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 20:52, 14 February 2016 view sourceSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Is primary source not acceptable for Indian caste?: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:14, 17 January 2025 view source TarnishedPath (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers17,763 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>{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 203 |counter = 464
|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(5d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
Line 12: Line 16:
--> -->


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Bones (season 11) ==


== RfC: Bild ==
I was wondering if somebody could cast an eye over ]. The article uses a number of citations from unverified Twitter accounts and discussion forums like http://disqus.com. {{tl|cite tweet}} is used 7 times and disqus.com is used 8 times. I tried removing one of these sources but it was reverted, twice now. One of the editors who reverted me was also involved in the addition of ] at ] and the '']'' there, so simply removing the offending citations there will only start an edit war. --] (]) 19:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{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) ===
I've now tagged the unreliable discussion forum citations, and tweets, but would still appreciate a second (or third or fourth) opinion. I did have to remove one completely, as it was not from the person who it claimed to be from, as can be seen by trying to verify the citation:
*'''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)
* {{cite tweet|user=HartHanson|author=Hanson, Hart|number=616499916626497536|date=May 8, 2015|title=Also, Bones is happy to have Randy Zisk stepping into directing producer @it2Ian's wellies (that's Britty for boots). He's also delightful.|accessdate=July 15, 2015}}
*: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)
--] (]) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (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) ===
OK, since nobody seems interested in actually looking at the article, perhaps somebody could answer a simple question: Are the following tweets acceptable sources?
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)
* {{cite tweet|user=EmilySliver29|author=Silver, Emily|number=684585472421580800|date=January 6, 2016|title=The Murder of the Meninist! #bones written by @HilaryGraham |accessdate=January 7, 2016}}
* {{cite tweet|user=surfwriter123|author=Peterson, Michael|number=661724755213463552|date=November 3, 2015|title=Just started writing my #bones outline for episode 13. Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.|accessdate=November 21, 2015}}
--] (]) 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
:If Silver and Peterson are writers for the show, ''and'' we have no cause to think that these aren't their real Twitter accounts, then I'd consider them reliable ] for what little info they contain (I'm guessing the name of the episode). ] (]) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:I'm with you on disqus, though. ] (]) 05:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
::Regarding the Twitter accounts, doesn't that require an ] though? --] (]) 10:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Doesn't it require what assumption? That they're really who they say they are? I suppose some reasonable investigation would be appropriate, but they're not automatically unusable. ] (]) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
::::The problem with Twitter is that anyone can create an account and say anything. Even people involved with a "product" might say something that isn't necessarily true. For example, someone who claims to be a writer might say "I started writing the 13th episode" when the episode that they are writing is the third production code, but will air as the 15th episode. As somebody not very high on the totem pole, they probably aren't privy to the higher level decisions. {{tl|cite tweet}} actually includes the following banner:
{{Notice |image=Stop hand nuvola.svg |heading={{big|Tweets are largely ''not acceptable'' as sources.}} | Tweets and other self-published material may sometimes be acceptable, if the conditions specified at ] or ] are met. For further information, see the ] policy and the ] guideline.}}
:::: have some degree of credibility, but unverified accounts belonging to mere staff members can't really be taken as authoritative. --] (]) 08:04, 1 February 2016 (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:
:::::You're making assumptions about several things that has no evidence to back them up. {{tq|"unverified accounts belonging to mere staff members can't really be taken as authoritative"}} says who? {{tq|"As somebody not very high on the totem pole, they probably aren't privy to the higher level decisions}}" how would you know that and what does that have to do with anything? They're some not assistant or someone who works for craft service, they're a writer for the series. There's nothing in ] or ] that says a Twitter account has to be verified, as long as it meets the requirements, which it does. There's ''nothing'' to suggest that the information being provided in anything but accurate. She posts images of script pages, on-set photos, production meetings, etc. The retweets her, she followed by ''Bones'' creator Hart Hanson, and ''Bones'' actors including Emily Deschanel, John Boyd, and Tamara Taylor–all verified accounts. Every time we've used her as a source for an upcoming episode for ], it has been correct, obviously. I went back and found her Tweets for episode title reveals for episodes that have already been aired, thus the information in then can be verified: ), , , , , . Again, there is '''nothing''' to suggest the information being provided is false or not authentic, because she is proven to be reliable and correct. Please apply some common sense here. ] (]) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
* {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
::::::{{tq|They're some not assistant or someone who works for craft service, they're a writer for the series.}} - You're assuming that they are a writer. As WP:SPS says, {{tq|Anyone can create a ] ... and also ] in a certain field. For that reason ... Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources.}} --] (]) 07:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
* 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)
:::::::You're ignoring every fact I stated and piece of evidence I've used. To assume ''she'' is not who is she is absurd and illogical. Again, common sense would be nice. Clearly this isn't going anywhere. Moving on... ] (]) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Drovethrughosts}} I agree with you 100% on everything you stated here. It is next to impossible to get ''AussieLegend'' to change his viewpoint on anything, so sometimes it just isn't worth trying. Not everything on Misplaced Pages boils down to policy, some things just need to be handled with common sense, and it appears that ''AussieLegend'' somewhat lacks in that department. ] (]) 21:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Please ] when commenting. ] --] (]) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC) --] (]) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{replyto|AussieLegend}} Apologies... ] (]) 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
When I say that some reasonable investigation is appropriate before using a Twitter account, I mean things like whether the account is retweeted by or otherwise clearly has the confidence of something official, whether it is attributed to an expert (a writer for a show is an expert on that show), etc. I'd say Drovethrughosts has done this investigation, and my take is that the Twitter account is usable with caution per ] unless some specific reason to doubt its veracity should emerge. ] (]) 17:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Darkfrog24}}Fair enough, I'll respect your opinion. Interestingly though, after removing the tags from the article, Drovethrughosts contacted the editor who apparently added the disqus links. That editor subsequently replaced the {{tl|unreliable source}} tags with notes claiming that the citations were reliable. His claims are similar to those put forward by {{u|ChaosMaster16}}, an editor who was indef-blocked for insisting on using pifeedback.com after ]. There still seems to be a strong belief in a number of editors, especially in the TV project, that unreliable sources can be used when there are no reliable sources (or it's too hard to find them). --] (]) 06:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::Well I certainly don't agree that unreliable sources are usable if there are no reliable ones available. Per my interpretation of ], it is never okay to use comments left by readers as sources. But what it looks like is going on here is that the information was in the body of a reliable source that ''used'' to be available. This is covered in the ] essay. If the Wikieditor saw the original source with his or her own eyes and that original source was RS, then he or she may cite that original source even if it is no longer available online. This does not apply if the Wikieditor only ever saw the current Disqus link and replies.
::But the content here is just ratings. Can't you guys just look this up in TVBytheNumbers or something? Even a local paper might have this information. ] (]) 13:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't think that LINKROT applies here as the content was never cited to another website. The first source was added in October 2015, sourced to disqus. The whole table was removed in November because of this, but was restored, along with more citations sourced to the same forum. There is no way for anyone to verify that these comments were ever part of another website. All we have is a discussion forum. Your suggestion regarding TVBytheNumbers is spot on. I've already mentioned this on the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page as well. Ironically, there are citations in the article's episode list. I don't know why these aren't being used. --] (]) 14:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::If the other Wikieditor never saw the information in a reliable source, then the other Wikieditor never saw the information in a reliable source. What I'd do is contact the commenter, SonoftheBronx, and ask him where he found that ratings information, but the comment is not RS by itself. ] (]) 15:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Darkfrog24}} Hello, I'm the "other Wikieditor" that you've been referring to. I think it's time for me to add to this discussion since it's pretty much about me. First of all in response to your most recent comment, I did see the information on TV Media Insights before the page was deleted because that is only way how I knew where to get the DISQUS URL. Second, SonoftheBronx has been providing Nielsen ratings since 2011, and has never been called into question once (see item 3 in the list below). Finally, here is a list of reasons why I think these DISQUS comments are reliable sources, I left on my talk page for ''AussieLegend'' to read:


::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.}}
:::::1. DISQUS IS NOT A FORUM. I don't know how many times I can say that. It is a program that allows comments to be archived even after a page or website is deleted.
::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}}


== Nigerian newspapers ==
:::::2. The data on that page comes from TV Media Insights (WHICH IS A RELIABLE SOURCE); however, that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web.


] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ...
:::::3. The person who runs the website (Douglas Pucci aka SONOFTHEBRONX) is a reliable source, because his data has been used on ''The Futon Critic'' AND ''TV by the Numbers'' , both of which you refer to as "reliable sources".


We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
:::::4. I personally do not like the DISQUS link either, but it is the ONLY way to retrieve the RELIABLE data. The website was deleted, and the comments are NOT archived by the Wayback Machine since they are saved on the DISQUS servers rather than the TV Media Insights servers. Since they are stored offline, they were saved when the website went down.


Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::5. There is no other "better" source to use, which is why I am using the DISQUS links. Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 Top 25 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart. If you looked at the Live+7 data from TVBTN, you would see that the data isn't always there.
: The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] &#124; ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
:::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
:::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
:::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
:Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::6. Also, this one last thing should really help my case. You said that there is no way to tell if the data was ever ACTUALLY on the TV Media Insights page. I completely forgot that when Google Caches the pages, it does archive the comments. Here is a link to a cached page from TVMI that has the comments in the bottom (this is from a season 10 rating). This proves that the comments were originally from the page and not "posted on a discussion forum". You too "can see with your own eyes" that the comments are there.
:There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However,&nbsp; I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
:"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
:"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I hope this give you all the assurances you need about the validity and reliability of the data. If there was a better source to use, you'd better bet I would use that one instead, but there just isn't any other source. ] (]) 18:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Did you originally see this information in an article or in a comment/reply?
===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)===
:5. I can see why it's desirable to have the whole chart match, but if there's no reliable source for a piece of information, then it shouldn't be included, even if that leaves the article lopsided.
I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:1. Yes, it's true that DISQUS is not a forum. But regardless of whether DISQUS ''articles'' are RS, replies and comments made to those articles by readers are not.
:2. If you read this information in an article in TV Media Insights, then write up a ref tag citing that article. (I'd say that their contributor Marc Berman, for example, is a good source .) However, if you only saw this information in a comment/reply ''to'' that article, that's another matter.
:3. Douglas Pucci looks like he meets WP:SPS expert criteria.
:4. Sources do not have to have up-to-date links to be usable and valid, per ]. Adding a convenience link to DISQUS could be acceptable, but it looks like citing it as the sole reference has led people to believe that it ''was'' the sole reference. It sounds like you're saying that's not the case.
:It looks like the core question is one of these two things, "Is an article written by known expert Douglas Pucci acceptable as a source even after that article is no longer available online?" I say yes it is. However, "Is a ''reply'' or ''comment'' written by known expert Douglas Pucci a reliable source?" is a much grayer area, possibly worth an RfC. ] (]) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::At this point I'd welcome an RfC, as Rswallis10 seems more interested in simply removing the tags in the article, rather than determining whether the comments are acceptable. --] (]) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|AussieLegend}} When we are going for a consensus, isn't the protocal to return the page to the way it was BEFORE the problem started?? I think yes. You added the maintenance tags which caused this discussion, so if we are going to have an RfC, then we should return the page to the way it was before correct? ] (]) 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::If we were talking about content changes this might apply, but we're talking about verifiability and the appropriateness of sources. The addition of maintenance tags to highlight problems in an article is appropriate. You should be aware of this from your attempts to remove maintenance tags from ], and {{u|Geraldo Perez}} had to revert your persistent removal of tags there. --] (]) 19:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Darkfrog24}} first of all, I appreciate you being reasonable about this, and trying to have a discussion. Second, to answer your question, YES I did originally see this information in a comment/reply on the article. Douglas Pucci said that he was going to stop adding L+7 tables in his articles. but we were welcome to request them in the comments, and he would answer them. There are many cases on Misplaced Pages where ratings are found in the comments section of a webpage. Most notably, in Summer 2009, TVBTN only provided the Top 20 shows in their articles, but the authors of the site (Robert Seidman and Bill Gorman) responded to requests in the comments. I think that as long as the information is coming from a reliable source (which we agree that Douglas Pucci is), the medium through which the information is coming from becomes irrelevant. Why is a number provided by Mr. Pucci on his website more reliable than that same number provided as a comment, or as a tweet? I think common sense would tell us that all 3 are reliable because it is essentially the same source (Mr. Pucci). The link to DISQUS is a convenience link as you said; you click the link, and it takes you right to where the rating is. However, if ''AussieLegend'' is as vehemently against DISQUS as he says he is, then I'll be perfectly fine linking it to the page that doesnt exist anymore (but really what would be the point of that?). I really think logic needs to prevail here, but based on my previous run-ins with ''AussieLegend'', it will be his way or the highway. ] (]) 20:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't mean linking to the deadlink article. I mean writing out the ref for that article. Name the author and the title and the publisher and the date ]. Use the "quote" option. Leave a hidden note explaining that SonoftheBronx is established expert Douglas Pucci. Make it very clear that the information did not come DISQUS initially and the link is only provided for convenience. The rules do not require you to use the long-form citation format every time, but if you had done so, it might have been obvious to AussieLegend and others that this was a reliable (or at least arguably reliable) source. Frankly, if I clicked the link and saw nothing but a comment by "SonoftheBronx," I'd delete it too.
:::As to whether the information should go out or stay in while the RfC is in progress, I could see this going either way. With the season not set to restart for a while yet, it's not heavily time-sensitive but neither do the facts seem to be in doubt. Either one of you could be gracious and defer to the other's preferences for the week or so that it would take to resolve this. ] (]) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Darkfrog24}} If you look at the references on the article that I wrote, all of them actually site the original article. The author says Douglas Pucci, the publisher says TV Media Insights, and I even included the date of the original article publication, rather than the date of the comment. The URL is to the disqus comment page, but everything else in the references relates to the original article itself. I personally don't like the way the table looks right now with the maintenance tags (and any readers who visit the page will not like them either), but ''AussieLegend'' needs to get his way, so I will allow them to stay until the RfC is done. Thank you for your input. ] (]) 21:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::So you did. I had your diff confused with someone else's. Sorry about that. ] (]) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::"''SonoftheBronx has been providing Nielsen ratings since 2011, and has never been called into question once''" - That's not correct. SonoftheBronx has been discussed many times here. It is also listed at ] as not having achieved consensus as to reliability. Relevant discussions are ], ], ] and ]. The Son of the Bronx website was apparently closed because of copyright violations, which itself raises alarm bells. Apparently he was posting raw Nielsen data, which other sites also have access to.
::::::"''that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web.''" - Let's get some perspective here. The episodes being cited are from October and November 2015 over a 7 week period. That's only 2-4 months ago and the citations were added at that time, with the site apparently dead as soon as episodes aired. It's not like we're talking ratings for a program that aired in the 1970s. Ratings are clearly available on other sites. The figures for episode 9, which aired in December 2015, are cited to Tv By the Numbers. That being the case, there is no reason that the comments section of a dead site should be used just because it's the preference of a single editor.
::::::"''Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 Top 25 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart.''" - If Bones doesn't always make the lists then do we really gain anything by having this information? For quite some time now, ratings tables have been problematic. Unnecessary pretty colours, multiple MOS violations (]/], ], ], ] are common problems), redundant HTML code, overcomplicated code and ridiculous formatting are just a few of the issues. For that reason, {{tl|Television episode ratings}} was created to standardise ratings tables, and the information being added to the article exceeds what {{tlx|Television episode ratings}} includes. Ratings have been discussed on numerous occasions, including when we added a section on series overview tables to the MOS (see ]).
::::::The citations added by Rswallis10 are, at the very best, confusing. They cite Douglas Pucci as the author, but he isn't mentioned anywhere in the source. They cite "TV Media Insights" in the {{para|work}} field, but the citations link to disqus, which is just forum type posts. Any reader without intricate knowledge is only going to see these as discussion forum posts, especially when the url includes the word "discussion". Even assuming that somebody can work out that the author is SonOfTheBronx, looking at the provides no indication that Douglas Pucci = SonOfTheBronx. Following a link to "Programming Insider" from that page sends you to <nowiki>https://disqus.com/home/</nowiki>'''forum'''<nowiki>/programminginsider</nowiki>, which is clearly a discussion '''forum''' on disqus. Despite protestations to the contrary, these are all forums meant for discussions. "Disqus" is not a misspelling of "]", it's a play on "]". The includes the explanations "Great discussions are happening here" and "Disqus offers publishers the best tools in the universe to power discussions". Let's get rid of this silly notion that these "comments" sections are not discussion forums, when they clearly are. --] (]) 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|AussieLegend}} "Let's get rid of this silly notion that these "comments" sections are not discussion forums, when they clearly are." <- Pardon my French, but that's bulls**t. Please pick any "discussion" from a ''Programming Insider'' or ''TV Media Insights'' page and find me an actual discussion. Sure, there are some sites that use DISQUS for discussions, but that is NOT the purpose of them on by these 2 sites. The DISQUS is a COMMENT SECTION, not a FORUM. Are things discussed in the comment section? Sure they are, that's the point of them, but IT IS NOT A FORUM. There is no grandiose topic that everything is talking about or adding advice about, it is simply a place for people to request Nielsen data from a reliable expert. SonOfTheBronx is NOT a reader, he is the person who writes the articles and has access to Nielsen data that most every people don't have. It's quite a simple fact that NOT EVERYTHING can make it into an article, so for the things that don't make the article, they are requested in the COMMENTS. In this case, DISQUS does NOT serve as a discussion forum, but rather an extension of he article itself and therefore reliable. {{replyto|Darkfrog24}} do you agree with that? ] (]) 17:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::If somebody posts something and somebody replies to it, as happens in the "comments" section, that's a discussion. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "comments" section, it's still a discussion forum. Regardless, these are exactly the sort of comments that ] is aimed at when it says "Internet forum posts". --] (]) 18:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{replyto|AussieLegend}} I actually don't think that ] applies here at all. Simple fact: SonOfTheBronx writes the articles on ''ProgrammingInsider.com'' which is published by Marc Berman (a known Television expert). While SonOfTheBronx.com may be a self published source, ''Programming Insider'' obviously isn't, and that's what we're currently discussing. ] (]) 19:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::WP:SPS applies everywhere. ] is a core policy and can't be ignored. The citations you included are not on "Programming Insider". They are sourced to disqus.com with no ] that they came from anywhere else. The comments are allegedly from SonofTheBronx, not Marc Berman, and there is no consensus as to SonofTheBronx's acceptability as a source, as has already been discussed. --] (]) 19:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I checked the links to old RSN discussions and they do not seem conclusive. The WikiProject Television archive similarly closed with no consensus either way. That doesn't mean that SotB is reliable but it doesn't mean he isn't either. I'd say an RfC specifically about Son of the Bronx might be appropriate.
:::::::As for whether there's any value in these ratings figures, yes, I'd say that if the other figures are notable then these are too. It's acceptable for a chart to be lopsided but it's best for it not to be. ] (]) 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::The outcome of the previous discussions is why SoTB is listed in the "No consensus on reliability" section of ]. However, the fact that SoTB website was closed because of copyright concerns is something we should be at least a little bit concerned about. Are the SoTB posts LINKVIOs? I don't know, and we do still use ratings figures from SoTB. I agree regarding the RfC. My question regarding the value of the ratings figures was probably a little bit ambiguous. Perhaps I should have asked, are the figures important enough that we are willing to accept using forum comments as a source, when forum comments are not reliable sources? --] (]) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::{{replyto|AussieLegend}} {{replyto|Darkfrog24}} What exactly are we trying to do here? How many RfC's do we need? ''Darkfrog24'' has been very good at reading both sides of the story, and coming to the conclusion that we need an RfC on whether or not "comments/reply's from a reliable source are considered reliable" which is pretty much what your problem was origninally. Now, it looks like your problem is with THE WORLD itself. You want an RfC for the reliability of SonOfTheBronx, and one for the importance of a ratings table, etc. Second, It is pretty obvious to me that SonOfTheBronx is a reliable source, and even ''Darkfrog24'' agrees that it's evident. ''AussieLegend'' please tell me what makes you so untrustworthy of people? First, you assume that the Twitter account of the ''Bones'' people are "fake" even though they are followed by members of the cast (all verified), and the show itself (verified), and now you assume that SonOfTheBronx isn't reliable because his site was shut down? Nielsen did not have his site shut down, it was blogger. He said that the pages were removed "Despite numerous references to sources of ratings information (included in every single blog post)," so I don't think that bogus copyright infringement should still not make SonOfTheBronx a relible source. Here is SonOfTheBronx's thoughts on this nonsense: its a good read. Third, yes we could leave most of the ratings table blank, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF THAT? If we have a reliable source for the information (SOTB), then WHY WOULD WE LEAVE IT BLANK? That thinking just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Common sense REALLY, REALLY, REALLY needs to prevail here, and I truly hope that it does. There is only so much "policy quoting" that you can do (Seems to ''Aussie's'' favorite thing) before we just need to step back and look at this logically. ] (]) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
A few things: 1) Neither I nor anyone else at this noticeboard gets to decide this issue. It's not binding arbitration. We're just adding our voices because at least one of you thought more voices were needed. 2) My own take is that if SonoftheBronx has been concretely identified as Douglas Pucci, ''and if Pucci is reliable'' then comments that he leaves in response to readers in articles that he wrote can sometimes be used if they're straightforward. This seems to be one of those times. 3) The issue is whether Pucci is reliable. So the question is this: Did those previous RfCs deal with Pucci specifically? Was there anything wrong or missing?


:See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The other question: Is there anywhere ''else'' we could get this information that would not involve all this controversy? I think that discussing sources on RSN is a perfectly valid way to spend one's time and energy&mdash;if it doesn't produce results for this content then everyone involved gets more familiar with the policies for next time&mdash;but would reinvesting any of it in further searching be more helpful?
::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


:Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Hang on... ] (]) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] &#124; ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
:There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
:Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
* We do not 'need an RfC on whether or not "comments/reply's from a reliable source are considered reliable{{"'}}. That's a confusion of a ''reputable author'' (i.e. an expert, a professional journalist working for a serious publication, etc.) and a ''reliable source''. A reliable source is a book, article, etc. by a reputable author, from a reputable publisher. Not all output from a reputable author is from a reputable publisher, so it's not all reliable (otherwise every single person who ever got an article or a book published would be auto-reliable for everything, all the time). Not even every reliable source, in one context, from such an author and publisher is a reliable source in other contexts. An article by ] on the history of American comics, published in a professionally edited anthology on comics, from something other than a self-publishing house, is probably a reliable source (aside from Marvel Comics biases) on American comics, but it would not be one for physics information Lee mentioned in it, like why it might actually be plausible for a superhero to fly. We {{em|might}} treat a blog self-published by Lee as a low-quality primary source we could use with caution for certain things, with proper direct attribution. But if he just tweets something or posts a comment on someone else's blog, that's not a reliable source for much of anything, even if he can be positively identified as the real post, except the simple facts that Lee seems to have posted there, and what it is he seems to have posted. It would be shaky to even use it directly quoted to attribute an opinion to him, and we certainly can't use it for ] material of any kind. I agree with comments above that if the information in the case at hand – these statistics – are real, they must be obtainable from something other than random passers-by on random blogs. Just because some consider SonOfTheBronx to be a more-or-less reputable blogger in a certain narrow set of topics does not mean that every off-the-cuff comment they make reflects even the unexamined diligence level we hope is applied to their blog-journalism. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{replyto|SMcCandlish}} Some clarifications on this. First, SonOfTheBronx is not just ''a more-or-less reputable blogger,'' so can you please do your research before you come here and say stuff like that? He writes for ''ProgrammingInsider.com,'' which is not just some "blog," it is a top tier entertainment website. Second, I understand your example about ], but I'm not sure that applies here. SonOfTheBronx's comments are not subjective opinions, they are objective ratings coming from Nielsen. He is not expressing an expert opinion, or explaining anything, he is simply stating objective facts in a comment. ] (]) 04:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::This is {{em|totally irrelevant}}, and you missed the point, despite also having it explained to you on you talk page in more detail. It doesn't matter if this person were the #1 foremost authority on entertainment news and trivia in the entire world, their passerby-comments on someone else's blog are not a reliable source, because a RS requires a reputable publisher. J. Schmoe and their blog are not a reputable publisher of Super-mega Expert's comment. Even if they were posted at a competing newsblog, not a J. Schmoe blog. The reason is obvious: Reader's letters to the editor are not reliable sources, even when the come from a newspaper, which does typically exert a degree of editorial control over them (e.g. censoring profanity, and redacting asides, for length), and total editorial control about whether they see print in the first place. If a letter to the editor in ''The Times'' or ''The New York Times'', including from a purported expert, is not am RS, it is {{em|not even remotely possible}} that a comment on a blog is an RS. That's enough to just stop and move on.<p>I'll address the other points because they seem to need it, to improve your approach to these matters, even if this particular case doesn't require these notes. As for even SonOfTheBronx's own blog material at ProgrammingInsider.com: Unless his work on those posts is subject to the same level of editorial control as articles at a newspaper, it's a low-quality primary source that must be used "with caution" if at all, as a matter of ]. It doesn't matter how popular and well-regarded the site is. Thirdly, if SonOfTheBronx's comments about the Nielsen ratings cannot be verified with an RS, they are in fact simply that commenter's opinion. Anyone can say "according to ''The Huffington Post's'' "Intelligence Community" section and ''The New York Times'<nowiki />'' "U.S. Intelligence Community News section", the NSA and MI-6 have confirmed space aliens have spies in almost every country" (a claim with two secondary and two primary sources of high reliability); if we can find no such news articles or agency/ministry press releases, it's just Internet ] we cannot cite as a source (exception: if the claim itself were notable, e.g. for causing an Orson Welles, ''War of the Worlds''-style panic, then it could be cited as a primary source for its own wording, date, and by-line). If SonOfTheBronx's Nielsen Ratings source is real, we should be able to find that (these ratings are published), and cite it. There is no need to ever even try to cite that blog comment, either way. Please do {{em|your}} homework about policy before telling others to do theirs about some website. Our policies are written to address general classes of circumstance, so that we don't have agonize over particular cases as if there's no precedent for how to handle them. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)</p>


Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation.
===Accuracy of SonoftheBronx figures===
Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.
Sorry. I should have thought of this days ago. I searched for Bones ratings and found this and then I found this by searching for "Bones" and "6.197" . These sources do not meet our expert criteria, but the information that they contain contradicts what we see in the DISQUS comment. Searches for "Bones" and "8.618" to corroborate SonoftheBronx's figures produced only forums. Regardless of whether Pucci is reliable in general, and even experts can make mistakes, the accuracy of this specific content is now in question. Determining whether or not he has expert status is not just a formality. I'd say "don't use." ] (]) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Darkfrog24}} Hi, can I clarify a couple things? The issue on the ''Bones'' article is with DVR ratings table, not the Live+SD ratings that appear in the episode table. The 6.197 refers to the number of L+SD (people who watched it on the night it aired), and that number can be found on other reliable sources including TV Media Insights (SonOfTheBronx himself reported it) , ShowBuzzDaily , and even TVBTN (but it was rounded) . No one is questioning the validity of the 6.197 figure, as that can be found in many places, the thing being questioned is the number of people who watched the show on their DVR's (which is referred to as Live +7 ratings). The show had 2.42M DVR viewers in its first week (for a total of 8.62M, because 6.20M (Live) + 2.42M (DVR) = 8.62M) according to SonOfTheBronx here: . As you can see from the TVBTN L+7 chart from that week , ''Bones'' is nowhere to be found (which is why it was requested).
:Now that I hope I've shown that Douglas Pucci is reliable, let me bring up the ''TV Series Finale'' issue. Ironically, ''TV Series Finale'' also requests data from SonOfTheBronx, as you can see in the following links: , , , , and here ; there's more, but I think that more than proves my point. ] (]) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::Okay, so the figures differ because they're not talking about the same thing. Got it. ] (]) 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Darkfrog24}}. One more thing: I found 2 TVBTN articles that actually have 'Bones' in it. I'm going to link the TVBTN article, and the SonOfTheBronx reply, so you can do a side-by-side comparison of the data. You will see that both sources say the exact same thing. My point is that if SOTB's data matches the TVBTN data (for the 2 weeks that I have it), can't we use common sense to say that all of the SonOfTheBronx data is correct as well (even if it isn't on TVBTN for that week)???


Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Example 1. October 29 Episode: TVBTN . SonOfTheBronx
:We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


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


People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My thought is that, even though TVBTN doesn't have all of the ''Bones'' data, if the data it has DOES MATCH the data SonOfTheBronx provided for those 2 days, isn't logical to conclude that the rest of the data SOTB provided is also correct? ] (]) 00:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
**There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::My concerns about accuracy have been assuaged. I can see why the previous discussion couldn't form consensus on this source. ] (]) 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Darkfrog24}} So do you believe that these DISQUS comments are okay to use as citations on the page? That's pretty much what this whole discussion boils down to. Also, when you say "''I can see why the previous discussion couldn't form consensus on this source''" what exactly do you mean? Like in regards to the complexity of the issue, or something else? Again, I thank you for taking an active role in this discussion. ] (]) 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


===Brainstorming RfCs===
::::::I think you need more than I can do for you. AussieLegend has agreed to do an RfC. If you guys have trouble agreeing on a neutral wording, I can review a draft. My belief is that the issue is whether Pucci is a reliable expert source per WP:SPS, ''not'' whether comments he makes in the articles he writes should be rejected because they are comments; they should not. However, if that is in dispute, it should also be addressed. ] (]) 03:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic ] is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. ], to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change ], correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{replyto|Darkfrog24}} I know what an RfC is; however, I have never done one before. I'm ready to do one whenever {{replyto|AussieLegend}} wants to, but where is the proper place to put it, and how do we get more editors involved? I know you've reached your limit on what more you can do here, but some guidance on this process would be greatly appreciated. And yes, I think both of these issues need to be addressed in the RfC because ''AussieLegend'' seems have a problem with both aspects. ] (]) 03:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::The RfC should be run at the Bones season 11 talk page. It should be phrased clearly and neutrally. The instructions are at ]. You are allowed to tell people that the RfC is in progress and to encourage them to participate. The instructions are at ]. A notice should probably be placed on Wikiproject: Television. The trick to a successful RfC is to phrase the issue at hand very clearly. ] (]) 04:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


:I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. ]] 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==catholic-hierarchy.org==
::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
:If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ]
:# Generally reliable
:# Additional considerations apply
:# Generally unreliable
:# Deprecated"
:From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is there any actual evidence that there are newspapers from this nation that do ''not'' have this problem? If we are going to blanket ban them we may as well be consistent about it. ] (]) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


*I think a list of options for a blanket label as above is just misguided, and occasionally say something like the following: '''It always depends on context''' - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See ], specifically ] "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." I would look more at is the source providing the Best Available Data for some POV, meaning a ] and ] on that topic? For Nigeria (or any non-mainstream or non-educational topic) you simply cannot expect the BBC to be always giving you the information. One must work with what is the Best Available. Cheers ] (]) 06:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I added some information to a website and provided a source to www.catholic-hierarchy.org. I was told do not re-add the references since it was unreliable and if I disagree to make my case here. all the entries were either biographies of long deceased Roman Catholic bishops or listings of bishops on the diocese/archdiocese wikipage. This website has been used for years on English Misplaced Pages and has not been questioned by its contributors; and there are literally 1000s of Misplaced Pages articles using the reference. It is also heavily used by Misplaced Pages in other languages.
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


==RfC: NewsNation==
The reason for the removal is non-reliable source which I disagree with as there is ample support on the internet that it is reliable. It is also self-published but as I read it " 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 third-party publications." So I went out to get a variety of sources that cite the website which I would include sufficient third party publications. Thanks for your consideration.
<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
What is the reliability of ]?


* '''Option 1: ]'''
catholic-hierarchy.org is recommended by several archdioceses and archdioceses and referenced by ]
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


*
*
*
*
* ''"Statistics vary but according to 'catholic-hierarchy.org..."''


===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 ], 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)
Several prominent Catholic church watchers and journalists have used catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference including:
*] uses it as a reference Feb. 17, 2009 \ ''"Based on lists provided by the Catholic Hierarchy Web site (www.catholic-hierarchy.org)''"
*] lists it as a recommended website
* canon lawyer ] lists it as a reference - here is his profile
*] uses it Whispers in the Loggia
* ''"A privately operated website, catholic.hierarchy.org, proved to have abundant and accurate data and was extremely helpful in finding and confirming the information in other sources"''


===Discussion (NewsNation)===
Various libraries and similar organizations list catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference
*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)
*
*
*
*
* states ''"To see the structure of the Catholic Church’s Hierarchy go to www.catholic-hierarchy.org."''
*
*


== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
Mainstream newspapers cite catholic-hierarchy.org as a resource
* Sources: News services, Vatican, www.catholic-hierarchy.org | The Washington Post February 11, 2013
* Sources SOURCES: AmericanCatholic.org; Archdiocese of Boston; Catholic Encyclopedia; Catholic-hierarchy.org; "Dictionary of the Liturgy;" Father Jason A. Gray of the Peoria Archdiocese; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
*


The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
Catholic newspapers list catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference
* '''A: Geni.com'''
* July 15, 2013</ref>
* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
* 4th December 2009
* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
* Note: Mailing addresses of US bishops are on the USCCB web site: www.usccb.org/bishops.shtml). Another useful website is http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org.
:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
* May 17, 2012
:They should be:
* 07/13/2013 ''"According to figures on Catholic-Hierarchy.org, eight U.S. dioceses are without a bishop, plus two U.S. eparchies (dioceses of Eastern rite churches)."''
* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
*
* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
* Published: 23 July 2011
* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
* ] "''ZENIT’s own editorial director, Jesús Colina, has this to say about it: “My staff and I consult catholic-hierarchy.org dozens of times a day. Behind basically every reference we make to any member of the Church hierarchy — and we make thousands — there’s a quick look at this site.”''
] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
* (August 2005)
* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Preliminaries ===
Numerous books cite catholic-hierarchy.org in their bibliography
* The Next Pope By Anura Guruge
* The Virgin Mary and Catholic Identities in Chinese History By Jeremy Clarke
* Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices : Six Volumes by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann
* Two Texts By Edward Everett Hale by Edward Everett Hale, Hsuan L. Hsu, Susan Kalter
* Uncertain Honor: Modern Motherhood in an African Crisis By Jennifer Johnson-Hanks
* Religion and Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Roman Catholic and Sunni Islamic Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Compromise) Mar 4, 2015 by Denis Dragovi
* Imagining the Creole City : The Rise of Literary Culture in Nineteenth-Century New Orleans by Rien Fertel
* Church Confronts Modernity: Catholicism since 1950 in the United States, Ireland, and Quebec / Edition 1 - by Leslie Woodcock Tentler
* The Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions: Volume 1: A-L; Volume 2: M-Z by Patrick Taylor
* Charity and the Great Hunger in Ireland: The Kindness of Strangers by Christine Kinealy
* Democracy, Culture, Catholicism: Voices from Four Continents edited by Michael Schuck, John Crowley-Buck
* Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa by Peter Addai-Mensah
*
* Diplomatic Missions of the Holy See in Hungary and East-Central Europe after theSecond World War by Margit BALOGH
* University of Southern California: "WHY IS THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS DIMINISHING IN PORTUGAL? ANALYSIS OF THE PERIOD 1960-2002 MOURAO, Paulo R.
* Light a Candle. Encounters and Friendship with China. Festschrift in Honour of Angelo S. Lazzarotto P.I.M.E. Edited by Roman MALEK and Gianni CRIVELLER. (Collectanea Serica). Sankt Augustin, Institut Monumenta Serica; Nettetal, Steyler Verlag, 2010. viii+564 pp.
* To Whom Does Christianity Belong?: Critical Issues in World Christianity By Dyron B. Daughrity
* The Changing World Religion Map: Sacred Places, Identities, Practices and Politics Feb 3, 2015 by Stanley D. Brunn
* Eine Marienerscheinung in Zeiten der Diktatur: der Konflikt um Peñablanca By Oliver Grasmück


: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)
Numerous Catholic churches and schools cite catholic-hierarchy.org as a resource
::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)
* Archdiocese of Washington uses it as a resource for student assignments
:::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)
* Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminister: "Obtaining Proof of Membership of the Catholic Church – Guidance for Schools"
::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* RC Church of Christ the King recommended websites
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* Catholic Family News: "Dangerous Synod Proposal: New Language” for Natural Law" by John Vennari
* St Brendan the Navigator Parish recommended websites
* St Mary of the Desert Catholic Church recommended websites
* recommended websites
* St Paul the Apostle Catholic Church recommended websites
* Our Lady of Mercy Church recommended websites
* St Pascal Church recommended websites
* St Paul Catholic Church recommended websites
* St Thomas Benedictine Abbey Kappadu recommended websites
* Sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary recommended websites
* Carmelites of Mary Immaculate recommended websites
* Holy Family Parish in Poland Ohio recommended websites
* St Mary of the Immaculate Conception Greenville recommended websites
* Blessed Sacrament Church of Buffalo recommended websites
* St Alphonsa Catholic Church recommended websites
* St Charles Borromeo Parish and School recommended websites
* Good Shepherd Parish recommended websites
* Claretian Missionaires Sri Lanka recommended websites
* Catholic Parish of Ivanhoe recommended websites
* The Catholic Community of Our Lady of Fatima recommended websites
* RC Church of Christ the King
* St Pius Parish bulletin
* St Francis Cathedral bulletin
* St Christopher Church recommended websites
* St Mary's Parish - Navan Ireland recommended websites
* Saint John Neuman Sunbury recommended websites
* Diocese of Plymouth: "Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth An Architectural and Historical Review"
* St Joseph de Clairval Abbey in Flavigny Links
* St Hugh of Lincoln references it in a biography
* St William Catholic Church spiritual links


: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)
::The website is actually named catholic-hierarchy.org. I have changed the topic thread to match. The reasons it is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages, as I have told Patapsco913, are manifold: (1) it is ] user-generated content. (2) it is a ] run by one guy, {{user|Dcheney}}, with no "editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking." (3) it has been proven inaccurate on many occasions, as it puts bishops in their sees after appointment rather than upon installation, in violation of ] procedure. ] (]) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Technically, Elizium, that is not a violation of canon law. Instead, it is a difference between appointment and possession, which is rightly illustrated on the website. The Holy See website (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html) announces the appointment of the new bishop, and the diocese announces the date of the ceremonies of canonical possession and installation. This is true from the smallest diocese to the Diocese of Rome.] (]) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot believe that all these Catholic churches and dioceses would use a webpage that is so horribly unreliable. The Archdiocese of Chicago lists it as one of four references on the page above. If it is seen as a good reference by the Catholic Church about the Catholic Church then we should use it on Misplaced Pages. It by and large only lists the names and terms of long-deceased bishops, the time line of various dioceses, and Catholic populations in those dioceses. ] and ] are top journalists regarding the Catholic church. I would think that they would investigate it before using it as a reference. The rule says "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 third-party publications." There seem to be enough reliable third party publications. Anyhow, where has it been proven false in a reliable third party source?] (]) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (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)
:::: Doesn't really matter, it fails the RS tests. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ] is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking based on the opinion of 1) the Catholic Church (as evidenced by all Archdiocese, Dioceses, and parishes that recommend it as a reliable source - and Vatican Radio even uses it); 2) the academic community (as evidenced by the numerous books and publications that use it as a reference); 3) the mainstream news community (Washington Post, Boston Globe) who use it as a reference; 4) prominent Catholic commentators (], ], ]) and canon lawyer (]) who use it as a reference; and 5) Catholic institutions (Society of St Pius the X), university libraries (Stanford), and Catholic newspapers (The Tablet, National Catholic Reporter) who use it as a reference. So how does it fail?] (]) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
A source might be incredibly factually accurate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source for wikipedia. For instance, the WP articles about high-concept physics subjects tend to be extremely accurate and very detailed, but we can't use them as a source for other pages, because it's user generated content. It's a matter of ]. If that website provides its sources, however, you can probably use those. Don't just copy their citations though, check them out and verify them , first. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{user|Patapsco913}} has been busy ] to garner discussion on this thread. Patapsco, please limit your postings. Also, the text you have been using is not entirely neutral in tone. ] (]) 23:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::There are somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 wikipages that will be affected by this change - many that have been around for a long time - so I think it prudent that we should have as wide a discussion as possible. It should not be decided by five or six people.] (]) 00:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not believe it is accurate to describe catholic-hierarchy.org as unreliable or user-generated content. It is the reporting of facts from other sources, organized in a convenient and hyperlinked manner. Furthermore, if you were to look at the Sources/Bibliography section of the website (), you would notice sources such as the ] Collection from 1914, 1921, 1924, 1927-1928, 1931, 1933, 1937-1938, 1941, 1949, 1950-1953, and 1955-2015. The Annuario Pontificio is the ultimate source for pages such as this, and cannot be considered unreliable. ] (]) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:So I can start a blogspot site and use the New York Times and Washington Post as sources, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source ''by Misplaced Pages's definition''. I think that's important to note here that we're not talking about YOUR definition of "reliable" but WIKIPEDIA's definition. ] (]) 00:02, 4 February 2016 (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)
::Catholic-Hierarchy would fit Misplaced Pages's definition based on Misplaced Pages's ], ], and ] policies. ] (]) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the reliability of the site, since it's just a bunch of lists anyway. It is simple and convenient, as Vlaams says. The same is true for GigaCatholic, which is often used as a source here (and which I actually find more useful than Catholic-Hierarchy). Is it literally unreliable? Are there mistakes in it? If it's accurately reporting the information from its own sources, what does it matter? We could use those sources instead, I suppose, but why? What '''is''' a reliable source in this case? ] (]) 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, it makes chronic mistakes, as I explained above. It can't be trusted for the time a bishop takes possession of a diocese. ] (]) 02:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Right, but is that a mistake introduced by Catholic-Hierarchy, or is the same information in its sources (whatever they may be?) ] (]) 02:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
{{outdent|8}}
:'''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 ===
Even though this discussion is whether or not Catholic Hierarchy is reliable, I would like to report my activites for WikiProject Catholicism articles. Since I joined Misplaced Pages in April 2014, I have completed assessments on thousands of WikiProject Catholicism articles. Here's what I have been doing:
:'''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)===
* If Catholic Hierarchy is in the References section, I add the ''Self-published source'' template.
{{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)
* If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is a Stub, I add the ''Self-published source'' template, hoping this may help another editor to find reliable sources elsewhere.
* If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is ''not a Stub'', I delete the CH External link line.


: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)
'''* Opinion:''' From the perspective of a Misplaced Pages reader, it's my opinion that leaving this ''Self-published source'' template in place serves as a cautionary alert that the reference is not held to the same higher standard of a Reliable source. What would be helpful is a BOT that tags articles for every CH Reference with the ''Self-published source'' template. Regards, <span style="border: 1px solid #c0c0c0; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;] ]</span> 02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
'''Thought''' - I have read, studied and used the Catholic hierarchy website for many years, and I have no doubt it is a reliable source. In fact,
I know the information it contains is reliable because it all comes from the Catholic Statistical yearbook ] published by the ] itself. I own several copies of this yearbook
for various years, and the data is accurate. The trouble comes from the fact that the Vatican sells the yearbook and as far as I know there is
no open source for this data, or even an online, easily accessible version of it for data crunching or easy access. Thus a vacuum is formed
and people use this website instead of the yearbook itself, which cost 60$ and is printed in Italian paperback only. I am too close to this
to render a definitive opinion about the website, but for this to be a Reliable Source for Misplaced Pages, we must at the least have strict assurances that all the
facts and data are straight from the yearbook the church itself publishes. Otherwise, we must rely on those who have copies
of the yearbook for reliable sourcing. ] (]) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::I just wanted to acknowledge that I am the author/owner/whatever of the website in question and I would be happy to answer any questions in that regard. I have no opinion whether or not it should be cited in Misplaced Pages - that is for others to decide.--] (]) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I take the Catholic Hierarchy site to be a "reliable source" under our normal usage of that term. The description of its publishing process doesn't make me shift that opinion. It has been pointed out that it provides reference material, rather than "original research", and from an authoritative source. If, in effect, it is an online version of a print publication that we would accept, this discussion seems overblown. ] (]) 06:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
*This is a reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and attention to detail. Some people seek to apply the term too narrowly. We need to use it broadly so that Misplaced Pages can reflect the understandings of a large swath of the population not just those of jet set yuppies living in lofts in NYC and avoiding flyover country and distaining the political goals of people in Uganda and Nigeria.


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>
I can make some general observations about Catholic Hierarchy, as well as GCatholic. They both are reliable as long as they are based on reliable sources. Not all their sources are reliable. They are certainly very useful and highly reliable with regard to the recent appointments (I mean recent two centuries or so). They clearly base their data on official sources such as Annuario Pontificio. But deeper in the past, the things go worse. Miranda's website is a source for many data about cardinals in Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Miranda's website, for 20th and 21 century is based mainly on the official reports of the Holy See, the best possible sources. For the centuries 13th to 19th it is based mainly on the nine volumes of ''Hierarchia Catholica'' by Eubel, Ritzler and Gauchat, which is generally a good source, but its earliest volumes (13th to 16th century) contain many errors. And for the period before 13th century, Miranda's website is completely unreliable (basing on outdated sources and contradicting modern prosopographies of the cardinals). Since Miranda is a source also for Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic, the same can be told about them. In conclusion, all three websites are reliable for the most recent centuries, but with every earlier century, they became less and less reliable. ] (]) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (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>
::Just wanted to agree with this - Giga Catholic seems to be better for older stuff, earlier than (say) the 17th century, but only as good as its sources, like Eubel, which is itself only as good as ''its'' sources (Gams, Lequien, whoever else). The Vatican doesn't actually keep lists of bishops of all its dioceses, so they don't really know anything more than we do, using the same sources. There are often academic works which will have more up-to-date lists for medieval bishops, and I suppose the same is true for other eras. ] (]) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")


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 seems a far, far more reliable source on most of the articles that it references than anything else we have and discussions over the publishing process are interesting but beside the point. SPS is a sound guideline, but it shouldn't be dogma. I'd prefer that we'd refer to the sources underneath the site, but until then the site should be sufficient. ] (]) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br>
* One other note of clarification, although the ''Annuario Pontificio'' (AP) is a good resource, the lag in its publication means that it is not a good source for recent changes. For example, changes that occurred in 2015 will be included in AP 2016 - which will be published in the next month or two. Other official sources such as ''Acta Apostolicae Sedis'' can have an even longer lag time. --] (]) 10:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep


Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
::I've used it for years and found it more accurate than many other blue-chip sources. JoeHebda makes a good observation; it's reliable but it may be worthwhile to note that it's a self-published source. ] (]) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
*
*
*
* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
*
*
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
*
''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Reliable Source does not mean 100%, 100% of the time; it means well-researched and non-self-referential source. All sources for most bishops before 1300 are pretty uncertain; every modern iteration has to pick one. If he picked 2nd best, argue he isn't reliable for bishops before 1300 or something like that. For 1600 on, all he's done is collect various divergent sources such as the ] into an accessible format. I'm not a good enough Church history expert to know sourcing for ancient bishops so I leave this aside. >> ] <small>(] • ]) </small> 14:45, 13 February 2016 (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 ==
There are several things to consider here. 1st, the number of references to it by experts of various types in the field seem to overcome the issue of ]. For a large part it isn't ] in the sense of ] as he is more of an editor/compiler of existing content than an originator. Tons of web content relies on a single editor and making all single-editor content fall under ] seems extreme. 2nd, it is, for most of it's content, a more accessible version of the source, the ] which is a costly offline source. Even though, ] & ] says offline sources are acceptable, I think the policy of ] would prefer an online version or reference were the content the same (for example, give me a link to a magazine article, not just the page number). Thus, I would argue to include at least the relatively modern content as reliable. I add 2 caveats: 1. someone mentioned issues with pre-1300 content here and I didn't study up on that enough. 2. If an error is found, I suggest posting on the talk page of that article to indicate that it is not reliable FOR THAT ARTICLE, and ] since he's indicated he's the editor and willing to fix issues. >> ] <small>(] • ]) </small> 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


I added a discussion on the ] talk page in relation to this. I suggest a variation to the expert exemption for ] so it includes pages extensively used as references by 3rd parties as I think the 1st post in this change demonstrates. Link: ]. >> ] <small>(] • ]) </small> 15:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ExxonMobil climate research publication count ==
: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)
Article: ]
: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)
=== Summarization 1 ===


:Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
====Content 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)
<blockquote>ExxonMobil researchers have published dozens of academic papers on the effects of fossil fuel emissions and the associated risks to society; ExxonMobil claims more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and policy between 1980 and 2015.</blockquote>


: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)
====Sources 1====
::It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. ] (]) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. ] (]) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::], so starting one should be done for good reason. ''Jacobin'' having made ''and corrected'' an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. ] (] &#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)
:::You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on ]). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised ] and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. ] (]) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough ]. ] (]) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. ] (]) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. ] (]) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. ] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. ] (]) ] (]) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. ] (]) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Misplaced Pages looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, ''which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.''
::::::::And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Misplaced Pages giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, ''bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation.'' This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. ] (]) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. ] (]) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with Springee that, "{{tq|I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify.}}" Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. ] (]) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? ] (]) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. ] (]) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.<br>You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)
:::::::::::::::And this makes sense thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake}} — A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
This discussion has really dragged on, especially for something that was prompted by a reddit thread related to one sentence in what appears to be an opinion article. Are editors aware that we have whole articles on ], ] and ] etc? Have editors been following the deconstruction provided by social media users of corporate media coverage of the assault on Gaza? Are editors aware that the BBC employs Raffi Berg, a former CIA propaganda unit employee with Mossad connections, to head its Middle East desk and whose "entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel"? What about when an IDF embedded CNN reporter visited Rantisi Children’s Hospital with an IDF minder and swallowed the minder's claim about a roster of Hamas members watching over Israeli captives? The document was actually a calendar, with days of the week written in Arabic. Sorry to go off on a tangent but some perspective is needed and, in the scheme of things, a reddit thread is hardly cause for starting an RFC about reliability. ] (]) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:That was only one aspect. A much larger aspect was related to open questions from the last RfC and the questionable close that seemed to have moved it (correctly?) from "yellow" to "green". ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{cite news |title=Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business |first1=Neela |last1=Banerjee |first2=Lisa |last2=Song |first3=David |last3=Hasemyer |date=September 17, 2015 |url=http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business |agency=] |accessdate=January 25, 2016 |quote=In an email, Exxon spokesman Richard D. Keil said he would no longer respond to inquiries from InsideClimate News, and added, "ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in climate research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications."}}
* {{cite news |title=Exxon Mobil Accused of Misleading Public on Climate Change Risks |first1=Justin |last1=Gillis |first2=John |last2=Schwartz |date=October 30, 2015 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/science/exxon-mobil-accused-of-misleading-public-on-climate-change-risks.html |newspaper=] |accessdate=January 22, 2016 |quote=Company scientists have contributed to dozens of scientific papers that supported this view and explored the extent of the risks.}}


==RfC: Jacobin==
===Summarization 2===
<!-- ] 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)


====Content 2====


===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
<blockquote> Between 1980 and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and climate policy.</blockquote>
*'''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)
*: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)
*'''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)
====Sources 2====
*'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. &#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)
* (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 every 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.
* {{cite news |title=Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business |first1=Neela |last1=Banerjee |first2=Lisa |last2=Song |first3=David |last3=Hasemyer |date=September 17, 2015 |url=http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business |agency=] |accessdate=January 25, 2016 |quote='''In an email, Exxon spokesman Richard D. Keil said''' he would no longer respond to inquiries from InsideClimate News, and added, "ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in climate research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications."}} (emphasis added)
* {{cite web|last1=Cohen|first1=Ken|title=When it Come to Climate Change, Read the Documents|url=http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/21/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/|website=ExxonMobil Perspectives|publisher=ExxonMobil|accessdate=Jan 31, 2016}}


: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.
{{diff2|703120342|Related diff}}


: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)
Attempted resolution at article talk: ]


*'''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)
Additional related primary source:


*'''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)
* {{cite web |publisher=ExxonMobil |title=Exxon Mobil Contributed Peer Reviewed Publications |date=October 13, 2015 |accessdate=January 30, 2016 |url=http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf |first=Haroon |last=Kheshgi |ref=harv}} (Exxon compiled bibliography)


=== Discussion === ===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
*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.
Comment: When sources conflict or may appear to conflict, include the conflict. Secondary sources are preferred to primary. Independent sources are preferred to self-published sources. Respectfully request feedback on alternative sourcing and summarizations. Thank you. ] (]) 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:Is this an RS issue or a neutral point of view issue? Try this at ]. Regarding reliability, those fifty academic papers are considered ], so we defer to the secondary source assessment of them, especially given the conflict of interest. ] (]) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comment. I believe consensus at article talk supports the due weight of some kind of characterization of the magnitude of ExxonMobils' publication count, thanks. I believe this is at least in part a sourcing issue. The second alternative is sourced to ExxonMobil, directly to ExxonMobil's public relations website and indirectly through an e-mail from ExxonMobil excerpted in a secondary source. The first alternative includes '']''. The issue is not the content of the pubs as much as which sources are best for characterizing the ''count'' in Misplaced Pages. Comments please? Thanks again. ] (]) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The first alternative provides in-text attribution for possible bias for the portion of the claim sourced to ExxonMobil, while the second alternative states ExxonMobil's claim in Misplaced Pages voice. Request comments on the alternatives, but also advice on the appropriate venue for broadening community discussion of this issue. Apologies if this is not the best venue. Thank you. ] (]) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:I don't know why this discussion is here. No one on the article talk page raised a RS concern with regards to any of the sources in question as used. I'm not sure what HughD means by "consensus at the article talk supports the due weight...". All the sources seem reliable for what they are being used for. ] (]) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
*{{u|HughD}}, please notify the article talk page of this discussion.


Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
So far, two editors support deference to secondary sources over sources with a conflict of interest. Any other comments? Thank you. ] (]) 17:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Exxon publications are in part primary, and in part ]. They may be used as a noncontroversial record of Exxon's own positions and public statements, but are worthless for other purposes. ] (]) 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Sfarney}} Thank you for your comment. May I request a finer point on it, to clarify: '']'' credits Exxon with "dozens" of publications; Exxon claims 50; what should Misplaced Pages say? Thanks again. ] (]) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Note: the comments I've added below are relevant to this discussion. ] (]) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (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)
:I think everyone agrees that Exxon's list of publications can only be used as record of Exxon's statements/claims. What is unclear is how this RSN question is supposed to relate to the actual article in question or discussion on the article talk page which did not raise the question proposed here. Additionally, the participants in the related article page discussion were not notified of this RSN posting. I did post a general notice to the talk page (which should have been done by the editor who opened this question) but none of the involved editors have been contacted. Anyway, until the questions here are related to the talk page discussion I'm not sure how one can be used to drive the other. ] (]) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
*:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Exxon's assessment of their own contribution to a publication (4 Exxon of 5 co-authors; 1 of 6, a summer intern; no Exxon co-author, but using Exxon data, etc.) is subject to judgement. The classification of a journal as "peer reviewed" has no precise definition. With these opportunities for bias, a reliable secondary source must be used rather than primary or self-published sources for a statement of the publication count in Misplaced Pages voice. ] (]) 13:59, 9 February 2016 (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.
:::Err on th side of accuracy. Both statements can be summed so economically, why not include both statements as you have here? ] (]) 14:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your suggestion. Of course! Perfectly reasonable. Thanks again. ] (]) 23:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC) *::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)
: Allow me to offer more background here since we haven't presented the full scope what the concerns were on the talk page. First, assuming reliable sourcing, there seems no reason to change the original article text of "more than 50" to the less precise "dozens". To support the original "more than 50 the article used two sources; InsideClimate New, and Exxon themselves. Both sources agree on a published list (linked from ICN article ]) of over 50 publications. Thus no controversy with regards to the reliability of the 50+ claim. HughD would like to add a third citation, the NYT article mentioned above. The problem is the NYT article doesn't actually say 50+, it only says "dozens" and unlike the ICN and Exxon sources it does not contain a list of publications. So the NYT article, while not disputing, doesn't actually support the "more than 50" statement in the WP article per WP:VERIFY. So why change to a less precise statement after the fact just to include 3rd reference for a non-contested article fact?
: I would add that while Exxon would normally be considered a self published source, the Exxon claim agrees with an adversarial news source. More importantly, because we have a list of actual article names we don't need to trust Exxon's claim. We can verify them independently. Hence no one has to take Exxon at their word. As an example, if Dr John Doe says he published at least 25 papers we would treat that as a self published claim, not a proven fact. However, if Dr Doe provided a list of 25 papers and then we can verify those papers were in fact published. At that point support of the the claim is independent of Dr Doe since we can verify the claim ourselves.
: Anyway, so what we have is an original article text saying "more than 50" and HughD's preferred version saying "dozens". I think all involved would say, given reliable sourcing, the original, more precise statement should be retained. The original sourcing was more than sufficient to support the claim of "more than 50". There is no reason to change the article to the less precise "dozens" simply to include a NYT reference.
: Finally, since this discussion isn't about the reliability of the source but instead relates to the article, this discussion really should be conducted on the article talk page where other editors can be involved. ] (]) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::"we have a list of actual article names" As clearly explained above the list is from ], self-published, primary, strong possibility of bias, unreliable; please see comments from your colleagues above. ] (]) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::"To support the original "more than 50 the article used two sources; InsideClimate New, and Exxon themselves" As clearly explained above, ] direct quotes an e-mail from ] with in-text attribution; the 50 number is ''not'' in ICN voice. ] (])
::"adversarial news source" ] is not an adversary of ]. ] (]) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::# Your list if reasons to think Exxon's list is fake is not convincing. ICN, a source you used heavily in the article considers it genuine. Also, the NYT is using ICN as a primary source. If the list is fake how do we know the NYT's claim of "dozens" isn't based on the same list? If the list is false then it would undermine the credibility of ICN as a source for any of the article.
:::# If the ICN source wasn't reliable then why did you add it when you added the original "more than 50" to the article?]. Note that ICN doesn't challenge the claim. I would also add it appears you later added this list. Why back track now? Why add the list of article five days later if you felt it wasn't a reliable source or Exxon might be lying? ]
:::# ICN is adversarial with respect to Exxon. That doesn't mean dishonest but it does mean their intent is to expose wrong doing by the company. Why would they let a claim of 50 slide if they felt it was wrong or dishonest? Why would they republish the list if their intent wasn't to show that, yet Exxon really did do this research?
:::Again, why is this a RS discussion vs an article talk space discussion? ] (]) 21:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Exxon's own list of publications may or may not be be fake but it is certainly not a reliable source for stating the publication count in Misplaced Pages voice; in any case an iconic-ally reliable secondary source '']'' with a characterization of the publication count is available to our project; forgive me for repeating myself. We are here at the reliable sources noticeboard seeking patient voices from uninvolved colleagues regarding some fundamental issues of sourcing on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:10, 9 February 2016 (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)
Thus far three editors have expressed a preference for the first alternative summarization above, based on our project's preference for secondary over primary sources, and independent over self-published, and one expressed preference for the second alternative. Any other new voices? Thank you! ] (]) 08:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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)
*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== The Heritage Foundation ==
*'''Comment''' {{reply to|Springee}} I think it would be wise to attribute the statement to Exxon for a few reasons. First, the document you linked from ICN (don't know how reliable this source is) appears to be produced by Exxon / Haroon S. Kheshgi and when I open it in my browser it is titled "Haroon's CV." Second, half of the "publications" listed are not peer-reviewed scientific publications, but other documents of some kind. Third, this is a sensitive topic, and Exxon, a carbon energy giant, should be expected to have a complicated relationship with climate research. Attributing the statement is the safe, easy, and noncontroversial thing to do. I'm not sure why you would resist this so strongly. I'm also not sure why you would repeatedly declare that discussion should not be occurring on this board, since the reliability of the sources and their claim is at issue. -] (]) 00:13, 12 February 2016 (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)
::P.S. Congrats to {{ping|Springee|HughD}} the article ] that you and others have been editing is fascinating to read. -] (]) 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


:We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==Women Write About Comics: Reliable for editorial opinions/reviews of comics, et al?==
::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Is reliable as a source for to the ] article? One of the reasons why I ask is that when I look at , it's 14 pages long, with 10 writers on each page. Also, when clicking on the "About" link at the top of the site's pages, one of the sublinks is "Pitch to Us".
:::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)
I've also noticed, when doing a search here on WP, that that site is cited as a source in . The five passages in those articles in which it is cited are as follows. Each link directs to the passage in the Misplaced Pages article in question, and the type of info for which it is cited is presented as the text of the external link:


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)
#
#
#
#
#


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)
So is it reliable? ] (]) 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


: expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:This one's tricky, could go either way. I ran a search for "of Women Write about Comics" to see if any other materials cite them as an expert source. We just had a discussion about Dear Author, and my own take is that if an independently published source cites a web site as an ''example'' of something, that's not an expert endorsement, but if they ''rely on the site's opinion or conclusions'', then it is. I'd also say that something doesn't have to be RS for the endorsement to count. If bloggers consider someone an expert, they might well be an expert.
:: article "Representation Matters: Embracing Change in Comics" by Caitlin Rosberg: {{green|"As Megan Byrd of ''Women Write About Comics'' points out, people are voting with their dollars in complicated ways, demanding to see the kinds of stories they want..."}} Endorsement.
:: article about playlists by Tom Speelman: {{green|"...the best comics-affiliated playlist is the soundtrack to IDW’s Transformers: More Than Meets the Eye. It adds an extra dimension to what’s already the best sci-fi comic you’re not reading (as decreed by Lindsay Ellis, Hannibal Tabu, Rachel Stevens of ''Women Write About Comics'' and, um, me)."}} Endorsement on lightweight topic
::A person in a Latinas in Comics panel by ''Women Write About Comics''. Endorsement from personal site.
::''Women Write about Comics'' Christa Seely interviewed by Endorsement from non-RS
:: "Batgirl Creative Team Apologizes for Transphobic Villain" by Charles Pulliam Moore: {{blue|"Many fans of the series interpreted Dagger Type’s outing as being transphobic ... 'Murderous or deceptive men disguising themselves as women has been a trope in fiction long before the creation of cinema, and it’s shown up too many times to list or even count,’ wrote Rachel Stevens of Women Write About Comics. 'The trope isn’t even subverted here, which is the hell of it.'"}} I'd call this an example.
:I'd say that that particular article in WWaC is sufficient for the relatively lightweight claim that the series contains sexual, racial and aesthetic diversity. If you want to play it safe, change "is distinguished by" to "contains." I also feel pretty confident about the observation that it breaks stereotypes. I've read some of the staff bios and writer lists some but not a lot of publications on her LinkedIn page, so I don't know if we'd rely on her for complex literary analysis. ] (]) 03:28, 7 February 2016 (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)
::I don't know if "contains" would make the passage relevant for inclusion in the ''Saga'' article's Lead, so I changed it to "lauded for". Do you think that's acceptable? ] (]) 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::It sounds like it would do better in critical reception. I feel pretty good about "lauded for" but when I stop and think about it, "contains" is probably best. "Lauded for" suggests that more than one set of critics took notice. I wouldn't contest either one personally, though. There's wiggle room. ] (]) 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::::If we merely note that it "contains" or depicts such things, I don't think it would merit inclusion in the article's Lede, where it is currently located, so I changed it to "It has also been noted for...." ] (]) 06:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


'''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Miss World as a source for specific biographical information for Miss World contestants ==


:Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Source: . &nbsp; For information about the publisher, identifies the publisher as "Miss World Limited (registered in Jersey under Company no. 17598) ('MWL')".


'''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Article (deleted): ]


'''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)
Content supported by the source:


* '''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)
# Born: <blockquote>{{birth based on age as of date |20|2007|noage=1}}</blockquote>
# Age, which varies over the years, and assumes that the person is alive: <blockquote>{{birth based on age as of date |20|2007}}</blockquote>
# Birthplace: <blockquote>Kutarsi</blockquote>
# The sentence: <blockquote>She studied at the American University for Humanities.</blockquote>
RSN request submitted by ] (]) 14:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


=== RFC: The Heritage Foundation ===
:Per ] the Miss World site is reliable for information about the Miss World pageant. Please provide a link to the Misplaced Pages page upon which this site is being used or proposed for use as a source. Because the information is about a living person, it must be subject to extra scrutiny. ] ] (]) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
::(1)&nbsp;I have reviewed the issue of being self-published at WP:IRS, and I am unable to verify that Miss World falls into the category of a self-published source, anymore than nbcnews.com would be considered self-published.&nbsp; A Google search on shows an active legal presence.&nbsp; (2)&nbsp;As for the link to the article, I have provided this.&nbsp; For non-admins, mirrors exist.&nbsp; (3)&nbsp;I've reviewed WP:BLP.&nbsp; ] (]) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}}
:::I've thought about it, and while I'd consider the Miss World website reliable for things like Ms. Nemsitsveridze's age and the other information given here, what was bothering me is that I'm still not convinced that she meets ]. That, however, is a separate issue. ] (]) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 1: ]'''
== JewsNews.com ==
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
* '''Option 5: ]'''
==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ====
* <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s> '''lean Option 3, possibly 4, no blacklist''': Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
*:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I made this RFC mostly because folks had already started sending bolded votes. with some time, and red-tailed hawks suggestions, I think it makes sense to not blacklist heritage foundation... there are technical ways to reduce the risk.
*::Could also be useful to see if there is a way to send folks to the internet archvive version of the heritage foudnation urls instead of the actual urls if there is risk. ] (]) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist|
<nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
</nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this considered a reliable source of news? Its seems pretty horrifically biased to me. - ] (]) 15:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''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)
:Hey there Jack. Per ], it is okay to use biased sources in some cases. What's it being used for? Some parts of Misplaced Pages, like the Israeli-Palestine conflict, are under discretionary sanctions and benefit from extra scrutiny. ] (]) 23:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
* I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
:I went to check out this specific site and there doesn't seem to be one. Do you mean realjewnews.com or jewsnews.newsvine.com? EDIT: Holy ''crud''; realjewnews looks ] on its face. The Newsvine site looks ], so it depends on the specific author, the specific credentials and the specific context. I can't tell more without seeing the exact page in question. ] (]) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above.
:http://www.jewsnews.co.il/? Okay, yes I see what you're talking about. Their does not list any staff credentials. The author of is not named. It just says "admin" and the is blank. On the surface, I'd say Jewsnews.co.il is not reliable. ] (]) 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories.
::Jewsnews.com is not a reliable source. The outlet started out as a facebook page and developed into a website with no fact checking or editorial board. ] (]) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (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)
:::No way is that site reliable. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 19:40, 11 February 2016 (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)
== ] ==
*'''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)
uses sources directly linked to the ULC and published by the ULC.
*'''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)


=== Discussion: The Heritage Foundation ===
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/fashion/weddings/12FIELD.html?_r=0 specifically states the famous people are claimed by the ULC, not they are ministers as a statement of fact
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)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/fashion/weddings/12FIELD.html?_r=0 has Glenn Beck making an apparent joke about the ULC - as he is a LDS member, I think this must be interpreted in a manner ''other'' than as seriously being connected to the ULC
: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 Modesto messiah: The famous mail-order minister" published by the ULC is used as a source for famous persons being members and ministers. In the case at hand, is this SPS a reliable source for claims about membership and ordinations?


: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)
http://www.presstelegram.com/20131009/how-we-totally-screwed-up-a-marriage-with-a-wee-error mentions the ULC claims - then notes the ministership was not valid for the writer (anecdote)
::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)


* 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)
http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.ca/2009_07_02_archive.html is a blog - which also attributes the "famous names" to the ... ULC


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)
And on and on and on. (like "bustle.com" etc.)


:@] 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)
Labeling any person as having a specific "religion" is problematic in itself, but using any SPS to label a person as an "ordained minister" of that religion should be at least as problematic. The question is -- are there any actual "reliable sources" in that entire "list" that the famous people are or were "ordained ministers" in that church? Many thanks. ] (]) 19:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:Can you list the articles or (preferably) add the difs showing where these sources were used? Is it BLP infoboxes? ] (]) 19:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC) ::Further pardon requested for the ping, as it turns out the question was probably unnecessary ] (]) 03:45, 14 January 2025 (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)
::The sources above are used as cites in the list. The list article includes over eighty persons - including Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Doris Day, James Stewart, Ringo Starr, and Mae West. All of whom are only mentioned in ... sources published by the ULC, and where there are zero outside references (there are about five who "performed marriages" but it is likely that the "ordination" had no effect on the paperwork at all). In many cases, the person self-identified with a church other than the ULC, so it is possible that the ULC manufactured some of the "ordinations" and possible that pranksters obtained "ordinations" in the names of famous persons. The ULC did not require ''any'' actual identification in order to for a person to be "ordained." Any editor could get "Jimbo Wales" placed onto the list for a few dollars <g>. And yes - there were a few living persons on the "list". Thanks. ] (]) 19:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. ] (]) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The second two look like blogs on the surface, and the Press Telegram site just mentions the matter in passing. That would usually be enough for me, but if the accuracy of the content is in dispute, I'd say something more solid is needed. As for the NY Times articles, they're reliable, but it sounds like you're saying that they don't flat-out ''say'' "so-and-so is a ULC minister"; they say something a little to the side like "ULC says that so-and-so is a minister." That's not an RS issue. It's a "how much editorializing is appropriate?" issue. My take on that is, when in doubt, just quote the source directly and let the readers make their own interpretation. ] (]) 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::That's exactly what deprecated (to a stronger degree) and GUnRel designation mean. ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Where the source is self-published by the ULC, and no one states that they got the information about any famous people other than from that organization, and the categorization of anyone by religion is required to be strongly sourced, the sourced used are not "reliable sources" for the purposes to which they are being used. And since this is a "list" article, '''there is no text in the list wherein to make clear that the source is the organization itself''' <g>. ] (]) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::Actually, I should ping @], since they's the one above who initially proposed the opening statement. ] (]) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::EDIT: The Press Telegram source is an editorial, not a blog, so it's covered by WP:PRIMARY. I'd say that since the matter is in doubt and requires high standards, the information should be supported by something more direct. ] (]) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Holy heck, ! Will be a bit harder to search within, though, since it's a photo scan without any embedded text. ] (]) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be taken to ] on ] grounds. There are millions of ULC ministers; I am one myself, and I know dozens of others. There is no barrier to entry, of any kind whatsoever. You simply ask to be ordained and you get ordained. So, this is exactly the same as having an article called "People with blue pants" or "Fans of Star Trek", or "Individuals who don't like curry". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Sorry for causing so many notifications, but it looks like the Archive's search function OCRs the scan. It looks like Chapter 4 is a case study based on Heritage. I'll take a look. ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tqb|general consensus that they are an advocacy think tank rather than an academic research think tank (Weaver & McGann, 2000)}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received at least $3.5 million dollars in contributions from the industries with the most to gain from the anti-E.D.A. campaign—pharmaceutical, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco manufacturers. (para. 1)|source=Ralph Nader op-ed quoted within the book as representative of "the majority view"}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Davis and Owen (1998) conclude that new media outlets present the "research" or "facts" disseminated by conservative think tanks knowing that it is thinly veiled ideology because such materials provide inexpensive entertainment which means greater profits than producing their own}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Berliner and Biddle (1995) argue that the public perception that education is in crisis is manufactured by conservative think tanks and others who deliberately misuse and misrepresent research and who use the "compliant" press (p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation.}}(p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation. Berliner and Biddle describe}}{{pb}}I'll stop here, since I've dived into too many sources already, but the book goes on to talk about how Heritage's marketing funds made it cheap for newrooms to pander. The book also mentioned some pretty interesting stuff from Soley's book ''The News Shapers'', which I also checked out:{{pb}}{{collapse|2=Quotes on explicated mislabeling of Republican politicians as "scholar"s and other dressings-up|<br>{{tqb|The Heritage Foundation, the AEI, the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and others only pretend to do research.}}<br>{{tqb|Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, has not published one research article in any of the 1,000 social science journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index in the last 25 years. Burton Yale Pines, the Heritage Foundation's "director of research," has never published one scholarly article. Neither has Dr. Leon Aron, Heritage's "Salvatori Fellow in Soviet Studies." In fact, between 1976 and 1980 the closest that any "scholar" at the Heritage Foundation came to publishing an academic article was a letter to a journal editor.{{pb}}The credentials of "scholars" at the other conservative think tanks aren't any stronger. To mask the academic anemia of their "scholars," conservative think tanks have created their own "research" journals. The journals bear names that closely resemble those of legitimate journals and are used to inflate their spokespersons' credentials. The Heritage Foundation publishes Policy Review, not the highly regarded Policy Sciences.}}{{pb}}{{tqb|"Advocacy tank" is a more appropriate description of the Heritage Foundation than "think tank," according to Time reporter Amy Wilentz (1986). Among beltway think tanks, Heritage associates have the weakest scholarly credentials, but are nonetheless the capital city's most active policy advocates. Of its 34 permanent "fellows, scholars, and staff" members, only 7 have Ph.D.'s. None are renowned scholars in their fields. The biggest names at this think tank are not thinkers, but former Republican officials. Its "distinguished scholar" for foreign policy studies is Charles M. Lichenstein, a Nixon appointee who also served under Jeane Kirkpatrick at the United Nations. Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese became a "distinguished fellow" at Heritage after his resignation in 1988, and Congressman Jack Kemp briefly went to the Heritage Foundation after losing his 1988 bid for the Republican presidential nomination (Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1988, 38, and September 14, 1988, 36)}}}}
::::There's an entire subchapter on Heritage. ] (]) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::From what I see I definitely think at least GUNREL for specifically (US) elections (maybe post-2016), but that seems to be the focus of these problems. I think more variety of political topics would be helpful to say for politics in general ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::After reading Aaron Liu's recent-er comments I see I'll have to update my opinion — there clearly is more political stuff to look into. I'll be a bit busier/quieter in the next few days but shall try to get my hands on those books unless someone else summarizes them first ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* This discussion is now up to three quarters of the size of the last Telegraph RFC, which was greatly bloated. I've already preemptively archived four over sections to try and keep the size of the board down. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:it's decision time ] (]) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::But it feels like the useful part just started! ] (]) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::This isn't meant to stop any discussion, just a heads up that it might be moved. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Reference Subsection ===
== "electronic harassment" term coined by Roger Tolces but he is not a RS? ==
{{reflist-talk}}


== Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) ==
I am attempting to contribute to the controversial Electronic Harassment article and battling with the troubling fact that the person who coined the phrase has not been reported in mainstream media or anywhere else that I can find that would be regarded as a RS. However, there are many mainstream articles that use the term and as far as I can see they are accepting his definition of the term. The term has gone up there, but not the coiner of the term. He has popularized that term in radio interviews many on Coast to Coast AM, which I expect would not be regarded as a RS as they talk about conspiracy theories. He has been a guest 67 times since 2003. He has a website in which he has clearly defined the term in ways that do not involve a conspiracy theory. He only talks about "harassers" but does not speculate or theorize about who. It has however not been RS reviewed anywhere that I can find. His intro at Coast to Coast AM: "Biography: Roger Tolces is a Los Angeles private investigator who specializes in electronic countermeasures. In the past thirty years he has swept over 2500 locations for bugs and wiretaps. In recent years his business has included helping victims of electronic harassment and mind control. Electronic harassment takes place if someone uses any electronic device to aid them in invading your person or property for the purpose of gathering information illegally, or for the purpose of causing physical harm. Mr. Tolces uses over $100,000 of high-tech equipment to try to identify the sources of electronic harassment.
Website:bugsweeps.com ." So, is there some way that I can put his definition of the term into the "electronic harassment" article? It seems the article gets a bit lost without the original definition of the term.] (]) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:Probably not. Sorry. ] (]) 18:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:The term is found in print before 1981. NYT first used the term in 1994, and not in any sense related to Mr. Tolces. ] (]) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::Where in print is the term found before 1981, thanks?] (]) 00:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::Try this from 1984: "The potential for hostile intrusion is not merely governmental. High-tech vigilante groups or apolitical hackers may also avail themselves of opportunities for electronic harassment."<ref>{{Cite book|title = The electronic scholar: a guide to academic microcomputing|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=cvwSAAAAMAAJ&q=%22electronic+harassment%22&dq=%22electronic+harassment%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX5Lie--vKAhVW7GMKHceED44Q6AEI4AEwJQ|publisher = Ablex Pub. Corp.|date = 1984-11-01|isbn = 9780893912987|language = en|page=159|first = John Shelton|last = Lawrence}}</ref> (This text was manually transcribed. Please review carefully.) For future questions of this type, you can use Google books and sort on date. ] (]) 00:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::There is also a that may be more on the lines of QuWave issues.
{{reflist talk}}


*] (PCORI)
==Donetsk People's Republic article==
Guys, we have problem here, can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. '''DPR Poll Support''' discussion.


Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]?
== E-mail as a source? ==


I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
I need some advice - I'm working with an editor on the article for ]. The article is a little light on sources. Most of the sources either didn't mention the film (were just used to verify data in the article) or they were routine notifications of events, primary sources, or were problematic in one way or another.


{{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
The strongest thing that the film has going for it was that it was displayed at the ], which is quite an achievement. It's supposed to be part of their permanent collections, but at this point in time the only thing that can be verified was that it was displayed. If it is part of their permanent collections then this by itself would likely be enough to assert notability under criteria 4 of ] "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." The museum isn't an archive, but it could argued to be its equivalent.


Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
The film is still on display and hasn't been cataloged at this point in time from what I can see from the MoL's website, so here's my question: what can we do to verify that it's part of their collection? If the MoL was willing to send an email to ] verifying that it was part of the permanent collections, would that suffice? Or could the museum just e-mail an admin and verify it that way? Or would a tweet suffice, as long as it came from an official account? The main thing I'm worried about is others being able to verify the source, as an OTRS ticket or tweet would be something that would be a bit more firm than if I were to get an e-mail from the MoL.


*]
Pinging {{ping|Amanda Paul}} since it's her draft article. ]] 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
*]
*It's just tricky since this is very close to passing but without a more firm way to establish notability I'm not sure that this could do more than just serve as a subsection in the main article for Atherton. ]] 10:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
*]
**Wouldn't a tweet pass ]? I'd say no to the email, but a tweet should still count as "published" and would be readily accessible to anyone who wanted to verify the information. People have cited tweets before (not me, since I mostly write about early 20th century cinema, but others).&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 10:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
***Per ] tweets from official sources are acceptable (so long as they are not used for info on a living person, which doesn't seem to be the case here). Emails usually are not suitable sources for articles, but they can be useful on talk pages. For example, I once messaged an author to confirm that he had personally written the material in question rather than using an intern. ] (]) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
****Thanks {{ping|Tokyogirl79}}. The film is on display in a gallery which is only for recently acquired items into the collection or ones already there called Show Space ]
The museum have tweeted about its inclusion here https://twitter.com/MuseumofLondon/status/695257396134989824?lang=en ] (]) 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
== ] ==
*https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue
I support using this source for this claim.


Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Seems at first sight to be a tertiary source for information and its website states clearly:
::''No reliance should be made by a user of the material, information or publication accessed via this site.''


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


== Law&Crime Network ==
Opinions please? Should the biography seek actual secondary sources rather than rely so extensively on the ADB as the main source for details? ] (]) 13:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:That looks like boilerplate legalese. The ADB is a project of ] and appears to be structured like a traditional academic encyclopedia: "The Australian Dictionary of Biography is a national, co-operative enterprise, founded and maintained by the ANU. The project is headed by the General Editor, based at the ANU, and an Editorial Board, which discusses matters of general policy. ADB Working Parties draw up lists of individuals selected for inclusion in the ADB and give advice on appropriate authors. The General Editor then commissions the entries. Section editors, drawn from each of the Working Parties, and Editorial Fellows, who are eminent academic historians, read and review all entries." Seems like a perfectly appropriate RS to use. Of course, whenever possible we should try to avoid relying on a single source, even a high quality source. ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


:Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::It still appears to be a ''non-secondary'' source alas. The extensive use looks more like editors not actually ''looking'' for secondary sources when there is a catch-all available. More like the EB which is also "reviewed" and is also a tertiary source, and which is deprecated for use as a current RS on Misplaced Pages, no? ] (]) 14:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::Since {{rspe|YouTube|]}} is a platform, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the reliability of the video's creator. In this case, '']'' is a television network and news website that has , which means that the organization's YouTube videos are not ] and not automatically considered ] solely for being published on YouTube. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, imho you read too much in that policy formulation. Nor we do we have any mandate of how extensive a subject needs to be researched by editor as long as the information they add is reliable and sourced. You are of course free to overhaul such an article and replace or augment the reliable tertiary sources by reliable secondary sources (of somewhat equal reputation/quality).--] (]) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here with an overemphasis of the formal difference between secondary and tertiary sources. There is usually no issue with using high quality tertiary sources (like reputable special subject encyclopedias) and even more so a high quality/highly reputable tertiary source is usually a better choice than a low quality secondary source.
:Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Catholic-Hierarchy.org ==
:Keeping that in mind it is usually unproblematic to use various national biographies as sources as long as they have a good reputation in general. That is at least the default assumption, unless a specific national biography is known be unreliable/has a bad reputation or a specific article is contradicted by reputable secondary sources.--] (]) 14:26, 10 February 2016 (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.
:It is tertiary, so it can be used, presumptively, for some things, just not anything described at ] policy, and not to established ]; both of those require secondary sources. I say "presumptively", because the publisher being good-seeming doesn't tell us what the editorial process is, and we should look into that, to ensure they a) do not take paid submissions the way all the "who's who" publications do, and b) do some research, and don't simply take subject-submitted information at face value. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::I don't quite follow that, if anything a reputable tertiary source suggests dealing with some subject suggests ''more'' than just a reputable secondary source secondary source dealing with that subject. So in terms of notability tertiary sources are in doubt a better indicator. As far as ] is concerned, that hasn't really anything to do with tertiary, secondary or even primary sources, but it about how you combine sources and what you shouldn't do in that case. That applies however whether the source is tertiary or secondary (or even primary).
::Other than you seem to be arguing more reputable versus less reputable and high quality versus low quality (like no paid submission). That assessment is very important, but it holds for tertiary and secondary sources alike.--] (]) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (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)
== bodybuilding.com ==


: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)
According to link search ] is linked to 350 times. Is it a reliable source? Are we being spammed by "an American online retailer based in Boise, Idaho, specializing in dietary supplements, sports supplements, and bodybuilding supplements"? --] (]) 15:29, 10 February 2016 (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)


== RE: Lambgoat ==
:At least some of these are nonproblematic. For example, it's linked in ] because Eason is one of their spokespeople. Things are less clear on ], however. Also, is used to support the assertion that Dana Brooke is a fitness competitor. The page is about someone else and does not mention Brooke.
:Regardless of whether this site is reliable overall, it has been used improperly in at least these two cases. However, it's also been used for some very lightweight claims, like the fact that ], though there's probably a better source available. I'd case-by-case this one. ] (]) 15:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::Agree with Darkfrog24, this would have to be taken case-by-case. IMO, generally it can be used as a reliable source for uncontroversial information. Not to sound like an ambassador for the company, but Bodybuilding.com does have experts writing informative articles and a team of . ] (]) 03:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


just got ], but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an , about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|MFTP Dan}}.--] (] &#124; ]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
==Banglapedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica and YouTube==
My question is a general question regarding three different mediums of sources. As the section heading implies, how is the use of Banglapedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica and YouTube videos as ]? Banglapedia seams like an exact replica of Misplaced Pages pages, although they claim that they have paid scholars working for them but no one knows the whereabouts of those scholars or their notability. Whenever a piece of content on a ] is lacking sources and a push comes for the sources, they shove Banglapedia in, because you are sure to find that content in there since its almost the exact replica. Same question for Encyclopedia Brittanica. As for videos, how is it to use videos as a source in general and also specifically from YouTube and what if it's a video from a major news channel. ] | ] | 15:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:That would be covered by ]. If you know that they're citing Misplaced Pages, it's cut and dried. If you merely suspect it, that's another matter. I checked one random article in Banglapedia, , and they list their bibliography. It looks legit to me. Can you name a particular case in which you believe the information is suspect?
:Britannica is covered by ]. It is RS.
:Youtube videos can be reliable sources because they have been published on YouTube, though ] applies. Basically, if it's an expert speaking, it's reliable. If it's just some random person with a video blog, then it's not. ] (]) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
*If it's a YT video from a known expert, it {{em|might}} be usable, under the rules for ], if it's material that is within the realm of their expertise. If it's controversial (e.g. polemic in nature) it can probably not be used (per ]), except as a self-source (per ]) for what a notable speaker's position on something is (with a strong relevance connection between the speaker and the topic of our article), but not for any alleged facts they're presenting. UNDUE might be satisfied if the view was presented as a directly attributed opinion and counterbalanced by other sources. Such a source cannot be used at all for ] claims, nor to help establish ] (both of which require secondary sources). Basically, it is no different from a ]; it lacks much reliability (is a low-quality source), because it does not have a reputable publisher, per ] (YouTube is not the publisher for RS purposes, since they exercise no editorial control over content, other then removing flagged porn, etc.; they are simply the medium, the carrier, as Google Books is for what they've scanned). The above (including the OP) is confusing the medium with the message. Not only does which site the expert is using to self-publish not matter, the fact that Banglapedia is using ] is also irrelevant, just as many reliable online news sources are published with WordPress and various other platforms that were developed for individual blogging. What matters is the real-world reputability of the publisher, the reputability of the writer, the editorial control exercised over the latter by the former, the nature of the material in question (original thought, or AEIS of previously published work?), and the relevance of the material and the author's and their sources' expertise/reputability to the context (i.e. a physics publication is not a reliable source for anthropology material, and a literary criticism source isn't one for sports news, or vice versa). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


:I have to say, I have ''never'' seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== "Pegida...is a far right wing neo-nazi movement" ==
::I found from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--] (] &#124; ]) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, ] where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I guess I should ask, what is it about the source that makes it a last resort, in your opinion? ] (] &#124; ]) 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's old, and has a staff but is less-than-crystal clear who they are. If it wasn't for the fact that modern publications which are clearly reliable cite them as a reliable account, they wouldn't be a site I used. I don't remember who it specifically was that spread the word, but when ] left ] for the second time three years ago, I recall Lambgoat breaking the story and multiple reputable publications following in their wake. ] <sup> ] </sup> 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Okay. The muddy transparency is also why I'd put them as a lower quality source, too.--] (] &#124; ]) 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per ]. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. ] (]) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::They do have an editor, per the , but the role is not explained.--] (] &#124; ]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Does this source even exists? ==
1. Sources: , , , , , .


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)
2. Article: ].
3. Content: Lead sentence of the Pegida article. <blockquote>'''Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West''' ({{lang-de|Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes}}), abbreviated '''PEGIDA''' or '''Pegida''', is a ] ] movement...</blockquote>


: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)
My take on it: except for the Maz article, none of the sources refer to Pegida as "neo-nazi". While many of them discuss neo-nazis at Pegida events (which obviously should be covered in the Misplaced Pages article), none of them refer to Pegida ''itself'' as neo-nazi.
: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)
#Times of Israel: "the Islamophobic Pegida movement"..."Anti-Islamic group Pegida"
::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)
#Guardian 1: "Far-right group Pegida"..."a nascent anti-foreigner campaign group"
::@] Google scholar does not mentions any book of ] with that name. ] (]) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
#DW: "the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement"..."the anti-Islamic PEGIDA movement"
: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
#Guardian 2: "far-right Pegida group"..."a far-right group based in Germany"
:It may be a physical source that is only available as a printed book.
#RTE: "Anti-Islamisation group Pegida"...
: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)


== Theyeargrungebroke.com ==
The Maz article is an interview with an activist for , and really isn't suitable at all for stating these things in Misplaced Pages's voice.


I found the website theyeargrungebroke.com being used on the article ], and an insource search reveals that the site is being used on a few other articles. My issue with this site is that it does not appear to be a reliable source, the "about" page () gives no information about who these people are, and their reviews do not feature credited authors (for examples, see and ). To me, this is a pretty clear-cut ] source, but I do want to start discussion to see if anyone differs from my assessment, or if they agree this source should not be used. ] (]) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I would also argue that the sources don't even support the "far right" ] - of these sources, only ''The Guardian'' appears to use this label. ] (]) 01:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


:They're a 90s tribute band that also publishes reviews. I can't find any details of who is in the band or who writes the reviews. Unless I'm missing something I can't find anything to show they are a reliable source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Guardian and ToI are generally reliable. I think this might really be an original research or NPOV issue.
:Guardian 1 quotes other parties that refer to these people as Nazis: ''Pegida supporters, seen here in Dresden, include neo-Nazi elements as well as ordinary Germans with concerns about immigration. Photograph: Jens Meyer/AP'' and ''Its members have been dubbed the “pinstriped Nazis”'' and ''Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element'' Corroboration:
:Guardian 2: ''Étienne Desplanques, from the Calais public prosecutor’s office, justified the arrests saying the demonstrators were “ultra right, of a neo-Nazi type”.''
:Times of Israel actually says they're neo-Nazis in the title of that article. It also quotes Desplanques: ''“Some groups began to circulate in the city center, mainly far-right, neo-Nazi types,” regional official Etienne Desplanques told AFP.''
:If your question here was whether the content has to be excluded on verifiability grounds the answer is that it doesn't. The claim is reasonably solid with these three sources alone, though if you want to tighten it up the lede so it says they are "right-wing organization allied with the neo-Nazi movement" or "right-wing organization that has been characterized as a neo-Nazi movement," that would probably be fine. If you want me to look into DQ and Mez for reliability I guess I can, but if your question was "Was the editor who added this reading too much into things?" or "Is this biased?" you might find a more direct answer at ] or ]. ] (]) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::But neither the Guardian nor the Times of Israel refer to Pegida as neo-nazis in the voice of their respective papers. ] (]) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Good question. Wrong noticeboard. You need to go here: ] Your question is not about whether the sources are reliable but about whether they are being interpreted properly.
:::For my part, I'd say that "Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element" (G) and "Neo-Nazi anti-Islam protesters arrested at Calais rally" (ToI) support the claim to the point where, if I didn't want it in the article, I'd either show a source actively stating that they are not Nazis or show enough other sources to prove that the majority of articles that mention Pegida do not call them Nazis. ] (]) 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::You're right, thank you - I'll take it to ORN. However, what about the "Maz" activist interview? That one does explicitly say "Pegida is a neo-Nazi event". Or is that a NPOVN (undue weight) question? ] (]) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I don't speak German, but Maz, or ], looks like a garden-variety newspaper, so it is sage to assume that it is reliable. Per ] being in German does not disqualify it for use in the English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::I'm not doubting that this activist said these things, I just think she's an extremely biased source with not nearly enough authority on the subject to take her at her word. Or is that yet another thing that doesn't belong at RSN? ] (]) 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I can't tell what she's saying myself, but this is covered under ]. It is sometimes okay to use biased sources. If the activist is relevant enough, it might be appropriate to say, "So-and-so has described Pegida as a neo-Nazi movement," but probably not in the lede. ] (]) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:News media are a poor source for determining the political orientation of groups. Their main value is that they tell us what happened this morning. It is inadvisable to use their descriptions unless better sources are not available. Having said that, the sources do not say they are neo-nazi, just that they tolerate open neo-nazis. But they are clearly part of the "far right," the political family that includes the BNP, EDL, English Democrats, National Front, neo-nazis and other groups. It is characteristic of the British far right that groups are constantly being formed and dissolved and try to re-invent themselves as moderate. The EDL denounced the BNP, the BNP denounced the National Front. But they are the same people and articles should reflect that. Islamophobic is accurate too but it goes far into the mainstream. Donald Trump for example expresses views that could be seen as Islamophobic. ] (]) 03:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


== Sources for Chapel Hart ==
The description of the AFD as (far) right-wing as in right of the center right fairly common in the German press and a common assessment by scholars in sociology and politics (in interviews). I understand the skepticism towards quick superficial labeling in the press. Maybe a better a approach is having the lead without any such label and moving that information in separate section dealing with the political placement of the movement, where the assessments of reputable news publications can be given but possible augmented by German publications of which there are plenty and more important scholarly sources (which do exist in German at least). Note that the German article uses currently "right wing populist" ("Rechtpopulismus") as label and it has a section with scholarly assessments, that could be utilized for the English article.--] (]) 05:22, 11 February 2016 (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.
*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)
Sources appear to support "right-wing anti-Islamization group" but the "neo-Nazi" epithet appears to be in the nature of "editorial opinion" rather than a statement of fact. The pejorative term is "contentious" thus the fact one source states it as an opinion is insufficient for Misplaced Pages to state it as a fact. ] (]) 14:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:They should still be included in some form per ] and ]. ] (]) 21:42, 11 February 2016 (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 ==
:The more I think about this, the more I come to feel that the article should have a sub-section specifically discussing allegations of Naziism where all these statements can be attributed rather than addressing the matter in the lede. ] (]) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::This makes sense, especially as it is clear that at least some, including law enforcement officials, believe that Pegida has at least some element which is neo-Nazi. Also, the sources (which have now been removed) which were added by an IP user, use "far right" and not "right wing populist". ] (]) 21:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::And "far right wing" is both redundant and ungrammatical. It's "far-right" (which is PoV, unless multiple RS independent of the dispute use that label; see ]) or "right-wing" (compound adjectives are hyphenated). "Far right wing" (or, grammatically, "far-right-wing") is just a step less histrionic than writing "super-mega-ultra-right-wing"; it's unencyclopedic in tone even if it weren't biased. As for the RS matter, while we can used biased sources sometimes, our use of them has to be balanced by other views, especially if the biased one does not represent a clear consensus among the RS; see ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:39, 13 February 2016 (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.
== Vents Magazine ==


] 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 ].
I'm posting here about Vents Magazine. Offhand it does seem like it's used on Misplaced Pages, but I can't really verify its editorial oversight or any of the other material. The doesn't really give off the greatest impression in places, given that they have somewhat broken html in places like "" that doesn't go to any contact form and stuff like "Rafa". The site ''is'' mentioned in a few places like , but I'm not finding a huge-huge amount out there to where I'd be comfortable with this given the situation.


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)
What I'd need to know is if could be considered usable as a reliable source to establish notability. The reason for this is that there have been issues with the article for ], one of the most major of which is a pretty serious lack of notability. If these are usable these would be the first in-depth sources for the article, as everything else is trivial, primary, or unreliable for various reasons. (IE, self-published sources, etc. One is a review via a website that accepts payment for "expedited" reviews and refuses to give anything less than 4 stars.)


: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)
If anyone wants to help out with the article as a whole, feel free. I'm aware that it can sometimes be difficult to find sourcing for other countries like Nigeria, but there seems to be a pretty big lack of sourcing overall at times. This one looks like it can go either way. There have been some attempts to get the article creator to help find better sources, but they don't appear to be entirely helpful in that aspect and they have tried to insist that some of the dodgy sourcing is usable, despite attempts to explain why the sourcing is problematic. ]] 05:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- ] (] &#124; ]) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


I'd still be careful using Allmovie as a source for things such as ]. Even if they're archived links from pre 2024 as not only did they have the wrong DOB for some actors, but they've never provided any information on how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Prior to 2024, the actor bios had a fact sheet at the bottom. Now if you can find some archived pages of actor bios from TVguide.com, it had the same stuff listed under "fast facts". Which makes it look like Allmovie was web scraping that information from other sites even back then. ] (]) 04:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:No reason to use per stating that it is not a major corporation but started ("We are a free online music and entertainment magazine born in March 24th, 2009. Created by music lover Rafael Jóvine, who wanted to create a magazine to spread the word of those bands that are so often not received by other types of magazines) in order to promote some bands, and hosted by "Wordpress". IMO, fails ]. ] (]) 14:07, 11 February 2016 (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: ]. 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.
== Jerusalem: A City and Its Future ] ==
:Also, ''never'' use a site like this to cite a living person's date of birth. I've come across far too many examples of incorrect DOBs being added to Misplaced Pages bios, then subsequently repeated by an ostensibly reliable source, then later when someone tries to correct the info here other editors keep changing it back to the wrong date with a citation to the incorrect source. Things like this have real consequences for real people in the real world. We need to do better, and it's fine not to have a date when we don't know what the ''correct'' date is. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== MintPress News ==
At the ] section there is a quote attributed to ] (Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Chief Rabbi of Israel, so not a light weight as far as being a scholar, etc.) He wrote that the tradition to pray at the Western Wall is only about 300 years old. <ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ru7dqV3a-LUC&pg=PA300&dq=%22benjamin+of+tudela%22+western+wall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2UaZUdOYK86c0wXRk4EQ&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22benjamin%20of%20tudela%22%20western%20wall&f=false|title=pg. 300|publisher=}}</ref>


] 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)
The problem is that this is factually incorrect. See the very same article:
: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)
] and some highlights:
: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)
# The ], a historical document written in 1050 CE, distinctly describes the Western Wall as a place of prayer for the Jews.<ref>
: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)
{{cite web
::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)
| url= http://english.thekotel.org/content.asp?back=1&id=48
:::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)
| title= The Western Wall Plaza
::::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)
| accessdate =October 19, 2008
:::::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)
| publisher = Western Wall Heritage Foundation
::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)
}}</ref>
:::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)
#In around 1167 CE during the late Crusader Period, ] wrote that "In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and hither come all the Jews to pray before the Wall in the open court".<ref name="itinerary222">Adler N. M. (1927) ''The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela'' London; pages 222–223.</ref>
::::I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. ] (]) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
#In 1334, Jewish traveller ] wrote: "It is this Western Wall which stands before the temple of Omar ibn al Khattab, and which is called the Gate of Mercy. The Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related. Today, this wall is one of the seven wonders of the Holy City."<ref name="travellers2004">{{Cite book
:::::The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @]'s comments below. ] (]) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
| last = Adler
:::::That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. ] (]) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
| first = Elkan Nathan
:::::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)
|author2=David, Judah
:(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)
| title = Jewish Travellers
: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)
| year = 2004
: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.
| publisher = ]
: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.
| isbn = 0-415-34466-2
:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
| pages = g.131
::Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.
| chapter = The Roads from Jerusalem, by Isaac ben Joseph ibn Chelo (1334)
::*{{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 .”}}
| quote =
::*{{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.}}
}}</ref>
::*{{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}}}
So, do we keep the Goren quote and just mark it with something? Do we not include the quote? It is a notable quote because Goren is notable but it is not factual and it also not a reliable source since it clearly goes against the factual evidence. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 18:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::*{{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.}}
:Look up ] the above sources site, which is on the east side, not on the Westerhn side. Whether it is factual or not is not for us to judge, unless we can bring to bear sources, not by ] as you did, but sources that detail this continuity. The problem is the notion of exclusivity implied by the Western Wall. The Jews prayed around the Temple Mount, at various locations, and not just at the Western Wall. Their praying on the Mount of Olives rather than there is much better attested. There are extremely meager sources on the period 0 CE to 1,500 C E. You haven't even noted that one of them you cite from the page, ] is a forgery, that should have been removed long ago. ] (]) 19:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::*{{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)
:: How is my bringing sources OR? Even if you utilize your POV and disregard Chelo, there are other sources. You may wish to have it that Jews didn't pray at the Western Wall until recently but the facts are that they did pray there since it was clearly the only wall left standing, unless of course you claim there was no Jewish temple either? Are you also claiming Benjamin of Tudela is a forgery? Are all other sources a forgery? Is every other source but Goren a forgery? Since the destruction of the Temple, the Western Wall has been the last remaining remnant of the Temple and as such that is where Jews gathered to pray, as the sources all state, your obvious POV bias notwithstanding. If you looked at the sources you will see why the Western Wall was used more often than other sources, since it was the last remnant of the Temple. The other sites were just around Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Gate of Mercy was inaccessible. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:"Reliable" != "infallible." One might easily surmise that the ''specific'' tradition may be only 300 years old, although the wall and other locations were places where Jews prayed in the past. Ascribe the statement to the person making it. ] (]) 19:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:: But that is not true, Nishidani is using Goren to say that Jews have started to pray at the Wall only in the past 300 years. That is factually incorrect. The sources I showed above and in the section in the main article show that Jews have been praying at the wall ever since the destruction of the Temple. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::If they said in the article, Jews have only been praying at the west wall 300 years and then used this source then I would see an issue but that's not the case. Here hey are attributing Goron for the statement. The question that we can really answer here is if this source is reliable to show that these are the words of Goron.] (]) 20:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::And that's a valid question, I don't know if Goren said it. The book said Goren said it. At this point it's dubious, the Talmud says Jews pray by the Wall because that is now the closest spot to the Temple (that is in the article), certainly the Talmud is a better source than Goren. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::The talmud is not a reliable source to dispute Whether Goren said this or not. It long predates him. This source is either reliable or it's not, to say that Goren said this. The section this is presented in is the views section. Reviewing the source, can it be held as reliable that Goren said this? ] (]) 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::I brought the Talmud because it obviously predates him and that and the obvious long history of the Jews praying at the Western Wall and the fact that it's the only remaining link to the Temple makes it dubious that he said that Jews have only been praying at the Wall for 300 years. Reading that quote on Misplaced Pages was the first time I have ever heard that idea, not that I am a RS. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 21:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I agree. Original copies of the Talmud predate Goren by a thousand years. Though the Talmud would not be a reliable source to state that WW prayers were offered in 400 AD, it is a powerful argument against the Goren (alleged) statement that WW prayer was invented only 300 years ago. And given the assertion in the Talmud, it is hard to credit that Rabbi Goren contradicted it. ] (]) 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, if the Talmud does mention Jews praying at the wall, then the claim that they have only been doing it for 300 years would be dubious even though the Talmud wouldn't seem to be a RS. However the article doesn't say that Jews have only been praying at the wall for 300 years. It said Goren has said that Jews had only been praying at the wall that long.] (]) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::A rabbi contradicting the Talmud? Are we out of the frying pan and into the cholent, then? ] (]) 22:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::So, he's a rabbi and as a rabbi he could certainly never contradict the Talmud? And you reasonable expect that to be accepted as a reason for why this source in not reliable? That would be like me suggesting priests can't molest little alter boys because they are priests. And it certainly nothing to consider in whether this source is reliable or not.] (]) 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::As mentioned above, it is not just a matter of being "contradicted." As a rabbi, he could be expected to know the statement is in the Talmud and that the statement would gainsay him (prove him a liar), as argued above. Not only the Talmud, but common tradition argues against him: "'''During the 1,900-year exile, Jews would travel to Jerusalem at great expense and danger, just to have the chance to pray at the Wall. In the face of disease, lack of water, and marauding bandits, the Jews refused to abandon Jerusalem. Barred by law or wiped out by Crusaders, the Jews always returned.'''" He would need strong scholarly evidence to contradict it -- and none is presented. It seems to be a casual comment with no historical backing. ] (]) 23:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


=== ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated ===
{{od}}Whether or not rabbis contradict the Talmud is irrelevant, in this case the Talmud says we pray to the Wall because that's the last remnant of the Temple. It's a factual statement. It's not a question of what ruling and then we have a disagreement. As for rabbis disagreeing, no, if there is no factual disagreeing in the Talmud, you won't have rabbis disagreeing and certainly not a 20th Century one there are rules for that. And allow me to correct myself, it's not actually in the Talmud, it predates it, it's in the Mishna which is even earlier and it is undisputed, there is no Talmud on that tractate. "According to the Mishna, of all the four walls of the Temple Mount, the Western Wall was the closest to the Holy of Holies, and therefore that to pray by the Wall is particularly beneficial."<ref>] 2:1</ref> After all that, I have to say it's really dubious if he said it. Like I said before I've never heard this 300 year business before. The Wall was THE place to pray. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In July 2019, ''MintPress News'' published {{small|()}} after discovering that they were deprecated. The response falsely claimed that all of my comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the July 2019 RfC}} were written by another editor (<ins>{{np|Jamez42}} – misspelled as</ins> {{!xt|"Jamesz42"}}), and then attacked that editor for writing {{xt|"several English-language Misplaced Pages articles on ] of ] politicians as well as on ] and ] who are aligned with Popular Will"}} in a misguided attempt to discredit the author of the RfC comments. However, since those RfC comments were written by me and not by Jamez42, all ''MintPress News'' did was demonstrate their own lack of accuracy and poor fact-checking in their response.{{pb}}One of the pieces of evidence I cited in the RfC was ''MintPress News''{{'s}} most recent "inside story" at the time, , an article that used false information to promote a ] about ]. The original ''MintPress News'' piece claimed:
:Mebbe it was a typo -- they left out a "0". ] (]) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{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."}}
::The source looks very much to be both a reliable source and a scholarly source. From the book editors to the writer of the listed essay (Amnon Ramon). No persuasive argument has been made as to why this would not be a reliable source for Goren's position. However, I notice that the wikipedia article lacks any context. While it's certain Goren did say this, the article gives no actual context. What is the context? That the Western Wall was a replacement for the Temple mount. Really here the problem is all contextual. Read the source. Page 300-301 at least. This section in article should be expanded to include more of this source so the context of Goren's statement is clear.] (]) 00:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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)}}
:This complaint started off the wrong foot, is flawed from the outset, and thus is meaningless, because the complaint is ill-formulated, and based on a false preconception drawn from wiki, not from reliable sources.
:(1) is not a reliable source
:(2)’ Original copies of the Talmud predate Goren by a thousand years.' Nope. The oldest manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud dates to 1289 (]). The Munich Talmud which is the complete compendium dates to 1342.
:(3) ‘the Western Wall has been the last remaining remnant of the Temple’ Wrong. It was built centuries after the Temple.
:The evidence given to challenge the view of an authoritative rabbi deeply prepossessed by the idea that the Temple Mount should be made over to Israel, not just a piece of wall, all comes from a dubious set of edits in Misplaced Pages that try to substantiate an idea that has yet to find strong textual confirmation.
:*(a) We use it to document the mention of the WW in the Scroll of Ahimaaz. If you want a source for that point you use aan authority like ], in Joshua Prawer, Haggai Ben-Shammai (eds.), NYU Press, 1996 p.176 which however refers to the purchase of oil in a subterranean synagogue adjacent to the Western Wall, which he locates in the (what Moslems call) ''Masjid al-Buraq.''
:*(b) ] wrote that
:<blockquote>"In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy.</blockquote>
::As noted by ] and myself, this is confusing, since Benjamin of Tudela associates the ] which is on the other side (eastern side) of the Temple Mount, with the Western Wall, when they are diametrically opposed.
:*(c) ] is a forgery.


: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)
So Sir Joseph is citing wikipedia’s bad content, with 3 sources that do not sustain the contention, being references to a synagogue near the WW, or to a confusion of the Western Wall with the Eastern Wall site, or a forgery. This is done to challenge a reference by an authority on the wall, Shlomo Goren, in an eminently good secondary source. Jews prayed all round Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount and its recent sanctification as the only site for a millenial observance is just POV pushing to suit a post-1967 political agenda, which retroactively strives to justify its new centrality by asserting what is not proven. This is absurd. If anything, that section’s 3 citations to ‘prove’ Jewish worship at the Wall before the 15th century should be reworked to fix the errors noted above. It cannot be used to discredit Shlomo Goren’s judgement. Sir Joseph is using Misplaced Pages as a reliable source to challenge what an external reliable source cites as an authoritative rabbinical opinion. That turns the whole method of Misplaced Pages on its head.] (]) 13:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:Re: Zero Hedge, they do not masquerade any of that content as their own. On the contrary, each article has a disclaimer stating: {{tq|"Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy."}} And as far as I can tell they have republished or syndicated nothing from ZH since 2019. The editorial detachment is key. I could name several GREL news sites that frequently publish truly psychotic opinion pieces, but which have no bearing on their reliability because of statements just like or similar to this. ] (]) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of ] to allege an {{!xt|"ulterior motive"}} based on Microsoft's situational use of ] is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, ''MintPress News''{{'s}} rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the ] policy states that questionable sources {{xt|"include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion"}}, which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Reprinting external content isn't MPN {{tq|"expressing views"}}. And I'm sure you've looked into the Microsoft story properly, but do you have a source labelling the MPN story as a conspiracy theory? We normally judge sources based on what other sources say about them, not purely on what we think about them. And that's still just one story. ] (]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}} and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).{{pb}}As a ] website with a ] rank of , MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of ]'s book that debunks MPN's promotion of the ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Regarding your first link , the article is relating/quoting this report from the OPCW: https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2018/07/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-chemical-weapons-use-allegations
:::::Similarly, the rest of your links are articles about others' reporting. You say they directly cite Zero Hedge articles, but Zero Hedge seems to be just one of the sites they quote, in addition to Politico, Salon, New Yorker, Washington Post, and so on. ] (]) 14:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:
::::::* : MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter.
::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians.
::::::Because {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}} is a source that was deprecated for repeatedly publishing ] and false information, MPN's use Zero Hedge for factual claims on numerous occasions and MPN's republication of hundreds of Zero Hedge articles both contribute to MPN being a ]. MPN using sources other than Zero Hedge does not excuse MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fixed link to article #2 again —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::::<u>Article #1</u> It also links and quotes from the original report/primary source that anyone can check, it doesn't rely on Zero Hedge alone.
:::::::<u>Article #2</u> It is the same link as Article #3
:::::::<u>Article #3</u> It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public.
:::::::<u>Article #4</u> But it does say "estimate", rather than treating it as an absolute and factual value, it is simply relating what ZeroHedge has estimated. The article does not rely on Zero Hedge reporting, but includes
:::::::<u>Article #5</u> It also links to the Washington Post article that Zero Hedge is using, not relying on Zero Hedge alone for the claim.
:::::::I don't think MPN is an unreliable source, it doesn't satisfy: {{tq|"have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."}} Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the other part of the policy: {{tq|"websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."}}
:::::::Citing Zero Hedge once per article, for claims that can be idependently verified, among many other sources that are WP:RS isn't enough to deprecate MPN. ] (]) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing {{rspe|Infowars|'']''|d|y}}; a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the ].{{pb}}My comments in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following: {{tq|"ZeroHedge estimated that the ensuing gerrymandering lawsuits will net Covington millions in legal fees, especially considering that Holder will be directing the filing of all such lawsuits on behalf of Democrats."}} How is that a relationship between two political parties? The article states "ZeroHedge estimated" rather than saying anything with certainty.
:::::::::Does MPN rely ''heavily'' on Zero Hedge in its original content? I don't think so, because it uses it as one of many sources.
:::::::::That is why I don't think deprecation is appropriate, rather "additional restrictions apply" as in MPN shouldn't be relied on claims that come only from ZeroHedge. ] (]) 15:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::If it were just the Zero Hedge thing I might see where you're coming from but @] demonstrated above that the outlet has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy all on their own. ] (]) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The has been copied over to the comment. MPN published: {{!xt|"However, an anonymous writer on ZeroHedge, an economic news website, noted on Nov. 30 that while Bilal Erdoğan in his tankers, 'we’ve yet to come across conclusive evidence of Bilal’s connection to .'"}} Here, MPN uses an assertion posted by {{xt|"an anonymous writer"}} from conspiracy theory website ] to make a claim about two political entities (] and ]). Doing this is like publishing {{!xt|"According to ] of '']''..."}} for a claim unrelated to Jones or ''Infowars'', which immediately throws the claim into question due to the poor reputation of the source. A source degrades its own reliability by repeatedly using another questionable source in this way for multiple topics on numerous occasions; the five linked articles are only a small sample.{{pb}}Your comment seems to be ignoring how MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims is only one of many reasons that MPN was deprecated; reliable sources have shown that MPN also publishes a cornucopia of conspiracy theories that MPN created by themselves, a common characteristic of ] that become deprecated on Misplaced Pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Mint has a poor reputation for checking the facts so that first one is satisfied (notice how is an "or" not an and so fulfilling any of the conditions satisfies it). They also express view widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion besides the bits that were convenient for you? ] (]) 21:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see the MPN response included a couple of paragraphs about me, in which almost all the things they say are demonstrably inaccurate even from the links they provide (they attribute a quote to me which is obviously not me, and seem to claim I call al-Nusra "moderate" by linking to a sandbox page here which says pretty much the opposite). I voted 3/4 in the RfC, but on the basis of this response I'd have no problem coming down in favour of 4. ] (]) 12:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't think I was involved in the 2019 discussion - at least I don't remember being involved in it - but based on the information above it seems like Mint Press is being appropriately deprecated as a source of misinformation. I'd love to see a Misplaced Pages with a broader range of reliable left-wing sources but the key word there is ''reliable'' and this... this is clearly not. ] (]) 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies) ==
FWIW, the Goren source states that he agrees the wall was a prayer site (as was the Temple Mount) until the Ottoman restrictions left only one site available for Jewish prayer -- the reason for his pronouncement, moreover, was in the context of him supporting ''building of a synagogue'' on an added part of the Temple Mount. As this gives context to the "300 years" quote, the full context should be given. ] (]) 13:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:I should add that while Shlomo Goren was likely to have looked closely into this matter, and was an authoritative voice, his view is not what we call 'authoritative' in historical terms. As far as I can see the question is as yet indeterminate. But we must be very careful in this area as elsewhere of ] being passed off anachronistically as facts. Only focused scholarship on the specifics can hold weight here.] (]) 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:: as I pointed out earlier, it wasn't the Talmud, it was the mishna which is even earlier. In addition, there are two Talmud, the Babylonian and Jerusalem, and the latest one was from around 500 or so. Secondly, the claim that the wall is built only centuries after the temple is historical revisionism. The wall has been modified for centuries but it's been there by the temple.


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)
There is a lot of confusion over details here. The entire west wall of the Temple Mount is very long but the part of it called the Western Wall/Wailing Wall/Kotel is quite short. I'll apply capitalisation carefully to distinguish. There are old writings about the west wall in general, such as in the Misha, but there are not any pre-medieval writings that clearly identify the Western Wall as a special place for prayer. Many authors feed this confusion by adding capital letters to "western wall" in old writings when the originals have no such indication. To address the Misha, it says that of the four walls of the mount the west wall is the one closest to the "holy of holies", but that doesn't support the Western Wall being a special place because it is quite far south from the most likely location of the "holy of holies" (namely, where the Dome of the Rock is now). The first sources that might refer to the region of the Western Wall are from the ] period, where a few surviving letters refer to a cave used for prayer somewhere in that general area. Moshe Gil suggested it was located in the passage behind ] (at the south end of the Western Wall, long since sealed up), but more recent authors prefer ] to the north of the Western Wall. About Goren, although he probably had the facts at his fingertips, he was extremely biased and would have said whatever suited him. In 1967 he tried to convince the local IDF commander to blow up all the Islamic buildings on the Mount; that's a fair summary of his nature. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
*Goren's statement is offered as a view, specifically a Jewish view. It is attributed to him and not in wikipedia voice. The only real problem is that as in in the article it lacks context. They leave out the real meat of what is being said and they Cherry Pick the bones. It probably shouldn't remain as is. There's nothing I can see as wrong with including the views represented by Goren in the source as long as they are carefully attributed and given in context.] (]) 22:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason not to include Goren within proper context. The text from ''Jerusalem: A City and Its Future'':


: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)
<blockquote>Goren also tried to explain that the tradition of the Western Wall as a Jewish prayer site is only three hundred years old and had its origins in restrictions imposed by the Ottoman authorities on Jewish worship elsewhere in the Temple Mount area. “We cannot claim rights at the Western Wall,” Goren wrote to PM Yitzchak Rabin in August 1994. “Its sanctity lies entirely in the fact that it demarcates the Temple Mount, in being a substitute for the Mount of the Lord… As for the haredi rabbis, whose lack of topographic and halakhic knowledge makes them afraid to ascend the Temple Mount and worship there — good luck to them. But we and the entire nation should be permitted to pray freely on the Temple Mount and the Muslims given free access and control of their mosques" (qtd. in Shragai 1994a).</blockquote>
::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==
Another source:
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.
<blockquote>For Rabbi Goren, the Western Wall, '''at which Jews had prayed at for only 300 years''', was an extremely important, but nonetheless, secondary, sight. The heart of Jewish longing for 2,000 years was not the Western Wall, but the Beit HaMikdash on Har Habayit, the Temple on the Temple Mount. P. 69 () pp. 300-1</blockquote>


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.
Goren's letter:
<blockquote>Honored Ministers! Your decision by which you forbid me, as an individual, and the Jews as a whole, from praying on the Temple Mount shocked me to the depths of my soul. Your decision means that the only place in the world in which an express and specific ban has been placed on the Jew, as a Jew, to pray, is Mount Moriah, the mount of the L-rd to which all of Israel's prayers are directed, the location of the nation's Holy of Holies...
From the destruction of the Second Temple until three hundred years ago, the prayers of Jews on the Temple Mount did not cease... '''The uniqueness of the Kotel (Western Wall) as a place of prayer is a historical innovation, and is not more than three hundred years old.''' It began after the decrees and limitations placed by the Muslim rulers on the Jews, and the abrogation of the 'synagogue' ... that had existed for centuries on the Temple Mount... In no manner or form is the Western Wall entitled to be a substitute for the Mount of the Lord. The prayers at the Wall symbolize the exile of the people and its expulsion from the Temple Mount, while our prayers on the Temple Mount represent the return of the people to its land and the place of its Temple.
'Who could conceive that Israel's security forces would be compelled to obstruct Jews from praying before the Lord, when the Temple Mount is under the government of Israel? And is this our situation now, after our dazzling victory? Is this what we waited for - that the government of Israel would discriminate between Jew and Muslim, and place guards lest, Heaven forbid, Jewish prayer would be uttered on the Temple Mount, about which the Prophets prophesied, 'For My House shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples' ? Jewish history shall not forgive us for this.
'My request is to open wide the gates of the Temple Mount to all Jews and for everyone in the world. Save the Holy of Holies of the nation, do not hand over the Temple Mount to those who defile it.
'Signed in grief, in hope, and in blessing, Shlomo Goren, General, Chief Rabbi of Israel.'"</blockquote>


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.
In note 2 to S. Berkowitz writes: ''Former Chief Rabbi S Goren believes that the Western Wall became a permanent Jewish prayer site in the 16th century.''See Goren, S. The Temple Mount, Jerusalem 1992, p.4.''


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?
And, contrary to Sir Joseph above, there is no reference to Jewish prayer by the western wall in early rabbinic texts, as far as I'm aware. "To pray by the Wall is particularly beneficial" does not appear in the the Mishna or Talmud. ] (]) 16:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
Basically, I would like you to review the following:
::What is clear from the above is that the whole section needs close revision, since it is badly sourced, or inaccurate. It is obvious that Goren had his own motive for underplaying the importance of the WW, since his aim was to get hold of the Temple site itself beyond it, and evidently thought reverence for the wall a sop that distracted eyes from the central quest beyond it. That in itself doesn't undermine the authority of his statement: he wouldn't have made it were it easily discreditable, and his remark fits what we know (which is distorted in what should be objected to, the line up of B of Tudela, Chelo et al., to assert the contrary. The source used is impeccable, and no good arguments have been given to deny it a place on the page.] (]) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

* Well said NIshidani. It is really simple. If there are contradictory sources, we can bring both, with attribution. This is the rule always, and in this case as well. ] (]) 20:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
1) MMA.BG - can it be put on https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources - it is a reliable MMA website in the language Bulgarian that has been reporting accurate news for 17 years<br>
2) The allowance of UFC/ESPN reports of bouts or injuries to be considered reliable. For example: https://x.com/ESPNKnockOut/status/1878132515854000543 - this X post is by a verified ESPN Knockout account that posted "Jake Matthews vs Francisco Prado", but I cannot use that as a source because it is from a social media post, and it is from ESPN (who is not independent from UFC because they broadcast UFC telecasts). It does not quite make sense and the senior editor's English is too poor to explain this after repeated requests for explanation, so I hope someone can explain it here for me. The editor reverted my post when it was reported here: https://wip.mma.bg/novini/mma-novini/dzheyk-matyus-sreshtu-fransisko-prado-na-ufc-312<br>
3) Are exceptions for X posts allowed for reputable journalists and official verified company accounts to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages?

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

: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)

== RfC: TheGamer ==

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

* Option 1: ]
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]

]</s>

<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)
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==

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.

<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>

<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>

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

:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ]&nbsp;] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, according to ],{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ]&nbsp;] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ]&nbsp;] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}}
:::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: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)
== BroadwayWorld.com? ==
::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ]&nbsp;] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
I have another site to question - would BroadwayWorld.com be considered reliable? I've always questioned its usability and my first impulse is that it isn't, as the site sells tickets and runs as a job site. That makes it a little too close for comfort, since it'd be well within their best interest to cover things that they're selling. It's used a lot on Misplaced Pages and I do see it listed as a source in academic works like .


Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
What's your take on this? It's certainly popular. ]] 10:14, 12 February 2016 (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)


== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
:Not per ] and I note the reference use is to an article from a press release in any event. OUP should have noted, by the way, that duplicates of the ''exact same article'' are cited in that footnote as though they were separate and distinct articles. This is one of the failings of "reliable sources" in the past decade or so - they no longer have people researching and fact checking what they write - they simply cut-and-paste press releases. No time to yank its uses - but it ain't a "reliable source" as Misplaced Pages officially defines the term. It is a commercial site running press releases. ] (]) 13:01, 12 February 2016 (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 ]?
== Draft:TopSpeed.com ==
Sources:
*A telephone interview with ] that was published on a newsblog on ]. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
*An editorial by ] in '']''.
**The editorial links to a '']'' article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
*An article in '']'' which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."


''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm trying to improve ] to increase the number of references that are ''about'' the publication itself rather than the publication's content. I found that seems to hit the spot, being a third-party review of the website, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. Looking forward for any advice, thanks! ] (]) 10:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:This looks like it would fall under ], but then we do list ] ratings for movies and television episodes. I think the kicker is whether the rating site is independently notable and reputable. Has anyone in mainstream media written or talked about Bestcompany.com? ] (]) 12:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
::Other than press releases and guest posts, it doesn't look like that website has been mentioned in the mainstream media. I won't use it then :) ] (]) 13:27, 12 February 2016 (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)
== ] - dubious sources ==
::@], well Hogo that the guardian piece is an ], the politico piece is a ] and there's no consensus for salon at ]. These are all ]-based arguments.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with ]. ] (]) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* There are two issues here, neither of which is really a ] issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be ''attributed'' if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said {{tq|In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton}}. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / ] venues, is the ] issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::I should add, looking at ], it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the ''broad strokes'' of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce ] issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which ''doesn't'' say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --] (]) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that this is solid advice. ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for ] ==
Could somebody have a look at the article on ] as I don't think the references used are reliable. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 9px; text-align: center;">(]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32; ]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32; ])</span> 10:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:Most of the references are in a different language. I don't speak Dutch so I think a second set of eyes would be helpful but I a few of the poor sources referenced to blogs. ] (]) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*Good catch, ]. It has sources, and so is not eligible for ] (unfortunately) but I don't see a single reliable third-party source. I can make out some Dutch, on a good day. Also the kind of sites these are tells you a lot. I've ] the article. ] &#124; ] 19:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC).


See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== Gary T. Schwartz "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" ==


:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf
::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)
A claque of editors at the ] article would like to suppress virtually all mention of the above paper by a reasonably well known law professor. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/30/local/me-28306
::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the ] in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. ] ] 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of ''x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian'' and ''the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion''. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of ''folie à deux'', or whether they are publishing an academic joke.] (]) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by ]. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.] (]) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page ==
This article presents a revised view of the Pinto fuel tank case, in which, with hindsight destroys many of the exaggerated claims made by the Mother Jones article and various trial lawyers. It has been referred to in various other published sources eg http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament http://www.aurelbrudan.com/tag/business-ethics/ etc, all available via a google search.


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)
Specific claims addressed by the paper include the number of deaths that actually occurred, the fact that the memo was not written about rear end impacts or the Pinto, the relative safety of Pinto compared with other cars.


: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)
Schwartz's study said:
::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)
−
*''The Pinto Memo'' wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose
−
*The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars"
−
*The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs


==''Pirate Wires''?==
] (]) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:To be clear: At least from my perspective, the dispute is less over ] and more over ]. As I said on the talk page, I have no objection to devoting a sentence or two to this paper; but I object to referencing it directly in the lead, or to structuring the entire discussion of the Pinto case in order to make this paper central. It is not, going by most sources, ''that'' significant. It is one point of view among many others, and deserves the same amount of weight any of those other sources would get, not (say) an entire section. --] (]) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
::Ditto to ]'s comments. ] is incorrect in saying we're trying to exclude this source. We're trying to stop Greg from dedicating huge portions of the article to it. ] (]) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
: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)
:::Given that it seems to be a more authoritative and accurate document, why shouldn't it get more weight? ] (]) 06:53, 13 February 2016 (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)
::::{{reply to|Anmccaff}} - The editors supporting the inclusion are giving the paper an entire subsection and a paragraph in the lead. You think that's appropriate given the existence of hundreds of more authoritative, accurate and ''secondary'' sources on the topic? ] (]) 07:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}That depends. If these "hundreds" of sources essentially flow from the same initial sources, it is quite possible for them to be all equally good, or equally bad; they are, in effect, only one source repeated. ] (]) 07:14, 13 February 2016 (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)
:{{reply to|Anmccaff}} - Fair enough. I think we're going to find a compromise solution on the article's talkpage. That compromise will probably keep the Scwartz source albeit in some less prominent way. Either way, the discussion here seems a little silly as no one seems to be arguing against the source in question being reliable. ] (]) 07:39, 13 February 2016 (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)
::For the record, the article has not recently given a "huge" portion of the article to Schwartz paper; it explains the Schwartz paper and why it's meaningful to the controversy. It does not give an entire paragraph in the lead to the Schwartz paper, rather one paragraph in the lead cites three factors affecting the legacy of the Ford Pinto:
* ''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)
::::''The Pinto's legacy was affected by media controversy and legal cases surrounding its fuel tank safety, a recall of the car in 1978, and a later study examining incident data, concluding the Pinto was as safe as, or safer than, other cars in its class. The Pinto has been cited as a noted business ethics case.''
*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::The article has not most recently (as an offered compromise) had a formal subsection devoted to the Schwartz paper, but rather is formatted as a sub-sub-section -- giving the Schwartz Paper a ''part'' of a section, but giving it ''no'' mention in the table of contents. This makes it more important to mention in the lead, otherwise it is buried in the article (i.e., no mention in the lead, no mention in the table of contents, the article subjugating a cogent and reliable argument pertaining directly to the subject of the article, the Ford Pinto.
::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)
::Most recently the article was reverted repeatedly to completely remove ANY mention of the Schwartz paper (e.g., '''right now'''). So even though the Schwartz paper is notably cited in post-litigation reporting (and it's no more cherry-picking to find these references, than it is cherry-pick them out of a Misplaced Pages article). The Schwartz paper was cited by noted legal scholar ], has been cited in the New York Times numerous times, and was cited by noted author ]. There has been an extremely careful and concerted effort to find a balance on this issue. And clearly it has little to do with the reliability of Schwartz as a source.] (])
:::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)
: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 ==
== Is a retractation likely due to legal threats a reliable source? ==


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)
There is ] concerning ] where, among other things, ] is proposed to be used as a source for the claim that the ] are ''not'' a "far-right" party, because the newspaper published to one previous article which claimed otherwise.


:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
However, we know from that The Economist most likely received legal threats which led to their retractation. The same editor and party leader (as well as some of his colleagues) has been known for making ] against Misplaced Pages editors. That these editors actually are who they purport to be was proven by concerning the events on Misplaced Pages in which they were involved.


== Fantasy Literature ==
Given these facts, is the "correction" by The Economist to be considered a ] for the English Democrats' political position, considering we have ample reasons to suspect it was obtained by employing legal threats?


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)
] (]) 19:17, 13 February 2016 (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)
:We use published sources. What that means in this case is that we should trust the ''Economist'' editorial team's judgment. We don't ''know'' that they only retracted the source for reasons not related to accuracy; we merely suspect it. What if it was retracted because of legal threats ''and'' misstated facts? While it is right and good for us to wonder why a retraction was made and there may be extreme situations in which something may be disregarded, I personally see that happening in cases with a large number of corroborating sources, and even then the retraction would have to be acknowledged, as in "In an article in the ''The Economist'' that was later retracted, Specific Author wrote '...'" ] (]) 19:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::This is the terms its staff work under:
::We don't simply use ''published'' sources, we use '']'' sources, which has more stringent criteria. There are many possible reasons why an otherwise reliable source may be (or become) unreliable for a specific fact: a source that has likely been coerced into stating something may not become ''wrong'', but it does lose ''reliability'': how can we ''rely'' on it anymore? It's similar to how we often can't rely on government-controlled agency when they make government-backed claims. ] (]) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (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)
:::I mean that we should rely on the editorial judgment that they used when the issued the retraction. Yes, this source becomes suspect when retracted. ] (]) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{ec}} I don't think a retraction is a great source for a statement of fact (that the party "is not" far right). Certainly, we can't rely on the original, now retracted, claim - but given that also describe the party as far right, I can't see how the economists' retraction could trump (or be used to dismiss) those other sources. This seems more like an issue of weight than of source reliability though. The question of why the retraction was printed doesn't really matter so much - how much weight it carries is a much more important question. ] (]) 19:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::I agree that we can't rely on the original claim: we can rely on neither. The Economist simply stops being a ] for this matter, in my opinion. I prefer to leave issues of weight to other editors at the moment, as I do not have the time or inclination to analyze all the sources available, but I do want to ensure that sources that have been invalidated by events (and potentially by bad-faith threats) cannot be used. ] (]) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


== NASASpaceFlight.com ==
:::As a general rule, I think a reliable source publishing a correction is a reliable indication that a statement is incorrect ''or at least too dubious to be asserted as true in Misplaced Pages's voice without a much higher standard of supporting evidence than usual''. In this specific case speculation about "legal threats" appears to be off the mark. One of the parties involved has published what purports to be the conversation online, which appears to be them stating their case and requesting a "right of reply", and the editor of the WP:RS saying "I accept this was inaccurate" and offering to publish a correction. <small>(for the avoidance of doubt, the Press Complaints Commission mentioned in the first letter had no power to do anything other than rule on whether a correction should be published or not) </small>


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 ].
== Is primary source not acceptable for Indian caste? ==


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.
Hi, I wanted to restore the page ] to its previous state which was based on the primary reference . However, ] is banking very hard that primary sources are not acceptable for castes. I want to ask if it is true? If yes, why? Finding 3rd party sources for Indian caste system is very hard because of the nature of the subject and language barrier as well. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">]'''</span> 19:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:Sitush is right. Basically, the reason is that primary sources need to be interpreted, and Misplaced Pages editors aren't the right people to interpret them, as that would be ], which is not allowed. We have to refer to interpretation by reliable secondary sources. See ] for details. I see you have posted your question on several noticeboards — I don't quite understand why. One is enough. Indeed, IMO, listening to Sitush is enough. He knows a lot about caste pages and their sources.] &#124; ] 20:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC).
:It is a long-established consensus that caste association websites are not reliable. Caste articles are very prone to puffery instigated by members of the relevant caste, and caste-affiliated websites spout the same nonsense. Furthermore, despite their sometimes vocal claims, no caste association of which I am aware is anything other than a group of like-minded people who are members of the caste: they have no particular academic qualification, no official status and, indeed, no "proof" that they are even accepted by the majority of those who share the same caste. Their websites are vanity publications, highly biassed in tone and usually with a socio-political agenda. PRIMARY per se is thus not even the major issue here.


] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
:There are plenty of academic etc studies of castes knocking around. If all we can find is stuff published by a caste association then, frankly, the community is not notable. Please also bear in mind that many castes come and go: there is a process of fission and fusion as people jostle for position, which is one reason why they shout so loudly. - ] (]) 20:52, 14 February 2016 (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)

Latest revision as of 11:14, 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.

    Nigerian newspapers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Brainstorming RfCs

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

    I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing this edit which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. 🄻🄰 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
    If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest just doing it. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Absolutely. Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is The Sun (Nigeria)
    1. Generally reliable
    2. Additional considerations apply
    3. Generally unreliable
    4. Deprecated"
    From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. 🄻🄰 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to The Sun (Nigeria), which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the Second Republic (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that NAN journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that Next (Nigeria) was more reliable. James500 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is there any actual evidence that there are newspapers from this nation that do not have this problem? If we are going to blanket ban them we may as well be consistent about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I think a list of options for a blanket label as above is just misguided, and occasionally say something like the following: It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS, specifically WP:RSCONTEXT "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." I would look more at is the source providing the Best Available Data for some POV, meaning a WP:WEIGHT and WP:REPUTABLE on that topic? For Nigeria (or any non-mainstream or non-educational topic) you simply cannot expect the BBC to be always giving you the information. One must work with what is the Best Available. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: NewsNation

    What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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


    Survey (NewsNation)

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

    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)
    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)

    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)

    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.

    Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

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

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

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

    Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are

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

    I support using this source for this claim.

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

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

    Law&Crime Network

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

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

    Catholic-Hierarchy.org

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

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

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

    RE: Lambgoat

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

    I have to say, I have never seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. mftp dan 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, older subjects where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. mftp dan 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I should ask, what is it about the source that makes it a last resort, in your opinion? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's old, and has a staff but is less-than-crystal clear who they are. If it wasn't for the fact that modern publications which are clearly reliable cite them as a reliable account, they wouldn't be a site I used. I don't remember who it specifically was that spread the word, but when Nick Hipa left AILD for the second time three years ago, I recall Lambgoat breaking the story and multiple reputable publications following in their wake. mftp dan 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay. The muddy transparency is also why I'd put them as a lower quality source, too.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per User:MFTP Dan. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. mftp dan 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does this source even exists?

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

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

    Theyeargrungebroke.com

    I found the website theyeargrungebroke.com being used on the article Core (Stone Temple Pilots album), and an insource search reveals that the site is being used on a few other articles. My issue with this site is that it does not appear to be a reliable source, the "about" page () gives no information about who these people are, and their reviews do not feature credited authors (for examples, see and ). To me, this is a pretty clear-cut WP:NOTRSMUSIC source, but I do want to start discussion to see if anyone differs from my assessment, or if they agree this source should not be used. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    They're a 90s tribute band that also publishes reviews. I can't find any details of who is in the band or who writes the reviews. Unless I'm missing something I can't find anything to show they are a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sources for Chapel Hart

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

    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)

    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)
    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)

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