Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:10, 17 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

• WT:RSN

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here.

Section sizes in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Section size for Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (44 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 731 731 RfC: Bild 779 15,983 Responses (Bild) 9,165 9,165 Discussion (Bild) 6,039 6,039 RfC: NewsNation 498 7,463 Survey (NewsNation) 6,496 6,496 Discussion (NewsNation) 469 469 RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu 934 20,547 Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) 947 947 Preliminaries 2,753 2,753 Survey A: Geni.com 1,265 1,265 Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley 9,247 9,247 Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav 3,630 3,630 Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) 1,771 1,771 Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) 19,887 19,887 Jacobin 24,039 24,039 RfC: Jacobin 665 62,254 Survey: Jacobin 50,242 50,242 Discussion: Jacobin 11,347 11,347 The Heritage Foundation 22,551 215,916 RFC: The Heritage Foundation 683 163,780 Poll: The Heritage Foundation 163,097 163,097 Discussion: The Heritage Foundation 29,098 29,098 Daily Signal 450 450 References 37 37 Catholic-Hierarchy.org 17,196 17,196 Does this source even exists? 7,533 7,533 Sources for Chapel Hart 3,073 3,073 AllMovie 5,079 5,079 MintPress News 15,319 36,893 MintPress News's response to being deprecated markup removed; cannot link (help) 21,574 21,574 Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies) 2,739 2,739 Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts 3,728 3,728 RfC: TheGamer 1,988 1,988 GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation 29,599 29,599 Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer 987 987 Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? 6,006 6,006 Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for Bering Strait 4,857 4,857 D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page 1,301 1,301 Pirate Wires? 8,611 11,680 Need context before coming to RSN 3,069 3,069 CEIC data 607 607 Fantasy Literature 1,775 1,775 NASASpaceFlight.com 4,897 4,897 Total 506,758 506,758

This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Misplaced Pages bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Will Oremus (9 February 2017). "Misplaced Pages's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism". Slate. Kalev Leetaru (10 February 2017). "What Misplaced Pages's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Misplaced Pages Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Misplaced Pages administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Nishant Kauntia (30 November 2020). "The Edit Wars: How Misplaced Pages earned the ire of the Hindu Right". The Caravan. Samuel Breslow (29 September 2022). "Misplaced Pages's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine). Asaf Elia-Shalev (18 June 2024). "ADL faces Misplaced Pages ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "Misplaced Pages declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report". Middle East Eye. 18 June 2024. "Misplaced Pages declares ADL 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism". i24NEWS. 19 June 2024. Josh Marcus (19 June 2024). "Why Misplaced Pages just labeled a top Jewish civil rights organization 'unreliable' on the Israel-Palestine crisis". The Independent. "Misplaced Pages labels prominent Israeli civil rights organization 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine crisis, antisemitism". Arab News. 19 June 2024. Rob Eshman (June 19, 2024). "Misplaced Pages called the ADL 'unreliable.' It's a wake-up call the civil rights organization badly needs". The Forward. Retrieved June 20, 2024. David Goldman (June 20, 2024). "Misplaced Pages now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source". CNN. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Daniela Ginzburg (June 21, 2024). "Misplaced Pages deems ADL 'unreliable' due to Israel advocacy". Jewish News Syndicate. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aaron Bandler (June 21, 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When "Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned"". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aya Youssef (June 23, 2024). "Palestine's battle against Zionist editing on Misplaced Pages". Al Mayadeen. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Rob Eshman (June 24, 2024). "'Does anybody question the NAACP?': The ADL head thinks Misplaced Pages is biased. Is he right?". The Forward. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Etan Nechin (June 25, 2024). "Leading Jewish Groups Rebuke Misplaced Pages's 'Attack' on ADL's Credibility on Antisemitism". Haaretz. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "Jewish orgs pen letter to Misplaced Pages condemning ADL ban". The Jerusalem Post. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "'Concern, dismay' by Misplaced Pages attack on ADL, 43 Jewish groups tell Wikimedia Foundation". Jewish News Syndicate. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Shiryn Ghermezian (June 25, 2024). "Jewish Groups Lambast Misplaced Pages for Its 'Attack on ADL's Credibility' About Antisemitism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Asaf Elia-Shalev (June 25, 2024). "Misplaced Pages's operator rebuffs Jewish groups' call to override editors on ADL trustworthiness". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved June 26, 2024. Ben Brasch (26 June 2024). "Misplaced Pages defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza". The Washington Post.

Decline of the mainstream media generally

It seems to me that there has been a steady decline in the reliability of mainstream-media sources - even once-respected ones like the New York Times and the Guardian - over the last ten years or so. I think it has multiple causes (the decline in revenue of newspapers because of competition from free Web sources; the increased pressure from governments after Snowden) but that doesn't really matter; what does matter is that these sources no longer deserve the deference that Misplaced Pages accords them.

I don't know what can replace these once-reliable sources. Personally, I look for consensus among individual good journalists who now blog independently, but I can't see how to construct "generally reliable sources" out of that. Desassossego2 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there an evidentiary basis for the "It seems to me"? I usually try to assign zero credence by default to the numerous 'it seems to me' just so stories my brain likes to make up to make sense of complicated things and go and look for the evidence. Either way, the noticeboard is really for specific sources in specific contexts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Desassossego2, adding onto what Sean said, do you have any evidence of this happening? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 11:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk)

I have been saying this for years, but short of using academic sources only what do we do? Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Realistically, it's either we deprecate the current MSM sources which are considered reliable as unreliable, or we reevaluate the current MSM sources we deem unreliable under the lens of what is currently consider reliable. I don't see either happening though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That is what I have been saying for years, no use of News as sources, but it ain't gonna swim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean I agree that we should not be using news as RSes for an encyclopedia. If there aren't books from reputable experts or academic publishing about topics then these topics probably aren't encyclopedic in scope. Of course we should also be cautious about "academic" publishing to continue avoiding scam journals which remain a real problem. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If we exclude news from RS what persentage of currently notable articles do you think remain notable? 20%? 30%? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Part of it us reestablishing that NOTNEWS is a policy, and that while we encourage editors to keep articles up to date with news, we shouldn't be trying to write these massive dumps of reactions and anysis from the media in the short period after an event, but instead wait for state longterm views take over. — Masem (t) 16:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we do not need an article on ongoing events (for example) we are not a new paper. We can wait until the actauly analysis starts to appear, months (or even years) down the line. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, we are still classifying such sources, if you want to contest the NYT or the Guardian reliability, that can be done, with evidence. A generic discussion like this is unlikely to produce any change in specific classifications.Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in general journalistic practices in the modern day have declined, due to the collapse of print media and the lower revenues of online publishing. However different publishers are handling this in different ways, some are pushing for subscriptions or have gone completely subscription based, while others have gone for SEO clickbait.

How each source should be handled, and if a particular source needs to be re-evaluated will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. I doubt relying on blog posts by former journalist is a solution, poor editorial oversight may well still be better than no editorial oversight. And of course academic sources would be preferable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Declining relative to what? If every source is worse or more biased, than the most reliable sources are still the most reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your examples don't work... Both the NYT and the Guardian are at all time highs in terms of quality, reliability, and scope. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification

Can I notify all the editors who participated in the Jerusalem Post's RFC about new evidence being presented to ask their opinion about it by pinging them without violating WP:CAN? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging admins for their advice @Barkeep49: @ScottishFinnishRadish:. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an administrative call or anything, but I'd say that pinging every participant is probably unnecessary. This isn't information that wasn't available when the discussion started, and editors interested in following developments in the discussion will have subscribed or watchlisted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sunday Mirror and Daily Record (UK)

Could someone advise on the usability of material from the above publications. Are they reputable sources in the own right? Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I might add: for the purposes of BLP. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Depends; if it's contentious I would be very wary of doing that - I would say that WP:DAILYMIRROR applies to both titles (they have the same owner). Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm wondering about the material in this article, Simon Weston#Personal life, concerning information about the subject's father, and sourced to the publications in question. Two issues: BLP in itself, and the use of the possibly questionable sources. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPSOURCE "material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism" and this info seems quite irrelevant to the subject's life and very tabloidy. Orange sticker (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the contentious material from the Simon Weston article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There are probably reliable sources for that, but it's almost certainly UNDUE in the article anyway, especially as Weston has been estranged from his father for a long time. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Facts on File, Inc.

Are books published by Facts on File, Inc., considered reliable for use as sources in Misplaced Pages articles?

On a related topic, does Misplaced Pages have a list of book publishers with reliability indicated (something like Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Facts on File is an established textbook publisher. Generally with book publishers a lot of reliability depends on the author but I wouldn't look at a book with that imprint and consider it any sort of red flag. Just keep in mind standard Misplaced Pages guidance about textbooks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Simonm223. I appreciate your response. The one I have looked at seems reliable to me, and I feel better about it after reading your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Manual archive

I've manually archived a couple of sections, as the page was over 500kb again. The first should have been archived on the 4th and the other would have been archived tomorrow. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've manually archived a couple more sections due to size issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've completed a third round of manual archiving, but that has only just brought the board under 500k. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe archive all the obvious threads that have been around a few days and got like one clear answer and no further responses... I know they're individually short but there are a fair number of them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• WikiProject Reliability pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press