point, but the combative attitude exhibited by Moneysuch8 exhausts it. There is more than a whiff of promotion going on here, and it's going to stop until there is a consensus that it is an acceptable source. Moneysuch8, if you add another link to findmypast.co.uk before there is a consensus that it meets our sourcing guidelines, you will find yourself blocked. ''']''' <small>]</small> 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
::That seems a good idea, Horologium.
::Although there's no rule against linking to pay sites (if we know them to be reliable), it's much more helpful to Misplaced Pages readers to reference free sites (if we know them to be reliable) and books (which can be found in libraries). It's a very bad thing to remove other references and link instead to a pay site. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 09:46, 22 January 2012 (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)
* As an aside to the reliability of this site - I have access to it and it records 'date registered' for a birth not 'date born'. As with ] born on 25 December (Christmas Day) is unlikley to registered until the next year. Registration and birth date are not the same things. It also records the place the birth was registered. This not always the place of birth particularly with those born in large cities which have a registration office covering several districts--] (]) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:As one of the participants in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|July 2019 RfC}}, my assessment that '']'' should be ] has not changed. I believe the evidence I listed is more than sufficient to justify deprecation. I have analyzed ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated, and due to its length, I will place my analysis in a separate subsection. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's an important point. Moneysuch8 has been changing birth dates and places on the basis of this not-quite-relevant information. They may all need to be reverted. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:As a non-participant in the 2019 discussion I would like to say that deprecation was the right choice and reliability issues only seem to have gotten worse since. Note that just republishing Zero Hedge would be enough to get them over the deprecation line even if all of their native work was beyond reproach (which it is not). ] (]) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it's taken care of. I was using his contribs page to find additions of the site. While it's used elsewhere, the additions I could find did not appear to be replacing older information but were the first source used for some information. While it would be better that another source be found, I didn't have time for that, nor the resources. Do we have a tag for "need better source," and some bot that could slap all instances of findmypast? ] (]) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:You drew on Ad Fontes Media's analyses in your comment, and AFM is itself considered generally unreliable on the RSP. It's also not accurate to say "The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources," as can be seen if one clicks though to read all of the RfC comments. I have no direct experience with MintPress, but a bit of searching pulls up info like "According to experts, MintPress news is a disinformation site with opaque funding streams run out of Minneapolis that aligns with the Kremlin’s view of a “multipolar world” and often promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. MintPress News has been reprinting copy from Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik since 2016" ( from the ] in 2021), and the ] article cites a number of other sources with similar claims. What's your evidence that they've become reliable? ] (]) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::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)
:::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)
::::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'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)
::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)
::::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.
:— ]&nbsp;<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)
== Amazon.com ==


=== ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated ===
:In this sentence, "In November 2009 Comedy Central released the DVD of the show Gabriel Iglesias: I'm Not Fat... I'm Fluffy.", is a link to Amazon.com on the BLP ], considered advertising?
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:
:At first I didn't see there were some article related DVD information. A problem is that I did note that there were at least 30 instances of prices, a link to "shop all departments", a couple of "add to cart" links, and an "add to cart with free shipping" link.
{{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."}}
:It appears to me it is an advertising page with the '''''sole purpose''''' of providing information on how to buy the DVD mentioned in the article. In fact one of the two video links at the top of the page actually states, '''Own the DVD today'''.
Above, ''MintPress News'' linked the term '']'' ("increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some") to that described Microsoft engaging in ] ("the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition") with its ] software. ''MintPress News'' then used that incorrect reading to push their conspiracy theory about Microsoft's ] software. A reliable source would retract this article after discovering such a prominent flaw in the logic of their argument, but as they mentioned in their reaction piece, ''MintPress News'' doubled down by removing the reference to OneCare altogether and pretending that evidence against its conspiracy theory did not exist. In the {{small|()}}, ''MintPress News'' replaced {{!xt|"including "}} with {{xt|"including "}}, with the term ''price gouging'' now linking to another article about a different piece of software (]).{{pb}}In my RfC comments, I also noted that ''MintPress News'' republished 340 articles from {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}}, a source deprecated for frequently publishing conspiracy theories and false information. Despite acknowledging this in their reaction piece, ''MintPress News'' did not take down the Zero Hedge articles from their website. Instead, ''MintPress News'' has since changed their site design to remove the counter for the Zero Hedge articles. The articles are still published on their site, and can be found in a web search using the following query: .{{pb}}Everything I have mentioned here only concerns my comments in the previous RfC and how ''MintPress News'' responded to them. Additional evidence against this publication's reliability can be found in the article '']''. Altogether, I see no reason to change ''MintPress News''{{'s}} status as a deprecated source. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Corrected username —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:The link was added back with only the somewhat strange "cite" in the edit summary, so I deleted it again with an edit summary including "see talk" and explained my reasoning on the talk page. The editor re-added the link and left talk comments that included, "The fact that the website is a vendor does not mean that therefore, WP:NOTADVERTISING is being violated. '''''WP:NOTADVERTISING is only violated when the sole purpose of a given publication is advertisement'''''. If the date of release of that video is thought to require a cite (and this itself is questionable, since the credits of any media, which include year of creation, can be used as that media's source), and Amazon provides the year of release, then Amazon is a reliable source for that information."
:In my opinion the fact that a link to Amazon being allowed or not being allowed, because the site is a vendor, has nothing to do with the fact that the reference link, to the site in question, is used to support a very short and trivial promotional sentence about a DVD being released. The fact that there is some information concerning the DVD is compromised because this information is underneath a large amount of sales information. Comedy Central is being stated as the subject that released the DVD so there should be a more reliable link concerning the DVD. ] (]) 03:42, 22 January 2012 (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)
== Costa Concordia disaster ==
:Re: Zero Hedge, they do not masquerade any of that content as their own. On the contrary, each article has a disclaimer stating: {{tq|"Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy."}} And as far as I can tell they have republished or syndicated nothing from ZH since 2019. The editorial detachment is key. I could name several GREL news sites that frequently publish truly psychotic opinion pieces, but which have no bearing on their reliability because of statements just like or similar to this. ] (]) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of ] to allege an {{!xt|"ulterior motive"}} based on Microsoft's situational use of ] is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, ''MintPress News''{{'s}} rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the ] policy states that questionable sources {{xt|"include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion"}}, which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Reprinting external content isn't MPN {{tq|"expressing views"}}. And I'm sure you've looked into the Microsoft story properly, but do you have a source labelling the MPN story as a conspiracy theory? We normally judge sources based on what other sources say about them, not purely on what we think about them. And that's still just one story. ] (]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}} and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).{{pb}}As a ] website with a ] rank of , MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of ]'s book that debunks MPN's promotion of the ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Regarding your first link , the article is relating/quoting this report from the OPCW: https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2018/07/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-chemical-weapons-use-allegations
:::::Similarly, the rest of your links are articles about others' reporting. You say they directly cite Zero Hedge articles, but Zero Hedge seems to be just one of the sites they quote, in addition to Politico, Salon, New Yorker, Washington Post, and so on. ] (]) 14:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:
::::::* : MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians.
::::::Because {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}} is a source that was deprecated for repeatedly publishing ] and false information, MPN's use Zero Hedge for factual claims on numerous occasions and MPN's republication of hundreds of Zero Hedge articles both contribute to MPN being a ]. MPN using sources other than Zero Hedge does not excuse MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fixed link to article #2 again —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::::<u>Article #1</u> It also links and quotes from the original report/primary source that anyone can check, it doesn't rely on Zero Hedge alone.
:::::::<u>Article #2</u> It is the same link as Article #3
:::::::<u>Article #3</u> It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public.
:::::::<u>Article #4</u> But it does say "estimate", rather than treating it as an absolute and factual value, it is simply relating what ZeroHedge has estimated. The article does not rely on Zero Hedge reporting, but includes
:::::::<u>Article #5</u> It also links to the Washington Post article that Zero Hedge is using, not relying on Zero Hedge alone for the claim.
:::::::I don't think MPN is an unreliable source, it doesn't satisfy: {{tq|"have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."}} Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the other part of the policy: {{tq|"websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."}}
:::::::Citing Zero Hedge once per article, for claims that can be idependently verified, among many other sources that are WP:RS isn't enough to deprecate MPN. ] (]) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing {{rspe|Infowars|'']''|d|y}}; a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the ].{{pb}}My comments in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following: {{tq|"ZeroHedge estimated that the ensuing gerrymandering lawsuits will net Covington millions in legal fees, especially considering that Holder will be directing the filing of all such lawsuits on behalf of Democrats."}} How is that a relationship between two political parties? The article states "ZeroHedge estimated" rather than saying anything with certainty.
:::::::::Does MPN rely ''heavily'' on Zero Hedge in its original content? I don't think so, because it uses it as one of many sources.
:::::::::That is why I don't think deprecation is appropriate, rather "additional restrictions apply" as in MPN shouldn't be relied on claims that come only from ZeroHedge. ] (]) 15:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::If it were just the Zero Hedge thing I might see where you're coming from but @] demonstrated above that the outlet has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy all on their own. ] (]) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The has been copied over to the comment. MPN published: {{!xt|"However, an anonymous writer on ZeroHedge, an economic news website, noted on Nov. 30 that while Bilal Erdoğan in his tankers, 'we’ve yet to come across conclusive evidence of Bilal’s connection to .'"}} Here, MPN uses an assertion posted by {{xt|"an anonymous writer"}} from conspiracy theory website ] to make a claim about two political entities (] and ]). Doing this is like publishing {{!xt|"According to ] of '']''..."}} for a claim unrelated to Jones or ''Infowars'', which immediately throws the claim into question due to the poor reputation of the source. A source degrades its own reliability by repeatedly using another questionable source in this way for multiple topics on numerous occasions; the five linked articles are only a small sample.{{pb}}Your comment seems to be ignoring how MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims is only one of many reasons that MPN was deprecated; reliable sources have shown that MPN also publishes a cornucopia of conspiracy theories that MPN created by themselves, a common characteristic of ] that become deprecated on Misplaced Pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Mint has a poor reputation for checking the facts so that first one is satisfied (notice how is an "or" not an and so fulfilling any of the conditions satisfies it). They also express view widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion besides the bits that were convenient for you? ] (]) 21:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see the MPN response included a couple of paragraphs about me, in which almost all the things they say are demonstrably inaccurate even from the links they provide (they attribute a quote to me which is obviously not me, and seem to claim I call al-Nusra "moderate" by linking to a sandbox page here which says pretty much the opposite). I voted 3/4 in the RfC, but on the basis of this response I'd have no problem coming down in favour of 4. ] (]) 12:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't think I was involved in the 2019 discussion - at least I don't remember being involved in it - but based on the information above it seems like Mint Press is being appropriately deprecated as a source of misinformation. I'd love to see a Misplaced Pages with a broader range of reliable left-wing sources but the key word there is ''reliable'' and this... this is clearly not. ] (]) 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies) ==
I would be glad if you would read my request for comment at ] and add your input. Thank you. ] ] 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


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


: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)
{{la|Victoria Institute}}
::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. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


==Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts==
The early history of this institute is well-documented, particularly in Numbers' '']''. However after it falls out of the story of creationism in the 1920s, its history becomes very thinly documented. The only sources turned up to date have been a in '']'' and a less than satisfactory from 'World Evangelical Fellowship, Evangelical review of theology, Volume 15, p. 191'. We now have a representative from VI claiming factual errors in claims from these pieces: (i) that the VI's library and study center were destroyed in WWII (PSCF) & (ii) that its journal, ''Faith and Thought'', ceased-publication/merged (both sources). On the latter point they are able to offer as evidence that it is still under publication.
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.


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.
My own suspicion that the VI's modern history lacks sufficient "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" (to use ]'s phrasing) -- that any attempt to reconcile the sources would result in inevitable ] and that, due to the VI's reduced profile, we may lack sources with sufficiently intimate knowledge of the topic to be sufficiently reliable (i.e. they may be relying on hearsay and/or imperfect remembrance). If so, we may have to simply leave its modern history unsaid. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


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


For example, https://www.mmanews.com/features/matchmaking-bulletin/ufc-fight-bulletin/ - MMANews is considered reliable, but it links to reports of X posts that the site deemed reliable before posting it on MMANews. What are your thoughts on this?
I was wondering if someone familiar with Brazilian sites could tell me whether is reliable or not. Thanks.--] (]) 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:It's a major newspaper. Normally reliable, I'd say. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


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<br>
Anyone have any thoughts on ? An editor has repeatedly removed two published sources for a YOB on the plain assumption that they "copy from Misplaced Pages". I'm sick and tired of this and an not going to edit war again, and this time, seek comment. – ] (]) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
2) The allowance of UFC/ESPN reports of bouts or injuries to be considered reliable. For example: https://x.com/ESPNKnockOut/status/1878132515854000543 - this X post is by a verified ESPN Knockout account that posted "Jake Matthews vs Francisco Prado", but I cannot use that as a source because it is from a social media post, and it is from ESPN (who is not independent from UFC because they broadcast UFC telecasts). It does not quite make sense and the senior editor's English is too poor to explain this after repeated requests for explanation, so I hope someone can explain it here for me. The editor reverted my post when it was reported here: https://wip.mma.bg/novini/mma-novini/dzheyk-matyus-sreshtu-fransisko-prado-na-ufc-312<br>
:The person died in 2000, his supposed birth year was introduced in Misplaced Pages in 2005, and the only "reliable sources" you can find for this date are from after 2005. So you have two possibilities: 1) the Misplaced Pages editor had a reliable source in 2005 which has now disappeared, 2) there was no such source, and the newer sources simply copied the date from Misplaced Pages. I do not believe I have to proof that 2) is true, nor even that it is more likely than 1). The mere reasonable possibility of 2) is enough not to accept the post-Misplaced Pages sources. And it is in fact highly suspicious that no source should exist from during the person's lifetime or from the time of his death, yet years later sources just happen to appear after a date appeared in Misplaced Pages. I don't have to mention how all the most "reliable" sources have been caught many times copying errors from Misplaced Pages, so in general it should not be admissible to source any previously added information using a source dating from after it was already in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
3) Are exceptions for X posts allowed for reputable journalists and official verified company accounts to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages?
::You forget the third option, the authors wrote and found out. Your ] has no place on wiki, the sources are perfectly reliable. ] (]) 23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::Wrote what? ] (]) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Wrote to find out his DOB. What the hell did you think I meant. You may also wish to stop accusing BLP's of plagiarism. ] (]) 09:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Wrote whom? I didn't (and still don't) know what you meant, that's why I'm asking. And what BLPs? Where did I accuse a biography of plagiarism, and how is that even possible? You are not making much sense, and your tone is uncalled for. ] (]) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::How about wrote to his family? Or the the registrar for births and deaths? You are accusing the authors of the sources you keep edit warring out of the article of plagiarism, so stop it. ] (]) 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:Any chance we can get some legitimate outside comment here? – ] (]) 16:58, 24 January 2012 (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)
== Bunt (community) ==


:If it's just a matter of one or two days, just wait for the official announcement. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I need to know is wikipedia the fiefdom of ] he constantly removes citation on ] page from people notable enough to have a wikipedia article like ] saying it is npov but keeps citation of a relatively unknown person called alagodi (which was added by him) who is not even an ethnographer but some christian priest.how can wikipedia allow this to happen.user sitush is too judgemental does not assume good faith when he reverts edits by other contributors please see his edits and comments on talk page.also i think he tries to own articles he edits.look people like me have a life outside so do most editors on wikipedia,so we cannot be on constant vigil and start edit wars.but sitush seems to have got all the time on earth to edit wikipedia.so probably he has assumed that he owns wikipedia.thank god he is not an administrator on wiki.please admins look into the matter.] (]) 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:I have specifically said that Alagodi and Thurston are separate issues. I agree that Alagodi needs to be looked into, but as far as Thurston goes, well, I've had a year of dealing with stuff by him and know what passes and what does not. You are conflating, as I have explained to you previously. - ] (]) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


== RfC: TheGamer ==
who the hell are you to discredit ] completely.i need to believe your views on thurston just because you edit wikipedia for a year.so that means you own wikipedia.newbies can't edit !.] (]) 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:This should be taken to ]. Where, I expect, short shrift will be made of it given that Thurston was a ] whose views, while of historical interest, cannot in general be used to establish facts for a modern encyclopedia. Not to mention that what he called research wouldn't pass for it today in terms of sample size, sample selection, or measurement. That being said, I'm well-known in some circles as a member of Sitush's cabal, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. ] (]) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (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?
why doesn't ] comment on sitush's addition of alagodi's views.is he reliable,no wait who the hell is alagodi ?.i haven't even heard of him.and what the hell is this bs ''thurston views though of historical importance'' cannot be part of modern encyclopedia but some random fellow like alagodi's can be.] (]) 03:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:Because you haven't heard of them that makes them unreliable? As was suggested above, take it to ]. ] (]) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


* Option 1: ]
also thurston has been cited on wiki articles related to ethnicties like ],],],],],](which was ironically created by sitush) ],],] and the list goes on and on and on.now tell thurston can't be part of modern encyclopedia ] (]) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]


]</s>
:Look, when I pointed you here it was because you appeared to want to complain about ''me'' - my methods etc. As others have said, you should take this to ] if your issue is merely the sourcing. - ] (]) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


issue is you sitush and your gang.not letting others edit.] (]) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, the issue is that you want to use a source that violates ] (of course, that's my opinion, and I would accept a consensus at ] that goes in an opposite direction). I know nothing about Alagodi. I do know that Sitush has told you, rightly so, that these are two totally separate issues. If you think Alagodi is bad, take that to ] as well. ] (]) 04:15, 23 January 2012 (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)


== GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation==
thurston can't be cited only on the bunt page.other wiki pages can use him as a source? what logic.] (]) 04:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:Thurston died in 1935. This is very out of date scholarship and shouldn't be cited as fact on any articles. ] (]) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (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.
== Paper with no indicated publisher ==


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
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/mai/alexanderlugg.pdf


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/
This academic paper says that it was double blind peer reviewed and presented at a conference. I can't tell if it was published by an academic journal, but it's still an RS, right? It is on the ] Faculty of Arts page.
] (]) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:What do we know about the author? Was the paper written by an undergrad student? a PhD candidate? A faculty member? ] (]) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::The paper's author is Alexander Lugg. I'm going to check the university site to see who he is. The first page says "This paper was presented to the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Melbourne 1-3 July 2008. It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright. This paper may be downloaded for fair use under the Copyright Act (1954), its later amendments and other relevant legislation" ] (]) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
:::Also, what information is it intended to cite it for? --] (]) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::::]. The author has a personal belief that the entertainer's career is limited, and he has an explanation of why in the paper. ] (]) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>
Okay, the staff directory at says: http://directory.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/staffsearch/staffsearch
* "Mr Alexander Lugg Org. Unit: School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts Email: Alexander(dot)Lugg(at)monash(dot)edu No telephone details recorded in the Monash Directory Service"
] (]) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
: Also it is a part of a larger event. http://arts.monash.edu.au/mai/asaa/proceedings.php says that it's the "Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Conference of the ASAA" ] (]) 14:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::I think generally conference proceedings are treated like journal articles because they still have to be reviewed and accepted, provided it can be certain that the paper was actually presented at the conference. If it wasn't then I'd say it's not RS; the reliability of academic research comes from the peer review process. ] (]) 14:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Above, the conference paper says "It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright." ] (]) 14:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>
:At the time of the conference (2008), the presenter was a student (a Ph.D. candidate): . "Double blind" is a weird (bordering on nonsensical) construction to use to describe a peer review process; perhaps the author simply meant that there were two referees, per the ? I'm a little concerned that the review was a straight yes/no decision&mdash;reviewers were not permitted to conditionally accept a submission, nor could authors revise their submission in response to reviewer feedback. This topic and conference are out of my area of academic experience, so I can't comment on how usual that sort of review is in that area; my fear would be that it would set a "not egregiously bad" minimum standard for papers.
:Looking at the paper itself, it appears that the statement "'' future career prospects are limited''" represents an inference or conclusion drawn by the paper's author, based on his own reasoning and opinion. It's a relatively small part of the overall paper, and I would be reluctant to believe that that particular statement was the subject of rigorous review. I would also hesitate to include it in our article unless the author has established a professional reputation for studies in this area beyond a single conference presentation. Finally, it seems a bit dubious for us to use a 2008 paper to describe the career prospects of a minor celebrity here in 2012. Such predictions are generally not required in a Misplaced Pages article. Not only can we provide a concise, neutral summary of the actor's film and television credits &ndash; thereby allowing our readers to reach their own conclusions about his career and prospects &ndash; but we now have four more years of hard information about the subject's career (including a 2010 feature film, which might seem to call into question the paper's glib conclusion). ](]) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::Ah, okay. In that case I'll leave the citation out. Thanks for your help! ] (]) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::I don't know anything about this particular conference but (a) double-blind peer review is the standard form of peer review, indicating that the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa, and (b) it would be very unusual in my experience for a conference to allow "revise and resubmit" decisions by reviewers, likely because of the time commitment necessary for such decisions (by reviewers and authors). So those particular issues don't seem like issues at all and that they've been raised at all is a bit troubling to me. ] (]) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:::ElKevbo: Some details of the conference are located at http://www.conferenceworks.net.au/asaa/about.php and http://www.conferenceworks.net.au/asaa/about2.php ] (]) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks. It's too far outside of my own discipline and academic interests for me to give an accurate evaluation beyond a general "Yeah, it seems to be a legitimate academic conference." You really need someone with relevant disciplinary knowledge and experience to give you a good answer. ] (]) 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Alrighty - Where do you think I should look? Do you know anybody on here who might be able to answer the question? ] (]) 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think that you've got enough here to satisfy ] which is the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to go beyond that to find expert help on the content of the article, maybe you could start by looking for relevant Wikiprojects and asking for help there. Surely we have a few that focus on Asia. ] (]) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::And as a general reminder: The next step is usually to consider ]; just because a source is reliable doesn't mean we should include it in an article. ] (]) 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Okay. The paper mentions that Qian appears in some other videos that are not currently listed at the ] article. The paper says that one of them heavily promoted the company ] ] (]) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, ''I''<nowiki/>'d argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.
*I work in the Australian humanities system. The paper is reliable. Australian humanities conferences regularly require resubmission, in this case, the following standards applied, . The conference paper is reliable. The author, as an academic expert in Chinese memes, seems appropriate to make a judgement on the enduring nature of the Qian meme. Reliable for use. ] (]) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ]&nbsp;] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Mike Royko columns on LaRouche ==
:Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ]&nbsp;] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ]&nbsp;] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ]&nbsp;] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ]&nbsp;] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for wikipedia standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.'''
:::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
:::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ]&nbsp;] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
:::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
:::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ]&nbsp;] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ]&nbsp;] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ]&nbsp;] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ]&nbsp;] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ]&nbsp;] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ]&nbsp;] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ]&nbsp;] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ]&nbsp;] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
At ] the following was cited as proving that Royko's columns concerning LaRouce are RS for the claims made in that article:
::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ]&nbsp;] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, according to ],{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ]&nbsp;] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ]&nbsp;] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}}
:::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: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)
Have the standards regarding BLPs been strengthened with regard to opinion columns being cited as "fact"? Has RS been changed regarding use of opinion columns as fact when dealing with named individuals, and named small groups? Does the earlier discussion become ''stare decisis'' as apparently claimed ? If we were to discuss the issue ab initio, what would the opinions here from other editors state? Are the Royko columns presented not "opinion columns" at all, but straight factual reportage? (Example follows)
::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ]&nbsp;] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:''To fully appreciate LaRouche and his followers, you have to have had dealings with them. Which I have. A few years ago, something that called itself Citizens for Chicago took a frenzied dislike to Jane Byrne and began selling posters of her that bordered on the pornographic. I became curious and looked into Citizens for Chicago. Its leader lied and lied, but I established that it was one of the many LaRouche front organizations. When I wrote a column exposing it, their response was to distribute handbills and posters claiming that I had undergone a sex change operation. That didn't bother me, since I had evidence to the contrary. But they somehow tracked down the address of my assistant, a female reporter. They managed to get into her high-rise building and find her apartment. And on the doorknob they left one of their handbills. On it was drawn a bull's-eye. And there was a message. "A warning," they said. "We will kill your cat." So let us hope that the primary is the last election this crowd wins. If not, no cat will be safe'' 2 WINNERS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune : Mar 20, 1986. pg. 3
*'''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 ==
Thanks. ] (]) 13:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
: Obviously reliable. Review ]. ] (]) 15:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::As fact? As opinion? For BLP purposes? No one is saying Royko is not known - but are his columns to be accepted as reportage in the usual sense of the word? what? ] (]) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::: This is the reliable source noticeboard. You've asked if a source is reliable. It is. I'm sorry that's not the answer you were looking for. ] (]) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
:I disagree, unless you are discussing Royko's opinion of the LaRouchies. Royko was a columnist, not a reporter, and he was expected to have a point of view, rather than simply report the facts. LaRouche is still alive, and ] still governs his article, and using an opinion column to assert facts is not appropriate. ''']''' <small>]</small> 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


{{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 ]?
Royko was, in addition to being an opinion columnist, an experienced journalist, biographer, and Pulitzer winner and his work is backed by a reliable, long-standing institution with experienced factcheckers. It seems reasonable to rely upon his work for statements of fact. ] <small>(])</small> 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Sources:
:Do you consider the excerpt posted above thus to be absolutely and simply a recitation of fact? Or might one reasonably assert Royko placed opinions therein ''quite'' notably? I would note Will is asserting that this discussion has reached a ''decision'' that Royko is a reliable source for "fact" about LaRouche utterly and that he "''was not an opinion columnist''". ] (]) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
*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."
:::::Correction: I was referring to the last RSN thread on this exact same issue. ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
*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)
::*''Hermann's rendering of Ebert's colorful Windy City colleagues and friends-particularly '''legendary print journalists Mike Royko''' and Studs Terkel-are especially engaging. ''
::**Audio Reviews Publishers Weekly 258. 48 (Nov 28, 2011).
::*''It's still easy to get lost on Lower Wacker, a street under streets that still boasts the Billy Goat tavern, a favorite hangout for '''journalists of old (including Mike Royko)''', though I never did find the third level known as Lower Lower Wacker or the Lowest Wacker.
::**IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN Fishman, Jane. Savannah Morning News 07 Aug 2011: F.1.
::*''The late Chicago '''journalist Mike Royko''' used to run and judge a rib-cooking fest at the end of summer in Grant Park.
::**Full Slab Epstein, Joseph. The Weekly Standard16. 12 (Dec 6, 2010): 5.
::*'' City News was organized a century ago by several newspaper publishers and closed in 2005. It was known for rigorous training of young '''reporters, including Mike Royko '''and Seymour Hersh.''
::Six counties in 60 seconds Anonymous. Daily Herald 04 Sep 2009: 21.
::*''A dimly lit cheeseburger joint may not be everyone's choice, but fans of that dwindling medium known as the newspaper will love the old photos and the memorials to '''legendary journalists like Mike Royko'''.''
::**Seeing Chicago by Taxi, With a Venetian Twist: Working, Russell. New York Times 30 Aug 2009: TR.8.
::*'' I published a book about '''the great Chicago journalist Mike Royko''', who was an authority on Chicago hot dogs.''
::**WHAT'S IT TAKE TO GET A GOOD CHICAGO DOG? Moe, Doug. Wisconsin State Journal 24 Dec 2008: A.2.
::*''For Driscoll, 51, '''Royko remains the archetype of the acerbic, hypercritical "Western" journalist'''. "I grew up reading Royko and how he was always giving Mayor Daley a hard time," Driscoll said. "That, to me, was the way journalism was supposed to be. That was it at its best."''
::**Royko fan fights for free Iraqi press Hood, Joel. Chicago Tribune 21 Feb 2008: 2SSW.1.
::And so on. I could post a hundred more citation in which Royko is called either a "journalist" or a "legendary journalist". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


:@] I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Nice - but "opinion columnists" are indeed "journalists." ''1.The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.'' covers a very broad range. Royko did assuredly write for newspapers, and wrote a syndicated column labeled "commentary" by others. ''A journalist contributing regularly to a newspaper or magazine'' is a "columnist". Being a "journalist" does not make the person's opinions into "fact". ] (]) 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::@], 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)
Mike Riyko, Opinion columnist. Etc. ] (]) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (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 ] ==
:Nice try, but no cigar. Royko is indeed reporting facts here, not opinion. As a very experienced investigative journalist, he is a reliable source for the facts he reports. In fact, I'd go so far as to label him one of the most reliable sources there is for the seamy side of Chicago politics. Personally, I didn't care for Royko, his opinions and his politics, but I trust his journalism. ] (]) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


:The Royko material should stay. He's a perfectly reliable source for the statements made. ] (]) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC) See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
::I found a link to the pdf but which I don't read well. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] @] My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.] (]) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this a "major" film festival such that winning an award at it makes a film notable per ] #3? I argue that it is not; not only does the guideline name awards like an "Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes...major festivals such as Venice or Berlin" as the standard, of which this festival falls far short, NYIIFVF is ''particularly'' questionable because it's generally acknowledged as a scam. Multiple independent sources describe exorbitant entry fees, acceptance of submissions based on what filmmakers can pay rather than on quality of the film, large number of categories such that nearly every entry (again, entries are not accepted based on quality) wins an "award," and in general a festival that caters to people who can't get their films screened at any reputable festival. In short, I argue that NYIIFVF would probably not fulfill the criteria of a "major" award anyway, but the fact that you are essentially ''buying'' an award rules it out completely. The other user argues that it is "major" because it has its own distribution company and magazine and, according to its promotional material, has screened films of notable people, and also that it is notable and therefore reliable. See ]. –] (] &sdot; ]) 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the ] in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Hi. Do you have any reliable sources to verify what you're mentioning? Why I ask is because I see sites like which list this festival. That is enough to qualify on our NFILM benchmark, which is just supposed to be a secondary qualifying benchmark. Academy awards et al are mentioned in the guidelines just to clarify that they should not even be questioned.] ] 16:59, 24 January 2012 (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)
**Among others, '''' (the independent film industry magazine), the ''Village Voice'' (I can get it in LexisNexis - it's from November 1997 and called "Fest and Loose"), and the ''''. Can you clarify what you mean by "secondary qualifying benchmark"? I ask because users at this discussion are responding to my pointing out that it lacks reliable sources by saying that it won an award so it doesn't need to have reliable sources - which is questionable to begin with, since, as I said, this is not a "major" festival like those described in the guideline and also is essentially a pay-for-your-award service. It's "an expensive talent showcase, where artists are asked to pay for the opportunity to show their work." We don't accept Xlibris, Lulu, and other print-on-demand books as sources, and this looks like a similar deal. –] (] &sdot; ]) 18:13, 24 January 2012 (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 ==
== External Link ==


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)
Hello,
I have a conflict of interest in placing an external link on a Wikipage because I am the webmaster for the website.
The subject Wikipage is ]
I write articles and give advise on behalf of dementia care workers and associates on the subject of dementia. Many of the articles are written by dementia care workers and then put onto the site by myself.
We have very good knowledge of dementia with hands on experience from people who have worked with sufferers of dementia and other related disease for many years. I believe that we can add great value to Wiki with the website that we want to provide the link to.
The domain name is
I believe that we can provide information on the subject of dementia as good as any other website that has been given an external link on the dementia page.
I have raised the issue on the dementia talk page but have been asked to raise the subject here.
Thankyou for reading
] (]) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
==Falklands==
Is this http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Falkland-Islands.html RS for the claim that there is evidacnce of Indian settlement on the falklands as it does not seem to me to be anything other then 'just some website'.] (]) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:Likely a ''major copyvio'' from somewhere - the exact same language (the part I used was "The terrain is mainly hilly to mountainous grassland. Shrubs abound, but there are no native trees") is found on two other sites. (try it on Google if you wish) Source is likely Ember's "Countries and their Cultures, Vol 1". Not RS as a result. ] (]) 18:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


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


==''Pirate Wires''?==
I've moved a general comment from to dealing with a specific source and publisher, Hindawi:
'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for this content?:
:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
A 2011 independent systematic review reports the same findings and says that randomized controlled trials on TM have "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications". This review said that research on TM "supports the potential clinical effectiveness of mind-body practices in improving indices of the metabolic syndrome".
* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== CEIC data ==
*Article:


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)
*Article discussing Hindawi:


:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*Discussion from medical librarians


== Fantasy Literature ==
*Hindawi: current impact factor...2.35


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)
:There is an ongoing discussion at ] as this involves a specific issue with ]. Attempting to "move" the discussion here looks like forum shopping. ] (]) 18:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


::There was a suggestion to move that discussion here. As well I am asking for input specifically on one source rather than a more general discussion about open access Thanks.(] (]) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)) :It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is the terms its staff work under:
:::That source and a number of others is already under discussion, and your ''move'' comes after the initial comments at Project Medicine were unfavorable to your advocacy of those sources. The comment you refer to was that the issues created by "open access" journals are not confined to medicine alone, but the issue at hand is whether the particular open access journals being cited as sources meet the requirements of ] ] (]) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::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)
::::It was my suggestion to move it here, as it was not a medicine specific question. Forum shopping doesn't enter into it. The question raised there was too general for that venue. To reformulate: "Are pay-to-publish ]s intrinsically unreliable sources like ] books?" This is a question that to my mind is worthy of some guidance in ]. Further, I think that guidance should be nuanced, and should also solicit input from ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== NASASpaceFlight.com ==
edit conflict


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 ].
::Fladrif. I am, as I said, referring to a specific source rather than a general discussion and this is the proper NB for that as was pointed out by an uninvolved editor in the discussion you are referring to. Further, I am not interested in your assumptions about my motives. If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment. I note that your post not only did not refer to a single source but attempted to trash all of the sources in one article which as far as I can tell isn't the way get neutral comments or to deal with content and sources in a specific way. I very clearly pointed editors here to the more general discussion.(added link later, apology). I also posted on the TMR article talk page to notify editors working on this of my post. Did you do the same? (] (]) 19:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC))


At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.
I find your arguments convincing, User:olive. And Fladrif: There is no shame in admitting you are on thin ice regarding Hindawi Publishing Corporation. ] (]) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:I think we have to be careful in trying to generalize a discussion of a publisher with all the journals that they publish. For example, Elsevier is generally reliable as a publisher, but it publishes journals that would not be generally considered reliable for general medical information (such as ''Homeopathy''). If there is specific questions about specific journals, they should be discussed separately. I think a ''general'' discussion about pay-for-publishing is an important discussion, but any discussion about the underlying specifics should probably be discussed separately so that we don't muddle the discussion. ] (]) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
:: Thanks. Yes. I agree. This post is in reference to a specific source rather than being a general discussion.(] (]) 19:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
{{tq|1="should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. ] (]) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:] calls for {{tq|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search appears to show ], and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per ].<br>Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Good point, Yobol ] (]) 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
::{{tq|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yobol is spot-on with that observation. Each journal should be considered on its own practices, publishing houses are rarely in a position to trump the editorial decisions on a month-by-month basis even if they do have some sway over the selection of editors-in-chief. Indeed we would not want them to have that kind of control. One strong indicator for biomedical journals is whether or not they appear on the list of . The ''Uniform Requirements'' is a set of best practices collaboratively crafted over many years by the ]. Neither the ''Journal of Nutrion and Metabolism'' nor ''Homeopathy'' are on that list. ] <small>]</small> 20:12, 24 January 2012 (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)
::::Further, the ''Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism'' which is the particular Hindawi publication in question, not indexed for MEDLINE and the particular article at issue "The Metabolic Syndrome and mind-body therapies: A systemic review" would seem to be either outside or at most on the periphery of the scope of the publication, raising a red flag per ] ] (]) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (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)

Latest revision as of 19:20, 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
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Additional notes:

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

    RfC: Bild

    Although I'm involved in the discussion the result seem uncontroversial, and so asking for a close at WP:CR wouldn't be appropriate. The result is that is no change, Bild remians Generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Responses (Bild)

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

    Discussion (Bild)

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

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

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

    RfC: NewsNation

    What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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


    Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

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

    Preliminaries

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

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

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

    Survey A: Geni.com

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

    Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

    Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    References

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

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

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

    Jacobin

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

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

    Addendum: I think The wub sums up my thoughts well. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom: Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns. So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Even if correct this is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions.
    Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started after someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things.
    Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion.
     Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This has already been demonstrated by @Springee and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    • I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. Loki (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious argument to moderation, reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Misplaced Pages articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, our guideline for reliable sourcing is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral. To use political perspective (such as the Jacobin magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    RfCs are time intensive, so starting one should be done for good reason. Jacobin having made and corrected an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I read in the last close information presented by @Springee that it was in fact a problematic close which moved Jacobin from Yellow (its prior state) to Green. I mistakenly was just commenting on that, then self-reverted, but I think that we should also remember WP:TIND and not delay a necessary discussion just because it may be "time intensive" for those interested in improving the source reliability determinations that this encyclopedia relies upon. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on WP:RSP). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised at the RfC and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough WP:CONSENSUS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. Springee (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Misplaced Pages looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.
    And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Misplaced Pages giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation. This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. Springee (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Springee that, "I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify." Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.
    You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)
    And this makes sense thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake — A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    RfC: Jacobin

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

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

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


    Survey: Jacobin

    • Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
    Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 4 They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2 position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear. 
    Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
    I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely. A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
    It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
    Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
    They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
    Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
    1. Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
    2. Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
    3. THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
    4. The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
    So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

    The Heritage Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    RFC: The Heritage Foundation

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

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

    Poll: The Heritage Foundation

    • Option 5: Blacklist 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. 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 of Do paperbacks get special dispensation .... That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote: ... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question .... —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      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)
    • 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)
    • Option 3 + Blacklist I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Amended to include Blacklisting Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
      While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
      Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

      threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do

      But systematic doxxing with professional spearphishing? Aaron Liu (talk) 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 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.

      the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it

      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
    • Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    • I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
    • In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
    • With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
    • With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      The settlement did not ever proceed to a lawsuit, though it is slightly concerning, but which has already been extensively discussed here.

      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 RSOpinion. It's just that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 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. 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)

      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

      Aaron Liu (talk) 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. 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)
      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)
    • @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Could you point me to where you answered that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      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)
      Right below #c-Aaron_Liu-20250114001800-Aaron_Liu-20250114001400. Aaron Liu (talk) 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. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
    That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
    If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. +1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
      The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
    • Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      "An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor." How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?"
      This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. — 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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 see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    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)

    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 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

    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}}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:
    Quotes on explicated mislabeling of Republican politicians as "scholar"s and other dressings-up

    The Heritage Foundation, the AEI, the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and others only pretend to do research.


    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.

    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.

    "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. 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)

    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)

    Reference Subsection

    References

    1. ^ Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
    2. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
    3. McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link. Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
    4. Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books. For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
    5. ^ Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
    6. ^ Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
    7. Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
    8. Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
    9. Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
    10. "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.
    11. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
    12. 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...
    13. 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...
    14. 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)
    I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I went ahead and updated the entry. Given the author's status as a "Random Catholic Dude", they cannot be a subject matter expert as defined by Misplaced Pages. And as a self-published source, it cannot be used to support claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The "Random Catholic Dude" description is probably a form of self-deprecation that should not alone be used to exclude someone from "expert" status. If an MD-PhD medical school professor referred to themselves as "Some Random Hospital Dude," then we probably should not immediately exclude them from "expert" status over this form of self-depreciation.
    Also, thank you for updating WP:RSPSOURCES. I saw that you added "limited USEBYOTHER". As Red-tailed hawk has shown elsewhere in this conversation, Catholic-Hierarchy.org has 1000+ hits on Google Scholar. Would you still consider this as limited USEBYOTHER"? We could probably justifiably update it to "significant USEBYOTHER", although this would not be enough to change the overall status of the source. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    A SPS remains a SPS regardless of USEDBYOTHERS... It doesn't change the core status. The difference is that an MD-PhD medical school professor likely meets our standards, it has nothing to do with the self-deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I came into this thinking that this was akin to those military/tank/airplane fan websites inasmuch as it was mostly compiled by one person and it's of the quality of hobbyist work. But I am seeing it get a metric ton of hits on Google Scholar, where it looks like it is cited in a ton of scholarly literature as a source for facts. And, in that weird way, WP:UBO considerations come into play.I tried to find sources that specifically analyzed this database or evaluated it in a comparative fashion to other commonly cited databases. It's a bit hard to find specific studies, since the majority of citations are just using this plainly as a source for facts (which itself says something, albeit subtly). But I did manage to find a working paper by economic historian Jonathan F. Schulz that compared the website against other databases of Catholic hierarchies in the section describing his research methods. What it found was quite simple, and went against my initial impression. Schulz found that, among various Catholic heirarchy databases he had assessed, there was a high level of consistency. In case of disagreements between sources they were most often in the range of less than one or two decades – a rather small inaccuracy in relation to the duration of Church exposure up to the year 1500. In other words, this database is more or less as accurate as the other ones he had assessed (though, as he notes in his paper, none of the databases are quite complete).It might just be a weird edge case where we've got a decently reliable database that's also self-published. And that's fine, WP:SPS notes that self-published sources are largely not acceptable as sources, but it doesn't say are always not acceptable as sources—as WP:REPUTABLE notes, common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process when assessing issues of source reliability.We should follow common sense here. And, in light of the scholarly literature, the common sense thing to do is to treat it in the same way that we treat other sorts of curated databases regarding Catholic Church hierarchies. That is to say: it's okay; it'll do fine for ordinary historical dates of bishop reigns etc., but when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead. But, alas, the data aren't public (or, if they are, I can't quite find them). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      The core BLP problem isn't going to go away though... At best we can say that the source is usable for dead figures but I don't see a policy or guideline path to genuine reliability (even if just on technical grounds). Theres also the general problems that come with online databases (don't count towards notability, almost never due, etc). If it isn't covered in other sources then its almost by definition a level of detail that isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-CH) sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Sure. But also this isn't just a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has explicitly been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      Unless it comes back with the result that its not self published it doesn't matter... Self published is self published regardless of underlying reliability. There is no way in which self published works become non-self published by being accurate, its still treated as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does this source even exists?

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

    If it is a hard copy book (or similar), it may not be on the internet. That said, a lot of library databases are in English, so have you tried searching for an English language translation? Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried google translating it from Hindi to English… not completely successful, but I suspect the author may be Abdul Karim (historian)… something for you to look into. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've just tried it too and searched it in English but I still couldn't find anything, The only person I could find who has the same name as the author of that source is Md. Abdul Karim who is not a Historian. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Blueboar Google scholar does not mentions any book of Abdul Karim (historian) with that name. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following website is using the same source but is referencing different pages in the source than the wiki article: https://www.teachers.gov.bd/blog/details/686411?page=2546&cttlbasee-smrn-rakheni-cttgramer-itihas-bujurg-umed-khann-cttgram-punruddharer-mhanayk
    It may be a physical source that is only available as a printed book.
    The following website also uses this source and is also mentioning the name "জাতীয় গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ" (Jatiya Grantha Prakash / Jatio Grantho Prokashon) for the publishing house that published the book: https://www.sachalayatan.com/shashtha_pandava/56984. And it looks like this publisher actually exists: https://www.rokomari.com/book/publisher/498/jatio-grantho-prokashon?ref=apb_pg96_p34. Nakonana (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The author appears to be this guy: bn:আবদুল করিম সাহিত্যবিশারদ. That wiki article references the following website: https://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528. This website is talking about Abdul Karim and the history of Chittagong, and given that the source Koshuri Sultan is asking about is also about Chittagong (translated by Google as "Dr. Muhammad Abdul Karim. History of Bangladesh. Expulsion of the Mughals and Conquest of Chittagong."), I think that this the Abdul Karim who authored the source in question. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or it's this other Abdul Karim who is said to have written a two volume book by the title of "History of Bangladesh": . Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.
    This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion (under WP:A11) but the author of that article without discussing it properly . Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we have enough info to verify that the source exits. That last website I linked clearly mentions a book by a historian named Dr. Abdul Karim with the title "History of Bangladesh". He wrote (according to the Google translation) "about forty books and about two hundred original research articles in Bengali and English" and "taught at Dhaka University from 1951 to 1966. In 1966, he joined the newly established History Department of Chittagong University." Regarding the author of that article, the website states "Author: Teacher, Department of History, Chittagong University zahidhistory¦gmail.com". The article is not from a blog, but from a Bengali newspaper: on which we have a wiki article, see The Daily Ittefaq. This website pretty much states the same but in English and calls Karim "an authority of the field of medieval Bengal could recognise from a distance if a mosque was from the Sultani or from the Mughal period". The publication list of the Chittagong website lists several works by Dr. Abdul Karim (though it only goes back until 2005): . Doing some further digging, I even found volume 1 of the book on Amazon. The book might be available at some universities in the US: . Google Scholar does have an entry for a book on Bengal 16th-century history by the historian Abdul Karim (even if not for the particular one you are looking for), see (and the internet archive appears to have a scan of that book). The University of Asia Pacific lists even more of his books. Banglapedia (which is written by scholars) might also help in verifying the content, see for example these entries: . Nakonana (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually, this appears to be the Google Scholar entry on (the 1st volume of) the book in question. The title is just not "History of Bangladesh" but "History of Bengal". Google translation probably messed up. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sources for Chapel Hart

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

    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)

    AllMovie

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

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

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

    Good catch, and I agree with your proposal. AllMovie's blog post "An Evolving AllMovie", dated March 24, 2024, suggests that AllMovie's transition from independent content to Misplaced Pages mirror occurred around the beginning of 2024. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    • If a site is pulling its content from Misplaced Pages, then it is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. Or in fewer words: WP:CIRCULAR. With sites like this we're obligated to check the sources that they provide for their content, and if we're going that far then we might as well just cite their sources and cut out the middleman. I would say generally unreliable, but if they're also copying Misplaced Pages content and not properly attributing, then links to the site are contributory copyright infringement, and that puts them into blacklist territory.
    Also, never use a site like this to cite a living person's date of birth. I've come across far too many examples of incorrect DOBs being added to Misplaced Pages bios, then subsequently repeated by an ostensibly reliable source, then later when someone tries to correct the info here other editors keep changing it back to the wrong date with a citation to the incorrect source. Things like this have real consequences for real people in the real world. We need to do better, and it's fine not to have a date when we don't know what the correct date is. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    MintPress News

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

    As one of the participants in the July 2019 RfC, my assessment that MintPress News should be deprecated has not changed. I believe the evidence I listed is more than sufficient to justify deprecation. I have analyzed MintPress News's response to being deprecated, and due to its length, I will place my analysis in a separate subsection. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a non-participant in the 2019 discussion I would like to say that deprecation was the right choice and reliability issues only seem to have gotten worse since. Note that just republishing Zero Hedge would be enough to get them over the deprecation line even if all of their native work was beyond reproach (which it is not). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    You drew on Ad Fontes Media's analyses in your comment, and AFM is itself considered generally unreliable on the RSP. It's also not accurate to say "The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources," as can be seen if one clicks though to read all of the RfC comments. I have no direct experience with MintPress, but a bit of searching pulls up info like "According to experts, MintPress news is a disinformation site with opaque funding streams run out of Minneapolis that aligns with the Kremlin’s view of a “multipolar world” and often promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. MintPress News has been reprinting copy from Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik since 2016" (source from the Network Contagion Research Institute in 2021), and the MintPress article cites a number of other sources with similar claims. What's your evidence that they've become reliable? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Reprinting copy from other websites doesn't automatically or implicitly make any of the content that MPN produces inherently unreliable. It might seem distasteful to republish material from insalubrious sites, but as long as it is clearly labelled, reprinting is all it is. Anything from other sites that we wouldn't use we still don't use if it's syndicated elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    If they regularly reprint news from unreliable sources, yes, that does contribute to their being GUNREL, as it tells us that they have no commitment to accuracy. You've also ignored the rest of the quote and the info in the references on the MintPress article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure the NCRI is an RS or a source worth taking cues from. There are journal pieces on the MPN page that are more reliable and insightful. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not going to spend time convincing you that it's reliable. If you find the other sources' critiques to be reliable, then use those. The bottom line is: you question whether it should have been deprecated, but you haven't presented any convincing evidence that it should instead be assessed as generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, I don't believe that I've actually claimed anywhere that they've become reliable. I have merely raised questions about their deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Isn't that obvious from the fact that you opened this? You are currently contesting the consensus on reliability for MintPress News. The alternative would be that you are engaging in a form of "I'm just asking questions" Tucker Carlson-esque trolling and I think everyone is trying to AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @Bobfrombrockley's comments below. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I really don't understand the objection to deprecating the source then. Sources are not deprecated because they're more unreliable than GUNREL, the "high bar" for deprecation after something is found generally unreliable is "people think it might be a problem". Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Also not part of the original RFC) Looking at what was brought up in the RFC and at the site itself, I think the RFC had the right result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wasn't involved in last RFC, but I will vote to deprecate if you start another one. The front page is nothing but conspiracy theories, and reading through some articles it has a really strange tendency to cite Russian thinktanks and commentators who are never mentioned by any other English-language outlet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The central motivation seems for revisiting to be that the RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked. People become blocked or banned all the time down the line for transgressions unrelated to particular discussions—when that happens, it does not void their prior contributions. If these users were in good standing at the time of the RfC, and weren't evading a block/ban at the time of the discussion, I don't really see why this motivates a change. And, the close seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion.
    Has the general reputation of the source improved since 2019? If so, there could be some evidence of this that would be useful here. I haven't searched for any, but I also haven't seen it brought up in this discussion. And unless there's good evidence that the source has improved its editorial processes/fact-checking reputation in some way since the prior discussion, I don't really see a need to reassess at this time—we'd probably wind up with the same result.
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.
    • The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for .”
    • While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online... These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.
    • Its bestknown article—falsely claiming a chemical weapons attack in Syria had actually been perpetrated by rebel groups rather than the Assad regime—was cited as evidence by Syria, Iran, and Russia, though it turned out to have been reported by a man in Syria who at times appears to have been based in St. Petersburg and Tehran.493 When staff asked who funded their paychecks, they were told it was “retired business people.”494 The hidden nature of the funding caused some staff enough discomfort that former employees cited it as their reason for leaving Mint Press.495 Local journalists have tried and failed to figure out where Mint Press’s money comes from.49}
    • The next five domains (rt.com, mintpressnews.com, sputniknews.com, globalresearch.ca, southfront.org) are alternative media domains that spread master narratives in the Russia’s disinformation campaign.
    • Mintpress has been accused of promoting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and also regularly pushes pro-Russian propaganda, most notably the unfounded claim that a 2013 chemical weapon attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people was perpetrated not by the Syrian regime but by rebel groups with weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia. Mintpress News, alongside The Grayzone, which Maté writes for, has continued to publish Russian-backed narratives that the Syrian regime has been framed for further chemical weapon attacks during the years-long war in the country. The sources of both websites’ funding are unknown.
    • Some of the American Herald Tribune’s articles did survive in other parts of the echo system. Seventeen of them had been cross-posted on the website of Mint Press News, which had similar sharing arrangements with several other “partner” websites including Project Censored, Free Speech TV, Media Roots, Shadow Proof, The Grayzone, Truthout, Common Dreams and Antiwar.com... The only time Mint Press made much impact (though for the wrong reasons) was in 2013 appeared to be based on rumors circulating in Damascus at the time, and there was no real evidence to support it... Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cited the story as evidence that the U.N.’s investigators in Ghouta had not done a thorough job.
    • Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency.
    • The thirteen fake accounts identified by Facebook were promoting the Peace Data website. To build a reputation as an alternative media (progressive and anti-Western) and attract contributors, Peace Data, created at the end of 2019, initially relayed articles from other existing protest media, such as MintPress News or World Socialist Website, or openly pro-Kremlin, Strategic Culture Foundation, The GrayZone or Russia Today.
    • On five occasions, Peace Data published articles that it listed as “partners.” Between August 11 and August 19, the website published two articles each from Citizen Truth and MintPressNews.
    So, no, it's reputation hasn't improved.     BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Also not a participant in the original RfC, but concur with those above that it ended with the correct result. Not seeing any conclusive evidence to the contrary, especially given Ad Fontes is itself not considered reliable per WP:RSP. The Kip 16:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wasn't a participant in the original RfC. I think the RfC should be relisted, as I don't think MPN deprecation was warranted, if anything, I'd support an "Additional considerations apply" designation. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    MintPress News's response to being deprecated

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

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

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

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

    In my RfC comments, I also noted that MintPress News republished 340 articles from Deprecated 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 Deprecated 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 Blacklisted Deprecated Infowars (RSP entry); a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the guideline against the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories.My comments in the the 2019 RfC do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following: "ZeroHedge estimated that the ensuing gerrymandering lawsuits will net Covington millions in legal fees, especially considering that Holder will be directing the filing of all such lawsuits on behalf of Democrats." How is that a relationship between two political parties? The article states "ZeroHedge estimated" rather than saying anything with certainty.
    Does MPN rely heavily on Zero Hedge in its original content? I don't think so, because it uses it as one of many sources.
    That is why I don't think deprecation is appropriate, rather "additional restrictions apply" as in MPN shouldn't be relied on claims that come only from ZeroHedge. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If it were just the Zero Hedge thing I might see where you're coming from but @Bobfrombrockley demonstrated above that the outlet has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy all on their own. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The correct link to article #2 has been copied over to the comment. MPN published: "However, an anonymous writer on ZeroHedge, an economic news website, noted on Nov. 30 that while Bilal Erdoğan does seem to be moving Kurdish oil in his tankers, 'we’ve yet to come across conclusive evidence of Bilal’s connection to .'" Here, MPN uses an assertion posted by "an anonymous writer" from conspiracy theory website Zero Hedge to make a claim about two political entities (a son of a president and Daesh). Doing this is like publishing "According to Alex Jones of Infowars..." for a claim unrelated to Jones or Infowars, which immediately throws the claim into question due to the poor reputation of the source. A source degrades its own reliability by repeatedly using another questionable source in this way for multiple topics on numerous occasions; the five linked articles are only a small sample.Your comment seems to be ignoring how MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims is only one of many reasons that MPN was deprecated; reliable sources have shown that MPN also publishes a cornucopia of conspiracy theories that MPN created by themselves, a common characteristic of questionable sources that become deprecated on Misplaced Pages. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mint has a poor reputation for checking the facts so that first one is satisfied (notice how is an "or" not an and so fulfilling any of the conditions satisfies it). They also express view widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion besides the bits that were convenient for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see the MPN response included a couple of paragraphs about me, in which almost all the things they say are demonstrably inaccurate even from the links they provide (they attribute a quote to me which is obviously not me, and seem to claim I call al-Nusra "moderate" by linking to a sandbox page here which says pretty much the opposite). I voted 3/4 in the RfC, but on the basis of this response I'd have no problem coming down in favour of 4. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't think I was involved in the 2019 discussion - at least I don't remember being involved in it - but based on the information above it seems like Mint Press is being appropriately deprecated as a source of misinformation. I'd love to see a Misplaced Pages with a broader range of reliable left-wing sources but the key word there is reliable and this... this is clearly not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies)

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

    In general YouTube video's are not reliable, as they are self-published sources and few of them are by "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.", see WP:SPS.
    However there is an exception if the self-published work is by the subject themselves and is part of a limited set of conditions, see WP:ABOUTSELF. You haven't included any details so I can't say for certain if it would be reliable in your specific situation, as it may or may not be allowed by ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah i see thank you
    Even though the subject was part of the interview I believe myself it would not be reliable as it's a motorsport related podcast and even though the youtube channel also has a website which has been referenced in other articles I believe the youtube channel would not be reliable unless otherwise notified Motorsportfan100 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    It depends what the statement is. If the driver says something like 'I'm 23 years old" that's a good enough source. If the driver says "Castrol Oil is superior to every other oils out there" while also being sponsored by Castrol, then no.
    For Youtube channel, they are as reliable as their owners/parent company. A NASA video hosted on NASA's youtube channel is as reliable as anything else produced by NASA. A rocketry video hosted by BobLovesRockets, not so much for anything but uncontroversial statements about Bob. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts

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

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

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

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

    Basically, I would like you to review the following:

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

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

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

    RfC: TheGamer

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

    Link to previous discussion

    Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation

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

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

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

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

    There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.

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

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

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

    Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. NotQualified (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. signed, Rosguill 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error NotQualified (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    > Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for wikipedia standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.
    Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
    If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. NotQualified (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
    > the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
    Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. NotQualified (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. NotQualified (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. NotQualified (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
    "If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
    Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
    I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
    In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. NotQualified (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
    If we can agree that at least nearly all the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? NotQualified (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. NotQualified (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. The New York Times report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as The Telegraph and The Spectator. Deadline profile him here—it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in high regard. In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because other news outlets have not dispatched their own reporters to cover trials and sentencing, so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. NotQualified (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (WP:WEIGHT / WP:BALASP). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The New York Times says No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs. which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of unduly represent contentious or minority claims we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Surely that's a WP:WEIGHT issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a WP:RS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
    > If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
    And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    And what if it isn't.

    WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m just here to say that a source being generally unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on WP:RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). CNC (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. NotQualified (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Vice regent I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. The Kip 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • There are two issues here, neither of which is really a WP:RS issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be attributed if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / WP:RSOPINION venues, is the WP:DUE issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that this is solid advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Simonm223 @Doug Weller My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. The Kip 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page

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

    This looks like a WP:EXPERTSPS case. I mean obviously his page is self-published but he does appear to be an expert in the field of Middle Eastern history. So - per the guidance at EXPERTSPS - it's likely reliable with the caveat (probably not needed for a history article) that it absolutely cannot be used for information about living people other than the author. And, of course, WP:DUE is still relevant and will likely assign greater due weight to traditionally published material. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    If there are secondary sources for what he says in his page, it would help. Those can be cited. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pirate Wires?

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

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

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

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

    Need context before coming to RSN

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

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

    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)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic