| Revision as of 02:39, 12 January 2018 view sourceLacypaperclip (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,782 edits c← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:48, 17 January 2025 view source Herostratus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,277 edits →RfC: Jacobin: my 2c | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|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 15: | Line 16: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source == | |||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| 1. Source. | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf | |||
| What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de? | |||
| Ambazania.org | |||
| # Generally reliable | |||
| 2. Article. | |||
| # Additional considerations apply | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Ambazonia | |||
| # Generally unreliable | |||
| 3. Content | |||
| # Deprecated | |||
| ... | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (b) President Paul Biya is guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality. | |||
| ===Responses (Bild) === | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; ''BILD'' has the opposite reputation. ] (]) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Bild) === | |||
| My Observation: | |||
| 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) | |||
| While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information. | |||
| 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: | |||
| == Beall's List resurrected and maintained == | |||
| * {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities | |||
| * In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}} | |||
| See https://predatoryjournals.com | |||
| ::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| :::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers | |||
| :::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples | |||
| :::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze | |||
| :::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer | |||
| :::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable. | |||
| :::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed? | |||
| :::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| == Trying to determine the credibility of these Turkish sources -- for an English Misplaced Pages page about Ozan Varol (rocket scientist, author) == | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| Sources are as follows. I am unsure of whether or not they would be considered "fringe" publications. These would be making up the bulk of an initial page about Ozan, with some additional English sources that would support. | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| <br> | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| <br> | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| NOTE: These are currently being translated by machine but I would be verifying them with a natural-born Turkish speaker before using. | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| 1. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/01/09/yasam/yas00.html | |||
| <br> | |||
| 2. http://www.gecmisgazete.com/haber/mars-ta-bir-turk-var-14148 | |||
| <br> | |||
| 3. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/demokratik-darbe-kuraminin-mucidini-takdimimdir-yazi-769551/ | |||
| <br> | |||
| 4. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/marsa-ve-darbeye-merakli-bir-turk-genci-yazi-769936/ | |||
| <br> | |||
| <blockquote>It was the year 2000 when Ozan Varol was heard for the first time that our country was informed by NASA that he would be participating in a six-member steering committee to direct space vehicles named 'Apex' and 'Athena' to Mars . At that time, Ozan was studying astronomy at Cornell University in the USA . When he was still a first-year student, he learned that he was carrying out a joint project between NASA and the school and immediately said, "Take me, too . " | |||
| "Mars has a Turkish" titled News January 9, 2000 dated Radical 'den Let us read: " The victory of perseverance - Project manager Dr. Ozan , who said he wanted to send an e-mail to Steven Squyres , was given about 500 pages of scientific texts and a period of two weeks. Ozan who read the texts day and night , Squyres ' oral examination was successful. Success 'I'd been' he explains Ozan , so that five had managed to enter the US as the only foreign team members."</blockquote> | |||
| 5. http://www.vize.bel.tr/Yz-39-Devlet-adamlarimiz.html | |||
| <blockquote>Ozan VAROL: Ozan VAROL, born in Istanbul in 1982, is the grandson of retired teacher Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.</blockquote> | |||
| 6. http://www.trakyanet.com/trakya/kirklareli/vize/175-vizeli-unluler.html | |||
| <blockquote>Ozan VAROL | |||
| Born in Istanbul in 1982, Ozan VAROL is the grandson of retired teacher and Kızılay District President Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.</blockquote> | |||
| <br> | |||
| Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you! | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| ==Ex Astris Scientia and Star Trek== | |||
| *'''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). | |||
| {{archive top|result=Incivility is incivility, regardless of whether or not the target was rude to you or disagreed with you or even if they once raped and murdered your entire family, cooked and ate them in front of you, desecrated their remains and then sued you for the emotional trauma of their having engaged in evil acts. It may be ''understandable'', but it's not ''acceptable''. To cut off any more, I'm archiving this thread as we seem to have reached a consensus. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
| **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. | |||
| I've noticed that a few ''Star Trek''-related articles are using a source from www.ex-astris-scientia.org. It doesn't seem to pass the litmus test to qualify as a reliable source. Can someone point out what about it makes it a good source?<br> | |||
| ***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. | |||
| Among other places, I found from that site used . - ] (]) 01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Checked their FAQ. It looks like it's written by one guy, who describes it as one of the top Star Trek sites in the world. Let's see if anyone else thinks so... | |||
| : uses it as a source in an article. There's an in-text mention and a note at the end. There are a few other articles that mention it, but they tend more to be talking about it than using it. ] (]) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :It is without doubt one of the best sites for trek, I have used it numerous times for schematics for creating models for mods. ] (]) 14:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh yes, I can tell that right away. This guy is creating some ''exhaustive'' articles on his own website. If I were working on a Star Trek project of my own, I would probably use this as a resource. However, it is possible that this does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability criteria. This falls under ]. Because Ex Astris Scientia is a self-published website without its own editorial oversight, we need to establish that its author is an expert. | |||
| ::*Has the author ever had any other works published? Has he written articles about ''Star Trek'' that were printed in magazines? Has he written any books that were published by a non-vanity press? | |||
| ::*Do other/reliable sources say "Ex Astris Scientia is a reliable source" or equivalent? | |||
| ::*Do other reliable sources cite its author as an expert on Star Trek? This would include newspapers, magazines, and people who work to create ''Star Trek'' canon. | |||
| ::*Has he ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert? For example, '''has he served on a panel at a Star Trek convention?''' | |||
| ::*Is there any other reason not mentioned here to consider Ex Astris Scientia a reliable source or to consider its author an expert? | |||
| ::There's some gray area and consensus rules, but if we can say "yes" to one or more of these questions, then Ex Astris Scientia probably makes the grade. {{ping|Darkness Shines}} I didn't find anything but I was only looking for about five minutes. You sound more familiar with the website than I do, though. ] (]) 20:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I saw this question pop up on a ST fan forum a while back (somebody was disagreeing with some canon claims they made on the site), and as a result, several of us spot checked a number of claims on that site against the various Star Trek Technical Manuals (which are licensed and approved, generally considered the definitive source for canon), and found that they were 100% on the mark for that test. Whether they still are or not is an open question, but all things considered, I would presume so. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 21:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I understood it, one of the criteria for RS is ]. There appears to be none of that here, and there are some pretty bold claims being offered on the site. And there appears to be little in the way of official acknowledgement of the sole write as an "expert" in ''Trek''. For me, the litmus for inclusion of so-called "common knowledge" is its existence across multiple sources and platforms. When a source w/out oversight publishes something found nowhere else, I think its an issue, which is why I brought it here. - ] (]) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I'm not quite ready to come out and describe them as an RS for ST canon (the tech manuals would be the best RS outside of the shows themselves), I just felt my prior run-in with them might be informative to this discussion. To be honest, I'd want to see something that has an official status, if it's to be used for anything canon oriented. The production of the franchise is a different matter: we can use news sources for that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we can all say there would be no problem using Ex Astris as a means of finding sources. Say, checking the website for which episode to look at and then using the episode as a primary source, but it would be on the Wikieditor to actually check that primary source. Now that so much of the series is available online, that's not as hard as it once was. But day-um if this guy is amateur, he is one thorough amateur. I'm not saying Misplaced Pages should declare someone an expert—that is the place of professional media—but I'd call this guy an unacknowledged expert or unverified, not a non-expert. | |||
| :::::This website ''does'' have a contact us button. We could just ask "Have you ever published articles anywhere with editorial oversight? Have you ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert?" I can't find the author's real name listed anywhere, or else I'd run a check myself. ] (]) 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Bernd Schneider runs it, the site has been cited in a few books ] (]) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The problem is, as MPants shows above, is that if we consider him a self-published expert (about the only way the website would be useable) we need something to demonstrate that he is. If we start fact-checking him against official sources, we might as well use the official sources. If its something we cant check against anything else, we run up against 'do reputable people consider him an expert', what books has the site been referenced in and are they by a reputable publisher... ] (]) 10:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I've given this some thought, and I would like to say one more thing before this thread gets archived. I think that the site would be fine as a source for statements about canon that might be controversial enough to require a source (beyond the episode), and which can't be addressed by more definitive sources (I expect this to be very rare, but nonetheless). I think the site is notable enough in the community that it would be a fine source ''with attribution'' for just about anything. In other words, where there is a question on canon, I think that Schneider's opinion is certainly ]. I would not use it beyond that. Whenever we have the choice to use an officially licensed source, we should use that, even if they agree. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I can get behind that, Mjolnirpants. But if I remember {{ping|Jack Sebastian}}'s style, I think he's asking because he wants to ''remove'' content from articles that relies on Ex Astris as a source, not merely change it from Misplaced Pages's voice to Scheider's or change the source from Ex Astris to the specific episode(s) or movie(s) and the real issue is what to do with that content. Is that correct, JackS? | |||
| :Right now, the state of things seems to be that proof that Ex Astris Scientia is an expert source per WP:SPS could indeed exist but none was shown here this time. ] (]) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh< I remember you ''very'' well, Darkfrog, and I'm erribly surprised you've elected to address my edits, when in fact you aren't really supposed to,b ut I guess people forget things over the span of a year or two. You have certainly very little footing upon which to descruibe my style, so maybe save us both time by steppign away from that particular land mine, okey-doke? | |||
| ::The point that User:Only in Death is key here: if we don't know the name of the author of the self-authored site, and there isn't editorial oversight, we should err on the side of caution and use the sources that the anonymous author of the website uses (so, wrong ''yet again'', DF). We cannot use the the conclusions that the anonymous author draws, as we cannot prove that the author is an "expert" without supporting RS reinforcement - and there is no way we can use our own judgment to assert that (unless there is a published Star Trek expert amongst us editors). I take this stance to remove the burden of defending the statements made in the documents from Misplaced Pages and onto the sources that we use instead, which is where they belong. | |||
| ::Again, I think that we can use the far more elgitimate RS noted within the Ex Astra articles, but not Ex Astra itself. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I gave his name already, but here "the reputable Star Trek reference website Ex Astris Scientia" ''The Gospel According to Star Trek: The Original Crew'' p8 "Thanks to Bernd Schneider's Ex Astris Scientia" ''Star Trek: Myriad Universes #1: Infinity's Prism'' p517 "Bernd schneider maintains ex-astris-scientia.org as a terrific repository of STAR TREK knowledge and articles" ''Star Trek: Klingon Bird-of-Prey Haynes Manual'' It is RS for Trek ] (]) 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My apologies, but could you clarify the source of Bernd Schneider's "expertise"? It seems that you noted another fan site quote of praise. Do you have a surce that would be more reliable, like, say a ST published book or something? - ] (]) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Huh? I gave you three sources, all published books, none of them are a "fan site" ] (]) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Jack Sebastian|Jack}}, I have four things to say: | |||
| :::::#I agree: If Ex Astria documents the source of a claim, it would be best to always cite that source, instead of Ex Astria. | |||
| :::::#The identity of the man behind Ex Astria has never been much of a secret. | |||
| :::::#We don't need to independently determine if someone is an expert: If they're referred to as an expert by others whose expertise we don't question (or widely referred to as an expert by lay commenters), then they're an expert. Even if we know absolutely ''nothing'' about the "source" of their expertise. Expertise can be demonstrated, and indeed, ''must'' be. This is documented by others referring to them as an expert. But credentials can be irrelevant. I guarantee you that I could find a half-dozen people with relevant credentials who would never be an RS, because they have demonstrated a lack of expertise. | |||
| :::::#I don't know what sort of history you and DarkFrog share, but I thought their comment here to be very reasonable, and your response to be very combative. If you truly feel you are in the right in whatever disagreement went on between you, please act like it. I've seen ANI reports filed over comments more civil than that one (not that I'm planning on reporting you). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 22:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Also cited in ''Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures'' p185, this from an academic publisher also cited in ''A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Wars''p59, another academic publisher ] (]) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just got back from the post you left at my talk page, Jack, and I'm very surprised by your comments there and here. I certainly do not mean to criticize your Star Trek edits—in fact, I haven't read even one of them. But I feel like you're badmouthing me here, so I'll say to the floor that there is no "really aren't supposed to." Jack and I had a conflict in 2014 but we are not now and to the best of my memory never were under any interaction ban, formal or informal, and I've responded to an RSN thread that he's started before, without any response like this. Kind of surprised at this hostility now. However, part of Jack's comment on my talk page amounted to not wanting any help from me in this thread. I leave it in all of your capable hands. | |||
| ::::I wish I didn't have to say this, but I am worried about my actions being misinterpreted. I am ''respecting another editor's wishes'' NOT ''confessing to wrongdoing''. Jack clearly wants me to back off, and I am very worried that someone else in the future might say "You backed off, which means you're a filthy f--- and you KNOW IT and you're ADMITTING that you eat babies and you are PERMANENTLY giving up your right to speak in this person's presence EVER!" (For the record, it was not Jack specifically who pulled that crud on me.) I do not mean and am not agreeing to ''any'' of that. A couple weeks ago, I was pissed at someone else and asked them for space and they refused to give it to me. It was like he thought he hadn't done anything wrong and felt the need to prove it by getting even more in my face. Well I haven't done anything wrong, but I'll get out of your face anyway. This is not a promise to do so permanently. | |||
| ::::You guys seem to have this covered. Ping me if you need anything that only I can provide, but I can't think of what that would be. ] (]) 00:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It might have been more helpful in these sorts of discussions where we are discussing the authenticity of RS to seek out sources that can show the wording. For ''Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures'' ( and ''A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Wars'' () help me see that Bernd has been cited elsewhere. I guess that does make them citable; as long as we are certain that Bernd is the only one writing the articles (others contributing to the cite doe not warrant the same cover as sources), the question is pretty much answered. | |||
| ::::The history between DF and myself is pretty well-documented, and I've made a point of avoiding wherever she pops up; I have very specific opinions as to any references she brings to the fore, and that's all I'll say about that. If some of you thought my response to her rude, please take no offense; doe to my experience, they were ''absolutely'' warranted and restrained. I did not invite her comments, and she should have known better than to interact with me. - ] (]) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Jack, if you want me not to participate in this thread, you must stop saying bad things about me in this thread. Saying you don't want my help is fine. Saying I have to not defend myself while you throw a few punches is not fine. You haven't ''avoided'' me. You've posted on my talk page on matters that had nothing to do with you, and you presented yourself as civil and even friendly at the time. You get to change your attitude toward me, but you don't get to say I "should have known better" than to think you were still feeling civil and friendly. ] (]) 22:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we're done here, DF. Was there any part of what I asked difficult for you to understand? - ] (]) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| == Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons == | |||
| *For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| I am posting here regarding the article ]. When the missile was tested by Pakistan from an underwater platform, a number of Indian media outlets (some of which are RS) quoted a tweet from a satellite imagery enthusiast who claimed that he had obtained satellite imagery of the launch (source of imagery remains unknown) and in his opinion it showed that the launch was a fake. Now do these sources remain reliable to be quoted in an article about Babur missile when '''i)All international RS are against them ii)Other Indian RS are against them iii)They are quoting a single person tweeting his own opinion and iv) They did not follow up on the fakery claims when international media reported the test''' Another issue is that most of these news outlets are leaning towards nationalist/right so should they be considered a RS about Pakistani weapon systems? As India and Pakistan are currently engaged in skirmishes, is it according to policy to consider them RS about pakistani weapon systems when all international opinions and the opinions of a number of Indian sources is against them as well? ] Please be kind enough to give your opinion in this discussion. ] (]) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd have to say that they're generally not RS on this general topic, as Pakistani sources would not be about Indian weapons. Too many nationalism and POV problems. It might be possible to find a neutral source, but that would require a lot of proof to demonstrate the source's neutrality on contentious topics.--] (]) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Pretty much Strum. But, can you please link the disc. and sources? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]<sup>]</sup> ] is the place we were discussing. Here are some RS that all agree on the launch are , , and (These include the Indian source "Diplomat"). I have yet to find even a single international source that says that there was fakery. ] (]) 05:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some Indian news outlets like the ''Hindu'', ''Hindustan Times'', ''Times of India'' etc. are very respectable, and known for the quality of their news. If it is one of those than it definitely is an RS. But, if the source is a web tabloid with no journalistic credential, wherever on earth it is from, is definitely not an RS. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I wouldn't discount reporting in rival countries (which may either downplay or overplay the threat). Wider international sources are often not interested enough in the subject at hand to report or dig in depth. There can be problems with home country reporting (which might parrot the party line of great success), with reports in rival countries, and in international reports. Estimates in RS are not gospel - and most coverage of weapons prior to use it really just an estimate (case in point - the F-35 is hailed as either the "best ever" or as "the biggest flop in weapon system procurement".....) - expert opinion on effectiveness of weapon systems really only goes past estimates after there is a real war.] (]) 12:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think the question is not properly phrased. We shouldn't discount (or over emphasize) sources based on their nationality. Rather, we should look at the quality of the source independently and the quality of what the source says. In this particular case, I don't think the sources pass muster (the ones removed in ). The first, an NDTV news report is dubious because we should look for reliable print sources when making a contentious assertion rather than relying on video clips. The second, the India Today online one, quote one expert and doesn't assert the 'fake' claim independently (sort of "we're not saying it was a fake but just telling you what the colonel says". Also, we don't have any independent evidence that the colonel is actually an expert in imagery. Neither source is usable. --] <small>(])</small> 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Everyone, I apologize for the late and lengthy response but I did not have access to internet. Now this problem is multi-faceted and reliable sources is just one of them. Hence, in my discussion on the ] I had indicated that parts of this might fall under content dispute as well. The issue arises from here . {{u|Elektricity}} edited the page and added some references and some new content which was reverted by me since I found multiple issues. My edit was reverted by the same user and thus discussion on the talk page. I have 3 issues with the user's edits. First, the user adds that the "service with the ] since 2010, and ] since 2017". There is only one ] () which states that it is believed that the missile entered service with the Pakistan Army in 2010 and no such source for the Pakistan Navy. All that we have is that the missile was tested in 2017 not that it was inducted and there is much of a difference between the two. My second issue was that of the range which was stated as 750km and the editor added this reference () for it. This reference to me was clearly ] and not permissible. Eventually after much argument on the Talk page in which the editor claimed that there were other references on the page which stated this (this claim was not True) the editor provided me with 3 references (, , ). First quotes a Dr Samar, a nuclear scientist, and bases it on his views, second is a website which seems equivalent to global strategy so I am not too sure and the third basis it's claims on Pakistani Military Review () which is a blogspot. The third issue is the one raised by the editor here and is phrased incorrectly in my opinion. Here are the different media sources which published this story (, , , , , ). Now, here are some organizations/reliable sources which state that the person is indeed an expert in this field , is a regular author at thePrint, authored reports for independent international organizations and even two non-Indian media sources calling him an expert and quoting his work. (,,, , ). Just as a point of reference, I did not enter the content with these sources but there were entered by another editor. And the text clearly first states the test was conducted and in the next line states that however some media sources doubted its claim. The points that I want to raise is the double standards at play here. {{u|Elektricity}} clearly adds one Indian general's ] as a source because it suits their narrative but doubts another Indian experts claims. Similarly, one Pakistani experts claims are taken at Face value and added as ] while another ones are called conspiracy theories because they are Indian and thus assumed to have a bias against Pakistan. When I look at the ] page, I read these particular texts "multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party " and "text media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited". Does the numerous media sources provided not meet these claims just because India and Pakistan are considered to be opponents? By this definition which should now lay down all possible opponent countries and state that the corresponding sources are not valid. One example here would be not to use 38North () for North Korea since it is run at Johns Hopkins University based in United States and NK and USA are enemies. I think we need to look at these sources objectively and see if they meet ] or not rather than view them with the prism of their national origin. ] (]) 00:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|Icewhiz|Aditya Kabir|RegentsPark|Sturmvogel 66}} In case you guys missed this. ] (]) 00:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry. I havenot delved deep into the dispute. But, on the surface I think you were right to address the issue of reliability source by source. There really cannot be any blanket judgement based on a source's nationality. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 03:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Given the history of dictatorship in Pakistan and it still ranks really low at ] and ], it is all fair to use the reliable Indian news outlets to report on the events of Pakistan. It is similar to saying that we can use reliable sources of Israel to report on Palestine, as well as reliable sources from South Korea when reporting on North Korea. ] (]) 05:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's a pretty dubious argument to say the least. The media in Pakistan is known to enjoy a high degree of freedom, unlike the analogies you related here. There's examples of English publications like '']'', '']'' etc. which are well-respected. It boils down to the individual source, and has to be evaluated on that context. The Indian media is usually unreliable though when it comes to reporting on Pakistan, and tends to sensationalize. I have found this issue with several newspapers and articles. So anything has to be taken with a grain of salt and verified for neutrality. ''']''' (]) 12:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Mar4d but you are using your personal opinion. You could name only 2 sources that you think can be trusted. The listing of ] and ] shows Pakistan ranks much lower and is contrary to "high degree of freedom". You can read ]’s '']'', which shows that Pakistan's media is controlled by their military. ] (]) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] I think that you are creating a ] here. The Question is not about Pakistani sources or thier merit. It is about Indian sources and there merit. Moreover, your blanket claim that pakistani media is controlled by the military seems to be way out of the "ballpark" so to speak. I have looked at your contributions and find that you, like me, have not contributed to pakistani/Indian military articles much, so I think you should read up on ] as I did before coming here. Nationalistic Bias in sources is considered grounds for exclusion and although almost sources are giving POV information, it is up to the editors to decide which source is good enough. ] (]) 06:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Elektricity}} I don't necessarily agree with {{u|Excelse}}'s comments. But I think the question has been framed incorrectly by you. We are discussing very specific sources and whether they should be included in the ] article. There cannot be a blanket ban on one countries sources for another, as I have explained above since Misplaced Pages does not have any such guidelines. You have failed to address the three issues I have raised so far. You seem to take the references which mention an Indian expert and Pakistani expert at face value because it suits your narrative but oppose another one as "conspiracy theories" because it does not. I have presented independent sources which put the person as an expert in the field. You cannot dismiss their published claims on the basis on their nationality. ] (]) 06:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: I will second what {{noping|Mar4d}} said. During all of my work with Pakistani articles, I found at least these two sources as ] without a doubt. ] ] 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ping|Mar4d|Störm}} I have raised multiple issues here which does not include raising doubts on Pakistani sources. I have presented multiple sources which proves to be of repute and that Indian and Pakistan media be treated equally without the prism of nationality. Because it is a slippery slope thereafter where one can claim that each countries media is being bombastic about their claims and thus cannot be trusted either. The discussion here is about very specific sources and three issues which I have raised. I would greatly appreciate it if we discussed them on their merits. ] (]) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems the discussion was mostly about the validity of Indian news outlets regarding Pakistani military, which I have addressed, as for the content itself, I find your argument as correct that the author in question is indeed an expert and should be trusted per ]. ] (]) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| == Are these fringe Bulgarian books actually published? == | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| They are written by ], a scientist who has strayed into archaeology and thinks he has found the world's oldest civilization. There's already been one attempt to use them. | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| *Codes in Space, 2016 - seems self-published. | |||
| * 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. | |||
| *Zagora - Varna - the hidden super-culture, 2012 - the same source says this is published by MAGOART which links to . | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The Lost Aurolithic Civilization? Codes from a Black Sea Atlantis, 2010 ditto - also published by MAGOART | |||
| Thanks. ] ] 15:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: "Codes in Space" appears self published. Some of his other books list MAGOART and Argo as publishers although no more detailed info is available. I found at least one other author published by MAGOART so it may be an obscure but legit Bulgarian imprint.- ] (]) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I have very very serious reservations about this, which is among the politest ways to say no or at least not yet that I can think of. Yes, www.book.store.bg does list two books by Magoart Publishing House. Running a Google search for that particular term unfortunately generates returns which include as it's first returns domestic self publishing sites, which don't actually mention this house but are kinda free of any publisher names other than the name of the specific websites owner. That gives me a very strong impression that Magoart is a self publisher, and the fact that there exists an ad agency by the same name in Sofia doesn't necessarily help. Having said all that if there is any way to ask ] editors what they might know that might definitely help. ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| == Fringe newspaper's map sourced only to a literary critic used for wiki ethnographic map == | |||
| {{atop|result=Agreement to include both maps side by side on articles. --] (]) 03:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello all. This ethnographic map ] uses as a vital source this map (]) by the French far-left "anti-capitalist" newspaper ]. The wiki map it is used for has been around awhile and has seen wide usage, but also persistent controversy that bubbles up and occasionally explodes, as it is once again doing now. The sourced map is titled "The Albanians, a scattered people, and the cartographer is Philippe Rekacewicz, a "radical cartographer" ]. The newspaper in question is known for many controversial things including 9/11 conspiracies, equating the United States to ], ] and ], and other wild fringe views and claims including that globalization is nothing more than an American attempt at world conquest, Europe is an American "vassal" ], and other gems like these. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Regarding the map, it doesn't give any demographic studies as sources, but instead cites ], a literary critic who is noted for his fiery views on some topics related to ], ] and the like. As explained by {{u|Resnjari}} other demographic maps published by the paper have also been wildly incorrect ]. As {{u|Ktrimi991}} notes], indeed even the editor-in-chief has expressed worries about the sources that were used for some of Le Monde Diplomatique's reporting, presumably including non-expert essays like those published on demographics by out-of-fielders like that literary critic Rexhep Qosja. Regarding the distribution of Greeks in the map that is used for, demographic studies have produced very different results that falsify parts of the wiki map such as these: ({{u|Resnjari}} speaks fluent Greek and can explain how this one contradicts if necessary-- he highlights the critical section here ] but left it in Greek as he was speaking to other Greek-speakers) and (see pages 50-60 ish, this one covers four of the effected eight districts only but shows no Greeks in many places the flawed wiki map shows Greeks), and others. I also have concerns with many of the other sources used for the construction of that wiki map, but I plan to take this one at a time, so as not to overwhelm those who handle cases on this page. | |||
| ::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Therefore, I ask the community -- is reliance on such a map published by a fringe newspaper and sourced only to an essay by a literary critic an acceptable source to rely on for an ethnographic map? I thank you all for taking the time to consider this case, and apologize for its wordiness. --] (]) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::Reliability always depends on context ... So, in order to answer your question we have to look at the context. Which of WP articles contain a version of the map? ] (]) 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| :::Currently on en-wiki it is on ], ], ], ], ] and ]. The last is a territory that is historically claimed by Greek nationalists -- 19th century Greek nationalists claimed the whole of it is inhabited by Greeks and the map in question makes it look like this is true, but more recent scholarship, some of which I have linked above (these were written by Kokolakis and Kallivretakis-- more reasonable, modern and academic scholars from Greece, in fact) has mostly limited the Greek presence to a compact area in the regions of Himare, Vurg, Dropull, Pogon, and Carcove, not the huge area shown in the challenged map. Also, in the 19th century, the effected area is considered very important by Albanians because it, especially the eastern region of Korce, was also a cradle of the Albanian Renaissance movement (''Rilindja'') which helped spark the creation of the Albanian state, despite 19th century Greek nationalist claims that the area was majority inhabited by Greeks. So, needless to say, it's a very touchy issue for editors of Albania-related topics, and there has been plenty of fire exchanged over this map in the past. --] (]) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| **Calthinus' posting is stunningly intellectually dishonest, which I find very disappointing. This is evident from the very title of his post, which is a clear attempt at ]. First of all, the colorful characterizations of Le Monde Diplomatique as a "fringe" newspaper cannot be taken seriously. Le Monde Diplomatique is a highly prestigious political newspaper that specializes in geopolitical issues and is an ideal source for the question at hand. It meets ''all'' the criteria outlined in ]. Regarding the "9/11 conspiracy theories", this is clearly explained here . Not only did the LMD ''never'' promote 9/11 conspiracy theories, but rather, the editors of the Norwegian version, undertook, of their own initiative an in opposition to the parent French version, to ''summarise'' the various conspiracy theories. There is a world of a difference between ''promoting'' and ''summarising'', and Calthinus is clearly competent enough to know this. Yet he carefully omits these crucial details and tries to crudely smear LMD as if it were some 9/11 conspiracy website. Regarding Rexhep Qosja, and his "fiery" views (more colorful adjectives), Calthinus fails to mention that Reshep Qosja is ''Albanian''. Thus even an pro-Albanian source (and a "fiery" one at that, apparently) characterizes the areas in question as at least partially Greek-inhabited. Regarding the modern scholarship that Calthinus and other Albanian POV editors praise, I should note that Leonidas Kallivretakis is a member of the ] . For those who don't know, the Greek far-left is highly revisionist, for example, engaging in ] regarding the ]. Regarding the issue of the Greek-Albanian border, it is widely known that many Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians in border areas have pro-Greek sentiment. Yet Greek far-left sources such as Kallivretakis consistently hide this, painting all Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians as exclusively "Albanian". This calls into question the quality and impartiality of such sources. So the reality of the situation is in fact the exact ''opposite'' of what Calthinus claims. ] (]) 06:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm busy and feel I must respond to the rest of this post later (a lot of it seems directed at me) but I would like to point out that I'm not an "Albanian POV editor", and in fact I cant be as I am not Albanian. I have a personal interest in Albania topics but I am an American (of Jewish, not Albanian, background if anyone is dying to know). Of course we all have our own points of view but I try to keep my mainspace edits governed by principles, not opinions. There are times I may slip because while editing controversial topics, but I like to think I try my best not to. Rexhep Qosja is indeed Albanian (and a literary critic, so, in my view, unqualified) and many Christian Albanians have told me they dislike him-- inter-Albanian politics are as tangled as inter-Greek ones often. I appreciate good faith and attempts at understanding different perspectives-- making a truly neutral encyclopedia despite all of us having different vantage points is not always easy. Cheers, --] (]) 07:19, 4 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::Khirug is stunningly intellectually dishonest, in particular the attempted character assassination of Leonidas Kallivretakis. Nowhere does Panourgi state that Kallivretakis is from the left, only that he recounted a memory from his life pertaining to the left in younger days (in relation to his mother). Panourgi in that same page notes Kallivretakis' skills as a historian and even offers praise such as "Kallivretakis 2007 gives a good bibliography of memoirs" etc. It is quite disappointing to say the least that Panourgi is cited via distortion. Kallivretakis in his study went village to village with a university research team right after communism fell in Albania and borders opened. He compared both the reality he found on the ground in both Gjirokaster and Saranda municipalities + Himara district with previous data of old. His scholarly conclusions are peer reviewed, published in Greek scholarship, without dispute. Additional studies in relation to past realities have also been done by Kokolakkis , who notes that people in the late Ottoman period considered as ''Greeks'' in the area can only be done so on the criteria of mother tongue -another in depth Greek scholarly study. Alexikoua's map apart from omitting other communities in Albania like the Gorani, Bosniaks and Romani, colours areas of solid Albanian Muslim settlement as ''Greek'' (as the issue of sentiments where raised these populations were never pro-Greek), which not even the Greek army in its Peace conference village by village statistics for the Greek government (1919) for claims toward the area did not do of the Muslim element, though it considered everyone Orthodox in the area as ''Greek'' (regardless of language and other qualifiers). Or the cherry picking of Tom Winnifrith (1999), a Western scholar who did fieldwork in the area, his map resembles Calinthus' one on the distribution of Greeks as opposed to Alexikoua's. Question is are we going to consider scholarship that has done fieldwork on the ground and the archival research in relation to sensitive matters like this or pick one map from a literary critic (Qosja) who has never done the hard yards on the ground that feels like for some as supporting a certain POV while omitting scholarship? I can go on. I'll wait though for others however. Best.] (]) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::The map in Le Monde Diplomatique cites as its source Rexhep Qosja, ''La question albanaise. (The Albanian question.)''. Paris: Fayard, 1995. A scholarly analysis of Qosja's book by Antonia Young, John Hodgson, Nigel Young noted on page 90. in the book titled ''Albania'' that its contents are about "Writing in vigorous and straightforward French, Qosja (born 1936) argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". Now some editors like Khirug have been vehemently opposed to sources used by some past editors that promote Albanian irredentism or nationalism and i have agreed and still strongly agree with that. I ask, how then is this source which promotes "the unification of the Albanian territories" RS and fit for use on Misplaced Pages regarding such sensitive issues like the demography of southern Albania?] (]) 11:57, 4 January 2018 (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) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' @ {{u|Calthinus}}: the filling on the RSN, is already from the very first word, biased towards your POV, which is unfortunate. The filling's tone should be more neutral as to not attempt to influence the opinion of the RSN volunteers. The purpose of a filling is nothing but to present the RS for everyone in the RSN to see and evaluate them, and ask for their own third opinion on the matter. If you want to to express your views on the sources, it is preferable that you do so with a separate comment below your filling. The RSN volunteers should be allowed to make their own conclusions regarding these RS, independently of your own views on them, and it is sad that you are underestimating their intelligence. | |||
| :::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. | |||
| :@ {{u|Resnjari}}: you can not use the refusal of others to accept the citation of nationalist POV across Misplaced Pages's articles to justify the ] of RS on your part. Please, we are not here to comment on disputes unrelated to this one, so please avoid recalling what the other editors did or not in the past with RS, and instead, I recommend that you focus your comments solely on why do you believe that the following 5 RS aren't reliable. | |||
| :::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 === | |||
| :@ RSN Volunteers: The 5 RS in question are: 1. Philippe Rekacewicz of Le Monde Diplomatique, 2. "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18 (2010) 3. Cartographie.sciences-po.fr, 4. CIA, Intelligence Memorandum 1994 and 5. "Hellenism in the Near East 1918" by Soteriadis. | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| :As everyone can see, the 5 RS are not fringe as Calthinus and Resnjari are trying to claim. They come from very well-known and reliable organizations, scholars and newspapers which confirm the presence of an ethnic Greek Minority in the region of Southern Albania. To those who are not familiar about the unfortunate politics behind the current disagreement over the 5 RS, I shall bring here some facts: there is a ] inhabiting the southern parts of ] for more than 2.000 years already. The minority today is facing political discrimination and socioeconomic challenges as result of the rising ] which is today prevailing in the country as result of the ] issue and the tensions in the ]. Many ultra-nationalist muslim Albanian politicians are trying to suppress the ethnic minority's historic presence in the region on the grounds that the minority is posing a threat to the character and unity of the Albanian state. Hence why certain editors who are working or focused especially on Albanian topic articles in Misplaced Pages, are insisting so much on the Albanian-POV which wants the Greek minority's presence in the Albania to be artifically reduced in line with their POV, and for this reason are opposing any RS that goes against their views. I and ] have tried to reason with Calthinus and Resnjari that CIA, Diplomatique, Soteriadis, and Cartographie are all very popular and reliable sources. But to no avail. Just yesterday, Resnjari made clear to me that he will NOT CONSENT to these 5 RS no matter what, and even if others tell them that the RS are reliable. So I am wondering: What is the purpose of the RSN filling if they are so stubbornly firm in their positions and are not willing to re-consider their stance? What if the RSN volunteers/admins find any or all of the 5 RS to be in line with the project's criteria? Could Resnjari and Calthinus then be willing to change their mind on the RS? Sadly, this is not the impression they gave me yesterday. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' @RSN Volunteers: Both Rekacewicz and Cartographie.sciences-po cite Qosja as a source for their map (with the first only Qosja). Qosja's book to once again quote Young, Young and Hodgson notes that it "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". How is the use of a map from such a book promoting irredentism and nationalism RS for use in sensitive issues like the demography of southern Albania ? | |||
| ::@Silent Resident. Your reference to "ultra-nationalist muslim Albanian politicians" without even citing a source is quite uncalled for considering that Albania's current prime minster is Orthodox converted to Catholicism and many of the cabinet are Orthodox voted in by a majority Muslim public through free elections. Please keep personal views out of the discussion. Thank you. On other sources, the current RSN deals with the Qosja source, although Soteriadis has its own issues being a propaganda piece from World War One noted by British scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson .] (]) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@ {{u|Resnjari}}: first, that a source may contain POV, is not a strong argument to classify that source automatically as unreliable. Please, as per ], ''' Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.'''. That's the second time I am asking you to read that. CIA, Catrographie, etc, all have a reputation for fact-checking and their reliability can not be dependent on whether you personally agree with their point of view. I am saddened that you have not understood this. Second, that the country currently has an Muslim or Christian Prime Minister elected, matters little, as the issues the Greek Minority of Albania are well-documented and reported (at least outside of Albania), especially by the ], to which Albania aspires to join someday, and even by the foreign representatives in the country, such as the American and European Ambassadors. But I am sure you are aware of that already, aren't you? | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::And could I ever mention of the latest Annual Report of the European Comission for Albania's adaption to the Maastricht Criteria, also confirmed shortcomings in 3 fields: 1) Fight of Corruption, 2) Protection of Minority Rights, and 3) Judiciary Reforms. | |||
| :::Only a naive person could assume that just because of the ] Prime Minister ]'s election in Serbia, ], or just because a Greek or Christian PM ]'s election in Albania, the country is automatically more friendly for Greeks to live at. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 14:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| ::::@Silent Resident, Rekacewicz and Catrographie has used map from a book by Qosja that promotes "Albanian unification" in the 1990s. Now if one does not want to consider that as nationalism, at the very least it is irredentism. Is that the type of source that meets Misplaced Pages standards of RS ? Regarding Albania's issues with the Greek minority, such as the church Dhermi etc was a tussle between ] (a formally Orthodox Christian, now Catholic), someone who has deep roots from the Himara region being from ] village who is the prime minister and local Orthodox clergy over a religious site. Your characterisation of the issue as some kind of Muslim on Christian thing was completely uncalled for. I am deeply saddened that you said such a thing. Please clarify issues before commenting and keep to the issues at hand, as Misplaced Pages is not a ]. Best.] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow, on top of all your other (rich) accusations, now you claim that the RS documenting the minorities living in the country as being "irredendist"! I am really baffled. What else will we hear from you, Resnjari? Please, can you for once leave your nationalist Albanian POV, including anti-Albanian conspiracy theories aside, and explain here to the RSN why the Central Intelligence Agency, the Cartographie, and Sotiriadis and such, are unreliable? How a source containing POV, makes them unreliable? I am asking you this because as far as I am aware, there is no such rule or guideline in Misplaced Pages which states that Reliability of a source is determined by Neutrality. That CIA and the others, just because they may be citing POV (which may be POV or not, depending your editorial view) are unreliable. To claim that Reliability = Neutrality, goes against logic and is not in line with Misplaced Pages's standards. -<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 14:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| ::::::One source at a time. Also once again your inferring something about me regarding "accusations". Please refrain from doing so and keep to the issue at hand. The whole point of this RSN is about the use of Qosja. Le Diplomatique and that French cartography company source both use and cite Qosja as their source for data. Qosja's book is noted by other scholars that it "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". For @RSN volunteers, is Qosja as a source reliable due to the irredentism of "unification" it promotes ? If Qosja here is deemed a ''reliable source'', the ramifications are wide ranging as his book ''La question albanaise'' might be used by some editors in future to add ] POV on any given articles which has the potential to cause much discord and a return to this forum in future asking the same question about Qosja and reliability, yet alone issues of the book's accuracy among other things. Best.] (]) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, sorry, if Qosja (and frankly, not only this, but every other out there) is deemed a reliable source, it can not be used as an window to insert nationalist POV across Misplaced Pages's articles, since the ] rules are very clear on this: Source POV is allowed in the encyclopedia, but Editorial POV is not. The editors have a duty here in the Project: to take in account these RS, (regardless if they contain POV or not), and present them in Misplaced Pages in a neutral way. Let me copy-paste the sentence here: '''All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.''' The above five RS may contain POV, but that doesn't mean we can use its information to promote nationalist POV. We may cite RS that contains POV, but it is our duty to present it neutrally. This is why any nationalist content about irredendist concepts such as ] or ] have no place in Misplaced Pages and they shouldn't be confused with information about populations in these countries (i.e. the Arvanite populations in Greece and the Greek populations in Albania). --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br> | |||
| ::::::::I am not going to use Qosja (or any of his other works) -never have, never will- however the whole premise of his book "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories", noted by Young, Young and Hodgson. That is not NPOV at all. If Qosja's work is not textbook irredentist, then what is? Hence my question on reliability to RS volunteers. If he is allowed for one thing, stuff from his book will start oping up over time and proliferate articles on the wikipedia project. I don't want to waste time again and again (nor should other editors for that matter) having to discuss this issue about him being RS or not and having to clean up such usage of a controversial source if it comes to that. Best.] (]) 15:35, 4 January 2018 (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> | |||
| :::::::::We cite from CIA and Cartographie and not directly from Qosja as far as I am aware. If they do cite POV RS (Qosja), doesn't make them more POV or less reliable. Unless you are questioning CIA's, Cartographie's and everyone else's fact-checking reputation. Is that so? This is very serious thing, Resnjari, and I do not recommend that you go down the trend as to accusing now any reliable organizations for citing and publishing... unchecked and unreliable (in your view) information, just to justify the exclusion of their information about the Greek minority in Albania. This is very low to do of your part. First time an editor is assuming CIA and the other organizations of citing unchecked fieldwork. | |||
| 2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") | |||
| ::::::::::If you are not willing to accept Qosja, it is just your opinion and this is respected. But this does not make your arguments against CIA and Cartographie more valid for the rest of us to omit them from Misplaced Pages. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. | |||
| ]: 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> | |||
| ]: 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: | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 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) | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Addendum: I think {{noping|The wub}} sums up my thoughts well. {{tq|It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place.}} ] (]) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. ] (]) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even if correct this is irrelevant. ] (]) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... ] (]) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions. | |||
| :::Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started ''after'' someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things. | |||
| :::Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion. | |||
| :::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This has already been demonstrated by @] and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. ] (]) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. ] (]) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::An RfC next would be worthwhile. ] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. There's even a (less serious) error in the next sentence: ] hasn't existed in 6 years. Combined with the past concerns and the borderline result of the past RfC, it's time for a discussion whether "generally reliable" is still a fair assessment. ] ] 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All good points! ] (]) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Jacobin is a far left news and analysis site, and adds opinion and commentary in their articles. I consider sites like this on the right and left not too far removed from activists, and thus should be ignored. It is popular among left leaning people on twitter, reddit, and elsewhere but we should not confuse social media popularity for it being a valid source. We should trim these low quality heavily opinionated pages and rely upon high quality sources such as Associated Press and so forth. Secondly, they aren't particularity useful as anything they're going to cover will be covered by other proper news sources. ] (]) 23:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious ], reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Misplaced Pages articles must adhere to a ], our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral}}. To use political perspective (such as the ''Jacobin'' magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. ] (]) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. ] (]) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], so starting one should be done for good reason. ''Jacobin'' having made ''and corrected'' an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I read in the last close information presented by @] that it was in fact a problematic close which moved Jacobin from Yellow (its prior state) to Green. I mistakenly was just commenting on that, then self-reverted, but I think that we should also remember ] and not delay a necessary discussion just because it may be "time intensive" for those interested in improving the source reliability determinations that this encyclopedia relies upon. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on ]). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised ] and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. ] (]) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough ]. ] (]) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. ] (]) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. ] (]) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. ] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. ] (]) ] (]) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. ] (]) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Misplaced Pages looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, ''which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.'' | |||
| ::::::::And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Misplaced Pages giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, ''bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation.'' This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. ] (]) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. ] (]) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I agree with Springee that, "{{tq|I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify.}}" Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. ] (]) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? ] (]) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. ] (]) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.<br>You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;) | |||
| :::::::::::::::And this makes sense thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{tq|Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake}} — A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | {{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) | |||
| First its important to determine Qosja's reliability as he is used as the source material for maps and so on, before delving into other sources and their reliability etc. Determining Qosja's reliability is important not only for this issue of the map, but because in the Albanian speaking world he has published some other problematic material and it could be used on wikipedia articles. Editors have better time than to do constantly have endless discussions about whether Qosja is this or that. An outside neutral assessment and determination by RSN volunteers is needed on Qosja, hence the RSN here. Best.] (]) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand now. But the problem is the RSN can not offer you the answer you want. To brief the entire discussion: here in the ], you called Qosja's work to be "problematic" and "unreliable" because it contains, what you call it, "irredendist POV". Right? I replied to you that ] and unfortunately the RSN can not decide on a source's reliability based on POV issues or to perceived problems in the scholar's fieldwork. You need stronger arguments than just this to present against citing the population data. Even if you had any, still, the RSN's duty is to evaluate reliability of sources, not neutrality of sources. I am sorry but if this is why you came here, then I don't think you will get what you seek. Even in the hypothetical scenario where you are questioning the scholar's reliability without citing neutrality issues, then I am afraid, your answer was already given by the others; the scholar's fieldwork has been used and referred to by several governmental and non-governmental institutions who maintain high reputation in the international community. You may, personally, find yourself opposing the scholar's work and disagree with CIA and others citing it, but here, the editiorial opinions little matter; these well-known institutions checked these parts of his work, especially the population data (mind you, native populations should not be confused with irredendism) and published them in their own publications. Simple. | |||
| :Everyone is free to publish information, and no one ever questioned them priviously for doing this, except some Albanian topic editors in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing you can do to change these facts. We are talking about particular organizations which are not known for their anti-Albanian bias and the information they published about the Greek monority, contains data relating to its population, not data relating to irredendism that may exist in other parts of the scholar's fieldwork. But the Albanian topic editors are objecting to this due to their own POVs. It is as simple as that and there is nothing I can do to help the situation. Like it or not, the RS are quite neutral. Since what you are seeking from the RSN is to evaluate reliability by citing NPOV issues in the scholar's work, I can't help you, nor the RSN can, I am afraid. I could suggest the ] instead, but in that case, I don't know how can this resolve your problem, since you have made quite clear (in the article talk page) that you won't deviate from your position and POV no matter what. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Silent, Qosja's has reliability issues that relate to RS and more. I identified one issue on irredentism, i.e Western scholars have noted in a direct way that his whole book ''La question albanaise'' is about arguing for "Albanian unification". Other editors here have noted Qosja and his issues toward other Albanian religious communities. Its important that an assessment by editors not involved in the map discussion is done on this issue. Is this work by Qosja fit for usage on Misplaced Pages in general (one cannot just cherry pick one set of things on population data that they like and then call the rest of his work fringe)? Otherwise we enter problematic territory and POV edits are a possibility in future by some editors. Qosja's book comes as a package. It needs a evaluation on whether its reliable, whether it meets Misplaced Pages standards of ] and ].] (]) 17:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' We are dealing here with a classic case of literary critics who publish fringe content on purpose and Misplaced Pages editors who fall for it. Indeed, there are five sources that "support" the map used in some Misplaced Pages articles. I can type Google now and find not five but fifty sources for Hitler living in Antarctida. Having sources do not automatically qualify a claim as true. The sources are Sotiriades (criticized by academics for deliberately falsifying data), two Qose-based maps, and two sources that are tertiary ones and do not explain where do they base their content (every reliable source uses other reliable sources to make conclusions, right?). One editor keeps saying that {{u|Resnjari}} and {{u|Calthinus}} should present arguments why Qose/Le Monde and Sotiriades are not reliable sources, however arguments have already been presented. On the other hand I ask why academics like Kokalakkis and Winnifrith, who oppose Le Monde Diplomatique's claims are not taken into account? Does anyone have peer reviewed publications that criticize their work? I agree we should confine the discussion here to Qose/Le Monde Diplomatique. Qose is a literary critic. His purpose is not academic accuracy but promotion of his own ideas and provocation of public discussions. Put it in other words, Qose aims at attracting some attention for himself. He is criticized for Albanian irredentism, as showed above, and taking positions against Albanian national interests in the same time.<ref name="Biçoku1999">{{cite book|author=Kasem Biçoku|title=Falangat që rrezojnë kombin shqiptar|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CJ24AAAAIAAJ|year=1999|p=139}}</ref><ref name="Baleta1999">{{cite book|author=Abdi Baleta|title=Kosova: nga Dejtoni në Rambuje|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QyC5AAAAIAAJ|year=1999|publisher=Shtëpia Botuese Koha|p=188}}</ref> He is criticized for blaming the Orthodox for problems of Albania.<ref name="Spahiu1997">{{cite book|author=Nexhmedin Spahiu|title=Ekuilibret shqiptarë: publicistikë, 1989-1997|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ngq5AAAAIAAJ|date=1997|publisher=Shtëpia Botuese "Marin Barleti"|p=268}}</ref> Someone who says some of the most important problems of Albania are caused by the Orthodox is a reliable source for a map that paints all Orthodox Albanian speakers as Greeks? ] (]) 17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::], that there are opposing scholarly views, is very true and natural. No one here ever claimed to be the case. The dispute is due to the one side prefering only the RS that fit its personal editorial criteria (be them nationalist POV, or whatever) instead of taking in account all the RS that have been published on this. | |||
| ::I am sorry but to select the X RS and ignore the Y RS, just because it happens that you are finding yourself disagreeing with them, for political or whatever reasons, goes against Misplaced Pages's ] which mind you, is one of the project's 3 core pillars. Instead of this, it should be wiser of us to highlight all differing opinions between the scholars on the map, something you are refusing to do, hence the current dispute. To prefer only these RS that reduce the Greek minority's inhabited areas in Albania and even excempt it from places it lives, is a blatant POV and is unacceptable, no matter how hard you try to justify their omision on the grounds that it is "Anti-Albanian", "provocative", or against "Albanian national interests" to you. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Also let me correct you on two facts: the map that paints the areas with blue color, does not indicate that these areas do not have Albanians, or that these areas have only Greeks. In the same contect, the blue lines which were added by me on Calthinus' map (prior to its revision) did not replace the purple for Orthodox Albanians at all. So please do not try justify your POV by claiming fringe where there isn't. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 17:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wish the Albanian topic editors followed the example of Greek topic editors in resolving the neutrality issues. The Greek topic editors, allowed the Albanian population maps of Greece to be reflected without any population thresholds, or whatever. The areas where the Albanian populations lived or still live in Greece; the whole coast of Chameria in Northwestern Greece which has been inhabited by ], a large part of Central Greece and Southern Greece where the ] live, and even Northern Greece where ] and ] do live. If you compare these Greek topic article maps with the Albanian topic maps, you see a big difference, and certainly not what was done on Calthinus map of Albania, where a mere tiny portion of the map shows Greek presence and only on a village-per-village basis, and with population thresholds that obscures or hides the Greek element/presence from regions of Albania where it has been documented. If you take the time to check the maps for Greek topic areas and the infobox picture in the ] which also concerns Greece and other neighboring countries, you don't find any population thresholds, nor the whole countries marked stricktly on a village-by-village basis, just the RS which mark the places where the minorities lived or still live, without any personal intervention from the Greek topic editors of the kind we see now on Calthinus' map. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On other maps relating to Greece, i did not participate in either making those or if ever there was a discussion about them. That said, Silent, actually i probably should have written this before (and i say it in good faith and respect), we cannot have a proper discussion about map issues unless there is some clarity on source reliability. Otherwise we are wasting time and effort that can be devoted to other productive things on wiki etc. Its important that a assessment of Qosja is given about whether or not he is reliable by editors here at the RS not involved in the map discussion so there is clarity going forward. Best.] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok. If you go into this article: ] you can see a very beautiful map containing ALL the linguistic minorities of Greece, on all possible regions given by the RS, without going into tricks of using population thresholds, nor object to it using arguments of the kind "this RS is anti-Greek POV", "is irredendist", or "is against Greek national interests". Just we don't care if a source is POV or not, they are used as they document the populations living in Greece, regardless of their size (majority or minority), regardless of their numbers (population thresholds), and regardless of Greece's inner politics. See for yourself. I hope you will also assume good faith of the other editors, Resnjari, because (at least for me) of the policy of welcoming the RS that contain information about populations, without starting up fights, edit wars, disputes and bringing up all sorts of POV arguements for its exclusion. | |||
| :::::If the Greek topic editors went down this trend, now I hardly could be here talking to you and Calthinus at all. Since you are insisting on taking this different stance for maps concerning the Greek minority of Albania than following the same rationale that is followed elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, including Greece's minorities, then it cant be helped but make the Wikipedians (not me, but those who are not involved in our dispute atm), be wondering whether you are following an political agenda. Sorry but I tried to reason with you, and there is nothing more for me to say here. I hope ] will see my comments here and be reasoned to follow the same rationale the rest of us the Misplaced Pages editors follow, to as to have his map corrected even without your consent if possible. What you are doing is to unwillingly apply double standards even though you were the one to use this term in the various discussions we had, and this is finding me opposing. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have seen the map on Greece, its good and can be better if done on a bigger map template if one wants to devote time and effort toward the endevour. That said, the issue with this map for Albania is whether a source is reliable on the data it claims to show. Due to issues brought up, it is important that an assessment and determination of Qosja is made here in the RS by editors who did not partake in the initial map discussion. Best.] (]) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: Jacobin== | |||
| :::::::Everyone, if people want to read or write more on this broader dispute they can do so on the conversation on ]. In my own defense (lots of stuff has been said about me above), I must say that I believe my approach to the isshe, a map of languages and religions, to be the approach most free of NPOV. Languages and religions are accepted facts. On the other hand things like the sentiment or national feeling of a population 100 years ago are hard to verify and also the topic of considerable differences in national narratives (Albanian, Greek, but also Turkish, Bulgarian, Macedonian...). The languages and religions formula cuts out all the potential for POV warring, and thats why I am pursuing it. Any further commentary on this should go in appropriate places. This is an RSN about a specific source (Soteriadis will be covered later). I ask for the opinions of non-involved observers who have ''no connection'' to any side of this dispute. Also SR I'm busy right now and this is a lot of text, but I promise i will read the post you tagged me in. Cheers all, --] (]) 21:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}} | |||
| ::::::::@Calthinus, it appears you have quite a weird taste of wp:RS though an experience editor: on the one hand you consider LMD as unreliable due to conspiracy theories and it's "not" the only source as you claim since there are 4 additional: among them CIA intelligence reports & a publication in ] (an academic journal not a newspaper). On the other hand you insist that banned journalists & nationalist advocators should be used in wikipedia as reliable ]... Needless to say that something is wrong with your definition of wp:RS.] (]) 21:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}} | |||
| :::::::::Given that we have discussed every point in this lost ad nauseam already, I'm finding difficulty convincing myself that this post was done for any other purpose than annoying me and derailing the thread. All of your misrepresentative arguments regarding myself on the ] issue can be found on that page and on ]. We are taking this one source at a time. Please quit derailing the thread with misrepresentative and irrelevant ].--] (]) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''? | |||
| :::::::::@On the Melani thing, as i said previously and am now on the record many times i was not in favour. Anyway, the source bought here is not Mema but Qosja. Regardless about some issues that editors have expressed here with each other on a personal level, the RS is not about that (not a ]). Editors here have expressed valid concerns about Qosja that warrants an evaluation and determination by RS volunteers about the source and its reliability (] and ]) for use on wikipedia. Best.] (]) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| ::::::::::If Qosja is the subject of this topic the heading needs to be corrected. For future reference the map in question isn't a fringe map but a map verified by multiple sources and a consensus map for more than 7 years.] (]) 11:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| :::::::::::The same way we don't alter a certain type of wording of a subheading of threads that you create, the same same applies here regarding other editors. The map was challenged many times (there was no consensus), thing is there was no alternative to your map until now and published scholarly sources that had done the fieldwork and research were not utilised in those discussions about your map until recently. Qosja forms the basis as a cited source for two sources that you use for your map. It is important that a evaluation and determination is made on Qosja by RS volunteers regarding reliability. Best.] (]) 12:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| ::::::::::::Sorry but there ''was'' consensus. That you came and challenged the content at a later time, does not make it less. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 13:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| :::::::::::::Its been challenged over time (such as some editors attempted to change the map at the time when it was first made). There was no alternative map over the years, and nor did those discussions when they occurred on various talkpages where the map was located take into account scholarship by those challenging. Anyway, Qosja needs an evaluation and determination by RS volunteers about its reliability as a source for wikipedia.] (]) 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::You say {{tq|Its been challenged '''over time''' (such as '''some''' editors attempted to change the map at the time when it was first made)}}, and indeed this is absolutely true and the key in differientating the consensus for its addition from the consensus for its removal: Do not confuse the initial consensus for its addition which was larger than for its non-addition, with the '''over time''' lack of consensus among '''some''' editors for its removal. A big difference if you ask me. As per ]: ''Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Misplaced Pages. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.'' Misplaced Pages's Balkan topic articles are notoriously known for not accepting easily content that is politically sensitive - rarely there has been content or map that was accepted with zero opposition in them. From the Kosovo-Serbia articles, to Albania-Greece or Bulgaria-Macedonia articles. The key for consensus is when people wanting it are more than people disputing it. if there wasn't a minimal consensus, then no content could have been added to Misplaced Pages and the project could have been hostage to certain editors. Frankly, I am very grateful with that, otherwise contested articles which are hubs for biased editors, could be impossible to expand or change over time with content that may not be in line with their (editorial) POV. I am sorry if you do not like this, I didn't make the rules, but you have to admit nevertheless that these rules are what saved Misplaced Pages articles from not evolving over time with the addition of content that does not suit some editor's POV. | |||
| ::::::::::::::'''EDIT :''' I don't know if you noticed, but one of the reasons Greek topic articles contain content that may not be in line with the nationalist POV expressed by some marginalized Greek editors who happened to be around Misplaced Pages, is exactly that the Greek topic editors (regardless of nationality) are making sure that the content added (and which does not reflect their one-sided view) summarizes all different views, without the typical nationalist fanfare of the kind "is against Greece's national interests" and such. Just pointing out to an example of why you are still finding minority maps in Greek topic articles that are rather generously painting, lets say, with color the entirety of Central Greece as having Albanian population without any restrictions such as population thresholds, unlike Calthinus' map which drastically has reduced the blue color of the Greek minority to only a fraction of the original areas. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}The longevity of a source does not determine that it is accurate. When some editors who may not have previously been party to past discussions highlight etc certain things change can happen, even if there was previously a consensus. A recent example of this was the map that had been there for years on the ] article, until its accuracy was questioned and removed with a new map eventually replacing the old . Its very important to establish accuracy of sources especially in things relating to this. Serious issues have been raised by editors regarding Qosja and its important that a elevation and determination on reliability be made. Misplaced Pages has its guidelines on consensus, it also has policy rules on ] and ]] to prevent biased sources and in other cases propaganda or and POV entering the encyclopedia, as in the end Misplaced Pages is not a ].] (]) 14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :The longevity of a source is not determined by whether it has POV (mind you, the editors who have questioned Qosja, did so on POV grounds), and its reliability is not determined by how much POV or how long it has been on the article. True that. But what you are missing here is that Qosja is deemed as a reliable scholar and his work has already been used by several well-reputed institutions of the international community which are very respected and well known for their lack of POV and lack of fringe publications, and for their fact-checking, as are Cartographie and CIA in Qosja's case. Very important, Resnjari. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Question - is the map in question actually being used as a ''source'', or is it merely an ''illustration'' of something stated in a cited source? Or to ask this another way... are WP editors creating statements based on looking at the map, or is the map merely illustrating statements made by an external source? (Note: As long as a map accurately depicts what an source material states, then it is an illustration, not a source). This is important, because '''if''' it is merely an ''illustration'' of external source material, then the question of reliability has to shift... from discussing the map itself to discussing the external source material upon which the map is based. ] (]) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Reply by ]:''' {{ping|Blueboar}} -- yes. The LDM map is an illustration of ]'s work. The literary critic. Do you think I should reformulate this thread to match that? I believe this was suggested elsewhere too but I ... can't find it :(. This got long and ugly. --] (]) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Reply by ]:''' {{ping|Blueboar}}, the map in Le Diplomatique is a copy of Qosja's map. I should add here that an academic review in the journal ''Balkanlogue'' in 1999 by Michel Roux of Qosja's ''La question albanaise'' concludes that it is from the perspective of ethnonationalism (paragraph 7. "Mais il est, comme tant d'autres essais balkaniques récents, tout entier situé dans la perspective de l'ethno-nationalisme."). In addition Roux highlights in detail issues with Qosja's map regarding percentages etc in paragraph 6 and criticises them along with population hatching and population distribution for inaccuracy amongst other things. "Il s'agit ici d'un genre qui se répand fâcheusement, la CMO, cartographie massacrée par ordinateur : vite fait, mal fait, non vérifié." To translate "This is an unfortunate genre, CMO, computer-slaughtered mapping: quick, badly done, unverified." Roux notes further problems of wrong geogprahy and so on. "Istanbul a abandonné le Bosphore et le mot Albanie est à l'emplacement de la Macédoine (p. 299). Mal orthographiés sont Kolašin (p. 301), Ferizaj, Vuçitërnë, Prishtinë, Rožaje, Kičevo et Preševo (p. 306) ; d'ailleurs les deux dernières devraient être notées Kërçovë et Preshevë puisque l'ouvrage met en graphie albanaise les noms des lieux où les Albanais sont majoritaires, et cela vaut aussi pour Tetovo, Debar et Gnjilane (Tetovë, Dibër, Gjilan). '''Enfin, la dernière carte, p. 307, consacrée à la proportion d'Albanais par commune, est rendue incompréhensible par la permutation de trois types de hachures : il faut lire 50 à 80 % au lieu de 10 à 30, 30 à 50 au lieu de 50 à 80, enfin 10 à 30 au lieu de 30 à 50… faute de quoi on pourrait croire, par exemple, que Skopje est à majorité albanaise, ce que personne ne prétend. Encore la source, non indiquée, n'est-elle pas le recensement yougoslave de 1991, mais une estimation de source albanaise qui majore la proportion d'Albanais dans certaines communes. Cette même carte figure - sans les erreurs ci-dessus - dans d'autres publications, comme la revue Kosova, n°1, Tirana, 1993.'''". I hope that goes some way to answering things. Best.] (]) 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| ::'''Reply by ]:''' {{editconflict}} {{ping|Blueboar}}, the map ] is created by an Misplaced Pages editor, ], and as source, it cites authentic maps already published by the academic scholars such as Soteriadis (here is Soteriadis map for you: ], as well as maps by literary critics such as Rexhep Qosja. But, the problem here, Blueboar, is that the filling party (which already apologized in advance for its lack of clarification in its wording), explained what exactly they seek from the RSN: to evaluate the content not by {{tq|whether it is a ''source'', or merely an ''illustration'' of something stated in a cited sources}} (it is a source, not illustration) but by whether a certain scholars's political views deem it reliable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. The editors from the filling party consider ]'s work to no be suitable to their editorial POV, and thus they find it to be "fringe" just because they personally disagree with the literary critic's expressed political views, and are accusing Qosja for containing "bias against the Albanian state and the Albanian people". In this contect, the filling side is asking whether the map by Alexikoua (which includes both Sotiriades and Qosja maps) is too NPOV for it to meet reliability criteria for inclusion to Misplaced Pages, given that it cites Rexhep Qosja who often has expressed contested political views which the filling party finds itself as disagreeing with. Edit: as you can read above, I have already tried to explain to the filling party about ], but they could prefer to hear your opinion instead of mine. They could like to hear the opinion of a third, uninvolved party instead of me because I have been involved in the dispute. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The map by Sotiriades has also been criticized in Western scholarship (i.e Wilkenson) as being a piece of Word War One wartime propaganda . There are huge issues with Alexikoua's map like also omissions of other ethnic groups etc. Considering scholars like Roux who have looked at Qosja's book ''La question albanaise'' have cited that his map data is unverified and full of inaccuracies etc and that overall it is a ethnonationalist work, for RS volunteers is Qosja a reliable source?] (]) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::Resnjari, how many times do we have to explain to you that a scholar '''not agreeing''' by another scholar during wartime period, does not mean that the opposing views shouldn't be taken in account? Please read CAREFULLY what ] states: "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, '''all of the significant views''' that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Can you point me to a rule in Misplaced Pages which states that some views should be omitted from the encyclopedia just because there is lack of scholarly consensus on (or criticism among them)? --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 16:33, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :::::], know that: I do not disagree with you that this or that scholar has been criticized for their work. Absolutely not. My point here isn't whether this or that scholar have conducted fieldwork that finds everybody agreeing with, my whole point is that given the lack of thorought analysis of the populations in Albania, which you have admitted that it was largely ignored by the academic community and thus, the populations in Albania have not been the subject of extensive studies by scholars abroad, makes even more important to present the opposing views by these few scholars who studied on Albania's populations. To just omit one scholar and cherrypick on sources from others based on political criteria or due to perceived POV, is something that goes against Misplaced Pages's guidelines. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 16:45, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::::How have scholars omitted (Kallivretakis who had a research team with him, Nitsiakos, De Rapper, Winnifrith etc that in their fieldwork when they went to those places did so in most cases on a village by village basis and Qosja did not at all) reach different conclusions based on their research and are different from the Qosja ''data''? Roux notes in detail that Qosja's work is unverifiable, full or inaccuracies and that it is ethno-nationalist. By the way don't bend my words, i never said that populations have been ignored by scholars in Albania, what i said was that Alexikoua has ignored those studies, hence much omissions of those communities in his wikipedia map.] (]) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| *'''Comment''' — {{ping|Calthinus|Resnjari|Blueboar|Only in death|Khirurg|SilentResident|Alexikoua}} I am not an expert in the ethnographic composition of Albania and the surrounding region. That said, this RSN post's description of ''Le Monde Diplomatique'' as a fringe source is incorrect. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of French civilization, or of international publications generally, knows the it is one of the most respected publications in France. A polemical paragraph in this book , which acknowledges that LMD is "respected", does not change that fact. Reliable sources can publish false information, and this map could be incorrect. But ''Le Monde Diplomatique'' is generally a reliable source. -] (]) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::Thank you very much, ]. I agree absolutely with you on this. Although it is true that sometimes a reliable source may publish incorect information, this does not make anything about it to be automatically unreliable. This was always the case about the newspapers, books, etc, across the world. Today no source could be taken as reliable if we followed the filling party's absolutist approach on what can be reliable or not. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 16:33, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :::], Le Monde Diplomatique has also been noted in scholarship to have from the 1970s onward "a radical left-wing editorial line and been involved with some activist movements since the 1990s" or that "Le Monde Diplomatique is owned by the Monde group, but has an autonomous, radical-left editorial staff." . One cannot omit that the newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique has a radical left wing bias. That said the map in Le diplomatiqie is copied from Qosja whose work ''La question Albanaise'' is noted as a ethnonationalist work and that the map and data it showed to be inaccurate and unverifiable. Newspapers of any standing can still make mistakes from where they source their data from. And it is quite clear they got it from Qosja.] (]) 16:49, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::{{re|Resnjari}} thanks for your note. As a major publication LMD has been described as many things, including: | |||
| ***:::::::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) | |||
| ::::*"With its clear left-wing political affiliation, ''Le Monde Diplomatique'' caters for a global intellectual audience..." with a larger international than home audience | |||
| ***::::::::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) | |||
| ::::*"...astonishingly successful... political and cultural bi-monthly with a global printed circulation of 1.5 million in 21 languages... editorial line clearly to the left, or rather ''altermondialiste.''" | |||
| ***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*"''Le Monde Diplomatique'' had established a solid reputation for high-brow criticism and debate on international affairs and for many years had acted as a mouthpiece for the left-wing intelligentsia. This was 'a newspaper produced by and for an elite' and many of France's leading left-wing thinkers had, at various points, filled the column inches of this newspaper..." | |||
| ***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*"...the French monthly ''Le Monde Diplomatique'' was a success story not only in its home country but also abroad. Today, this left-wing and movement-oriented journal is published in more than ten countries with a total circulation of 1.2 million copies..." | |||
| *: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) | |||
| ::::*"the left-leaning ''Le Monde Diplomatique''..." | |||
| *::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) | |||
| ::::*"...a leading voice of the European left..." | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| ::::That said, I agree with you that the map might be wrong. I'm not an expert here and can't evaluate that issue. -] (]) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards, | |||
| :::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You forget however that not only Diplomatique uses Qosja's map, but other agencies too, which are well-respected reliable sources, such as ] and Cartographie. What do you say about them? They too are using Qosja's maps. Are they unreliable too? C'mon now. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 16:55, 5 January 2018 (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. ] (]) 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) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Darouet}} Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper, and as such its aim is not to produce academic data on demographics of Albania but to present different views on topics its readers might find interesting. Those views surely include fringe ones. Above everything else, it is its editor-in-chief who has expressed his worry about false information that is being served to media organizations such as Le Monde Diplomatique itself . | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :::::::I value your opinion that ''Le Monde Diplomatique'' is '''generally''' a reliable source. Of course, as a well-known publication it has its own merits. However, what we need to know is if the specific map published in a specific article of Le Monde Diplomatique is reliable or not. The question is not about Le Monde Diplomatique in general, but about a specific article/map published on it. A map that is very criticized, and was made by Rexhep Qosja, who himself (as shown with references above) is criticized by academics for being an irredentist, an anti-Albanian, an anti-Orthodox, and a creator of poor and unreliable maps in the same time. To sum up all, the question is: Can Misplaced Pages editors use Qosja-based works on maps and other things? It is very important because his works might be used or not by other editors in the future. For example, his works might be used for demographics maps of the Republic of Macedonia, although he paints as Albanian majority settlements (such as Ohrid and Skopje) that even Albanian nationalists do not claim to be so or as non-Albanian majority settlements that have an Albanian majority, as a matter of fact. ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Darouet}}, I appreciate the clarification and comments. These issues of demography are both sensitive and complex making even more the importance of using data that is credible and accurate. I agree with {{ping|Ktrimi991}} on Qosja and its something for RS volunteers to reflect on in their evaluation regarding reliability. Best.] (]) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::{{ping|Darouet}} I must then apologize for the characterization of Le Monde Diplomatique. To be entirely honest it is not a source I am incredibly familiar with (though I do like to think I have a "modicum of knowledge on French civilization"). Most of what I knew about it were published statements saying things comparing the United States to Hitler, bin Laden and Stalin , that Europe was an American "vassal", and so on. Frankly I find these offensive, and that probably colors my view -- though it is fair to think that such an emotional response may be unfair to a "journal of opinions" based on recurrent themes in editorials (??) and perhaps also I am wrong and it is indeed "not fringe" to compare the United States to Hitler and etc. Let's just say I've been thoroughly surprised, learn something new every day. --] (]) 22:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I looked trough the arhives of RSN and found several discussions about LMD. There is a clear consensus that LMD is RS (I presented links and quotes below). Having in mind very neutral, weak and mild context of this RSN request, the "<u>presence</u>" of non-Albanian languages or people (without insisting on majority) and multiple other RS that support it, I think it is safe to conclude that LMD is RS. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ** August 2008 - ] - {{tq|Le Diplo is a major and quite influential publication, and it clearly qualifies as a reliable source}} | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ** September 2010 - ] - {{tq| Le Monde Diplomatique is a WP:RS – and if I remember correctly – is world renowned for its reliable high-quality maps. -- Petri Krohn (talk) ... Le Monde Diplomatique is as good a reliable source as you'll get.}} | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ** December 2010 - ] - {{tq| LMD, which is undoubtedly a reliable source .... Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Certainly Agree. Xavier449 (talk) Also agree. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (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. | |||
| ** January 2013 - ] - {{tq| Le Monde Diplomatique is a serious mainstream news magazine, should be reliable for biographies.}} | |||
| :Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** August 2014 - ] - {{tq| Le Monde Diplomatique, a political magazine owned by a subsidiary of Le Monde. It is being used with attribution for an article it published describing Right Sector as a fascist organization. The journal is highly respected in France, and for political commentary internationally.}} | |||
| :'''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." | |||
| ** July 2015 - ] - {{tq|Le Monde diplomatique, which is totally WP:RS.}} --] (]) 18:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::@Antidiskriminator, there is scholarly analysis of Qosja, whose particular work ''Le Question albanaise'' is noted as "ethnonationalist" and his map as full of errors with unverifiable information, a map which Le Monde has used in its entirety and sourced in whole to Qosja. In all those RS threads on Le Monde only one touches upon the issue here and none of the issues in that thread about Qosja as an academic yet alone the book ''Le Question albanaise'' where discussed which Le Monde sources its map in whole from. There is serious issues of quality and accuracy with Qosja making its use for Misplaced Pages quite questionable to say the least if wiki guidelines and policy (] and ]) are applied.] (]) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Antidiskriminator}} Other editors (not involved in the discussion on the talk of ]) have already explained everything depends on context. We are not asking here about Le Monde Diplomatique in general but about the map made by Rexhep Qosja. I guess you do not support usage of Qosja on demographics of Macedonia or articles related to Serbia. Do you? I guess you want Qosja to be used when it suits your own opinion, and Qosja to not be used when he says things that are not to your liking. Make your mind, is Qosja reliable for such things or not? ] (]) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :::::<u>The question in this RSN is wheather Le Monde Diplomatique (an article authored by Philippe Rekacewicz) is reliable to be cited in context of the presence of non-Albanian languages or people.</u> I explicitly referred to: | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :::::* very neutral, weak and mild '''context''' in my above comment and | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| :::::* to multiple sources and authors who support it. | |||
| :::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{tq|Having in mind very neutral, weak and mild '''context''' of this RSN request, the "<u>presence</u>" of non-Albanian languages or people (without insisting on majority) and '''multiple other RS that support it,''' I think it is safe to conclude that LMD is RS.}} --] (]) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Darouet}}, {{ping|Antidiskriminator}} My thanks to both of you. I am happy to hear the opinion of two uninvolved editors on the RSN regarding Diplomatique, and I appreciate that you took the time to do so, regarding the reliability of Diplomatique. But I am afraid the problem with the filling party is that due to their editorial POV, they are never going to accept Diplomatique as a RS. Never. It seems clear to me that no matter what, they will go the very end about this, and even dispute CIA or Cartographie on top of that. I already have tried to reason with them over the citation of a questionable map of Qosja by reputed and highly respected institutions and agencies. But the filling party not only they are not listening to us, but also are going as low as to suggest exlusion of not only Qosja's map, but also Soteriadis's map on faulty NPOV grounds. Which is very saddening and shows that their NPOV concerns aren't for the sake of neutrality, are for the sake of maintaining a certain editorial POV on the contested articles where this map is to be used. The filling party's approach of classifying reliable RS such as Diplomatique as unreliable, just to justify their position on the maps they do not POV-agree with, is finding me vehemently opposing. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@SilentResident ''Antidiskriminator is not an "uninvolved" editor as you claim. He is a party in this dispute.'' The request for comments was done here after some editors, '' including Antidiskriminator'' and you held the view the map made by Alexikoua is based on reliable sources. So do not unfairly portrait Antidiskrimintor as an "uninvolved" editor. | |||
| * (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) | |||
| :::::::@Antidiskriminator You are saying that Le Monde Diplomatique's article based on Qose is reliable because some other articles published by Le Monde Diplomatique are considered reliable. I have explained before in this discussion that having sources for a claim does not automatically make it true. For example, there are a lot of sources that say the United States are worse than bin Laden. One of those sources is an article published on Le Monde Diplomatique itself. Le Monde Diplomatique has published good and fringe articles. Our purpose here is to have opinions from uninvolved editors on this specific map made by Qose. A map that is criticized by academics as already showed. On the other hand we have several (mostly Greek) academics who after doing fieldwork have presented another version of the truth. Their findings contradict the map made by a literary essayist named Rexhep Qose. I ask you again as you still have not responded my question. Is Qosja a reliable source to be used on demographics of Macedonia or articles related to Serbia? ] (]) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (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> | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|Ktrimi991}} Antidiskriminator isn't party to the RS dispute. Coming to the talk page to warn you against violations of ] which you, the filling party, have committed, along with ] and violations of ], does not make him an involved party to the dispute. Voicing his opposition to disruption and pointing out to ] guidelines that you should have followed, does not make him party to the RS dispute. Please straight your facts. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::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) | |||
| :::::::::Actually Antidiskriminator was involved early in the discussion on the map within the Albania talkpage . That said Silent, {{ping|Blueboar}} noted that context matters, while {{ping|Darouet}} also noted that though Le Diplomatiqie is of merit did not suggest that the map is correct either. {{re|Ktrimi991}} makes a valid point on Qosja and the need for RS volunteers to give a evaluation and determination on reliability considering Le Monde used the map in whole from Qosja, a source noted in scholarship as "ethnonationalist" with its map being full of errors and data unverifiable. Other sources like the Soteriadis map are noted in scholarship i.e British scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson as being World War One propaganda .] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :::::::::Actually this is what I am talking about. He explained to you that consensus is required for replacing the old map by Diplomatique with the one created by the filling party. I don't see anywhere his participation to the RS dispute. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 21:30, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :::As i explained to him as well consensus is needed on other things as well alongside of course accuracy of sources.] (]) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ====Proposed solution==== | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| It seems an important goal of this RSN post is not to ascertain whether ''Le Monde Diplomatique'' is a reliable source (it is ), but rather to decide between differing and possibly contradictory maps (e.g. #1 , #2 ) of the ethnic and minority composition of Albania . Note that another map is also available: . | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it. | |||
| :It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure. | |||
| As is common in these cases, subtle differences in the apparent magnitude of different ethnicities in different areas become fodder for various disputed nationalist causes, past and present. What those are won't be apparent to the vast majority of Wiki editors. | |||
| :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. | |||
| I'd propose that you make a composite map with 2-3 panels, where each panel shows a different map. You can label them A, B and C. And in the description you can clearly indicate which scholarly sources A, B and C are based upon. That way readers can be made aware that there are different, disputed maps of minorities in Albania. And readers who are ''very'' interested can pursue the subject in greater depth, using the referenced sources. What do you all think of this? -] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' The whole root of the dispute is that the sources documenting the minority populations are not reflected due to criteria placed on them by the filling party. The filling party created the following old map which you pointed: , as well the following new map: , and the maps contain editor-imposed population thresholds that are artificially shrinking the presence of minorities in the country, and this is not in line with the sources cited. The new map was created on the holiday season just few weeks ago, and the filling party tried to replace the Diplomatique map with that new one they made. The filling party said the population threshold on their new map is about 10%, significantly reducing the minority's presence in the country in areas where it is less than 10% of the population. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :If the three maps have to be includred to the articles side-by-side as you proposed, then the filling party's POV on it has to be eliminated first. This means, the filling party's imposed population thresholds will have to be removed before the map is accepted to the article so what the readers see on it is what the sources say, not what the filling party wants them to see. If Resnjari and Calthinus are willing to remove their population thresholds on their new map so it can reflect what the sources say, then I will consent to its inclusion. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::All this so-called conspiracy theory about LMD has reached a near-paranoia level, no wonder third part editors confirm that LMD is of merit. Moreover the LMD map is only one of the sources used in this case: ] features another identical map and a CIA memorandum on the 1994 situation in Albania yet another one.] (]) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we. | |||
| ::::So present them ''all'', with appropriate captions to indicate which source (and thus which viewpoint) they are based upon. Simple. ] (]) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I believe it's impossible to present in one caption Calthinus recent map it's a wp:SYNTHESIS of 25kb of text ] based on c. 40 citations (though none of the inlines presents a map on the subject only text and partial lists of villages). ] (]) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Blueboar}}, the maps the filling party created, both the new map: as well as the old map: , are not reflecting the sources cited. For example, while the sources are documenting minority presence in the country's cities and villages, they are not marked at all on the map, due to the filling party having placed a Population Threshold 10% on these areas. The population threshold is not supported by the sources, is something the filling party placed by itself, resulting in a map showing very different information from what the sources do. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Blueboar}} I'm not happy to see that in my absence SR has said things about me which are just false. There is no "Population Threshold 10%" for the 2011 census map at all. You can literally look at the map and see that. Also every single thing on that map comes from a single source, the stats available here: ]. Meanwhile, SR's description of the present map is also misleading. Of course no source would say "Hmm I think if you make a map of this you should have this threshold"-- instead it is implemented to prevent a hairball effect that makes everything impossible to see on it. Furthermore, the map is a work in progress-- the "Greek side" has only actually (to my knowledge) criticized one case where "the sources are documenting minority presence in the country's cities and villages"-- the town of ]. I had simply missed that. I'm going to fix it after I'm done replying to.... all the things that were directed to me (sigh).--] (]) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Questions Internationales via a commissioned map produced by a French cartography company also cites the same Qosja source for its map , etc. {{ping|Darouet}}, {{ping|Blueboar}}, i have only been a interested party in the discussion, we would need the input of {{ping|Calthinus}} as its his map after all and knows the ins and outs of it. @Alexikoua, your map initially had 6 sources now it has 8 and that too is wp:SYNTHESIS. Calthinus's map is based on multiple academic studies that did fieldwork documented the many ethno-linguistic communities of Albania and their distributions. There are multiple ways of showing complex referencing like this (an example is the ] article, see sentence on origins in the lede -its citation has a whole host of citations arranged neatly within the context of one citation).] (]) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I am sorry, Resnjari, but none here on the RSN ever disputes Diplomatique or asks for Qosja sources to be removed from Misplaced Pages; now, the volunteers proposed basically the same thing as I did to you above but you couldn't listen to me: Contain all significant views on the populations of Albania, as per ], without omitting any of them from Misplaced Pages, unlike how you have attempted when you replaced Qosja's map with your prefered one. You have two options: Either accept the RSN's suggestions, either we return back to the old good consensus. Period. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::They proposed 2 or 3 maps to be side by side (as one of those maps is the official census results spserate to Calthinius' ethno-linguistic map). That's a different thing to what you proposed. As i said above to {{ping|Darouet}}, {{ping|Blueboar}}, we'll need {{ping|Calthinus}}' input for this as it was his map in the end. On my part i have not made up my mind. I want to see {{ping|Calthinus}}'s view before i say one thing or another going forward.] (]) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{ping|Resnjari}} My position that '''no RS shall be omitted from Misplaced Pages''' and that '''all significant viewpoints should be present, including Qosja and Soteriadis''' remains unchanged, I am afraid. The RSN now just confirmed my position and expectations on this, that all different viewpoints reflected in the RS shall be present in Misplaced Pages. But since you do not want that, they offered you an alternate workaround to not adding Qosja and Soteriadis to your map: have them by-by. Thats all. You wanted to remove Soteriadis and Qosja completely from Misplaced Pages and to do this, you went as far as to dispute Diplomatique. The RSN however, failed to share your views, and proposed the obvious: that all the RS stay in Misplaced Pages, like them or not. I am sorry if you are disappointed with the outcome, but you should have listened to me from the start instead of being so stubborn to your positions. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::See this where we differ, your refering to viewpoints, yet my premise has always been '''accurate scholarship based on ] and ]'''. Sources like Sotiriades are problematic due to it being basically WW1 propaganda. Qosja is a problem due to it being nationalistic and his map being inaccurate. These are not my views but the analysis of scholarship. Also the RS did not confirm your position on the map, as apart from reliability accuracy and context was raised as well including where a source sourced its source. As i said before and i say again {{ping|Calthinus}}' input is required as its his map before i make further comments going forward.] (]) 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{ping|Resnjari}}, I am glad you finally realized what is the case here, but don't you think now to be abit too late for such realizations? I wish you understood this sooner instead of having us drag our feet to Noticeboards just for this. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Actually Qosja isn't the only source Questions Internationales uses for its map. It would be far too much to accuse this academic journal for conspiracy theories and FRINDGE like LMD. No wonder those maps (CIA included) offer almost identical definitions of the Greek minority area. Pardon me but I wouldn't term it SYNTH.] (]) 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::The other sources do not pertain toward Albania, but neighboring regions like Kosovo, Macedonia , . That cartography source also cites the Greek government website on migrants etc, yet no link to a document etc. I thought government sources were not ''credible'' in such instances, or is it only applied to Albanian government data that is not considered ''credible''. One wonders how that cartography company formed that data for southern Albania. Well there is Qosja cited in that map once again. Pardon me, but the use of Winnifirth for your map (cherry picked only for the Aromanian community) in no way gives the Greek distribution as in your map, but instead is identical to Calthinius'. You have a collection of 8 sources, that is synthesis.] (]) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::If mine is SYNTH then Alexi's must also be, as the supposed reason (use of different sources for different groups and regions) is also exactly what Alexi did. Indeed he used Winnifrith for the Vlachs but not the Greeks which is technically CHERRY...--] (]) 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Sigh {{u|Resnjari}} I'm confused by this crazy thread. For what is my input needed now?--] (]) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::{{ping|Calthinus}}, I do agree that its gotten way big, the discussion. As you joined the discussion now, as there is a lot to read and then contemplate as its your map, on the proposal. Only you can give a answer going forward, as my input is only that of a interested party. Best.] (]) 23:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::{{ping|Calthinus}} my friend, let me explain, as the article got shamelessly long for any sane and patient editors to read all this rattle: all what we need to hear from you whether you are fine with RSN's proposal to have no RS omitted from Misplaced Pages, and instead have the different maps displayed side-by-side. Only if you are fine with that, is what we could like to hear from you. Resnjari's stubborness again got the better of him, and already stated that they are refusing to accept the RSN's outcome, nor they are willing to make any much-needed compromises with other editors. I highly recommend that you consent to RSN's proposal like I already did, as to have the two maps together (not merged like in my proposal, just together by-by) and let us finally make a consensus even if that means a consensus without Resnjari. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Silent Resident, i did not refer to your in any colourful way like "stubborness again got the better of him" and please refrain from doing so (see ]). I made my comments' as i highly regard Calthinius' view on the matter.] (]) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Your stubbornes is an acknowledgement, no a mere colorful call. Fortunately for you. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 23:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: {{u|SilentResident}} Sure, '''I support having the two maps side by side''', it seems like a good compromise for now. Of course both maps have issues-- I will be fixing Permet and removing my name in a sec. I would also like an answer on Rexhep Qosja. Perhaps honestly I should relist for that, as has been suggested elsewhere. But for now, yes, I consent to having the maps side by side.--] (]) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainlyleaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: {{u|Calthinus}} Thank you very very much, I am very glad we have your consent. So here we go. We have new consensus from now, even without Resnjari. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 23:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Silent, just give your own view for yourself and don't infer about others. Everyone can speak for themselves. Calthinus' map is going into the articles and am ok with that.] (]) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''To the RSN volunteers:''' Unless someone here has additional comments to make regarding this dispute over the RSs by Diplomatique and Qosja, I guess the case can be marked as resolved and be closed. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 23:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I want sth to be clarified so no other problems emerge after this. I guess that the party that opposed Calthinus' map will not object on potential usage of Rexhep Qosja's books in the future, they were the ones who protected his writings and do not have any reason to call him unreliable when used on other articles. ] (]) 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart! | |||
| :::If this piece of information from the specific person is published in RS publications lets say LMD and confirmed by additional academic journals it wont be a problem.] (]) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}} | |||
| :::::What Qosja? His works are POV and i think a new RS in future will eventually arise due to the nationalist content he has written and POV issues on articles that will use those sources. On the map situation, Calthinus' has agreed and that's what matters now.] (]) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's a solution since each map does not portray exactly the same info: map #1 is about traditional presence of non-Albanian minorities, #2 majorities whether Albanian or not.] (]) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in: | |||
| :::::::{{u|Alexikoua}} Well, do not forget words you just typed. They are very important. For you Qosja's books are a reliable source, otherwise you refute your own map. Cheers all. ] (]) 00:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169 | |||
| ::::::::What's important is that LMD is reliable and the so-called conspiracy theories unfounded. Not to mention that a number of official reports, academic journals confirm this map. Qosja might be completely unreliable but this map is based by a variety of RS publications.] (]) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2 | |||
| :::::::::Correct. It could be weird to see that many reliable institutions and agencies could cite Qosja if he was not reliable at all. Qosja, POV or not, his work has been cited and used by the international community. --<span style="color:#FF00FF">❤ ]] ❤</span> 00:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p. | |||
| ::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| *Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks. | |||
| *::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Heritage Foundation == | |||
| ] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation? | |||
| ::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods. | |||
| :On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes. | |||
| ::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's more valuable to treat them as ] than to treat them as ] personally. ] (]) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed that primary makes more sense than SPS for HF, though there are instances where their work would be or could be a secondary source. ] (]) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 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 ] 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) | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| === RFC: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not a cybersecurity expert, and I'm not going to get into the long back-and-forth about HF using links to their website to scrape the IPs of Misplaced Pages editors. My concern is far more basic: if they are doxxing editors, or even threatening to, we should not be linking to them. ] (]) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, why don't we just treat them like a printed source? Mention the author, the title of the article, the year of publication, but leave out any URL to the article. Makes a good compromise: if it's necessary to cite them, then they can be cited without any security concerns that they'll grab a users IP. Those who want to verify the information can google the title of the article and access the article via the search engine so that all that HF would know is that IP so-so accessed their website via a search engine rather than Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I agree with editors that have voiced that the security concern is more "security theater" and !vote that the real agenda here should be based in reliability and reliability alone. ] (]) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Mainly out of the fact that if HF wants to be a bad actor and do what they plan, us removing the links barely stops them if at all. That just seems silly as a "defensive" move unless I am sorely missing something. ] (]) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::There was talk that they wanted to create links that would redirect to some fishy sites. If we don't include any of their links then at least that can be avoided. Plus, I'd think that would make it harder to track editors' activities across different platforms/website. At the same time, HF can still be used a source without any particular limitations other than the policies that are in place and have already been applied to them all this time. ] (]) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Interesting proposal. I hope your idea catches on in this discussion. ] (]) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::] actually suggested the same thing as I just saw (the post is right below this thread; here:), but it probably got buried in all the notifications and went unnoticed. ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Why should a source that publishes disinformation and misinformation be used in an encyclopedia? ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Because the required consensus to depricate HF might not be reached. | |||
| *:::::::Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the quality of HF's content, but I see that others consider HF's content useful (at least to some degree) that's why I'm suggesting a compromise in case HF will not be depricated, so that at least the security concerns could still be addressed. ] (]) 21:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::And I for one think that is very reasonable and level headed of you @]. ] (]) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The consensus so far appears to be somewhere between "deprecate" and "deprecate and blacklist". ] (]) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::] can be tricky, as it is not a simply or even a super majority of !votes. That is why we call them <u>'''''not'''''</u> ''votes'' (!votes) after all.. ] (]) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::The good news is that they are all proper !votes. ] (]) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::What would you consider to be an "improper" !vote? Generally speaking. ] (]) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Just to note, since some are treating deprecation as being more expanse than it is, ] says: | |||
| *::{{tq|Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in ] (see also ] and ]).}} | |||
| *::That should be sufficient to cover the times when we would need to cite this source, and preferably either with archival links or w/o links at all depending on implementation given the other concerns. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:To clarify this, I think an archival link in citations would resolve the security issues of using a Heritage Foundation link, not that blacklisting would be a panacea to the doxxing campaign. I think that a link to an organization's own website is the most likely candidate, among links, for a court to decide is a legal way to obtain information. Blacklisting won't stop dedicated efforts to create 3rd-party tracking links, which we should warn editors about, but it is a relatively easy way on our end to throw up a small impediment to the goals and increase the legal risk of any doxxing campaign. If this site is blacklisted, editors should be directed to the various resources on account security that have been discussed. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 + Blacklist ''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) <small>Amended to include Blacklisting ] (]) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}} | |||
| *:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting. | |||
| *:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else. | |||
| *::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things. | |||
| *::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment. | |||
| *::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. ] (]) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. ] (]) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Ugh, it's not for retaliation. I am commenting on the source's reliability. In addition to the incidents documented above and in the parent section's opening statement—which I, ], don't see you refuting—I don't trust Heritage to publish reliable information if they mount a personal assault on information itself. Even if we were on a site unrelated to Misplaced Pages, I would not trust it. ] (]) 22:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::yes, blacklisting is not about retaliation. any political organization that chooses to stoop to this level signals that there is no level to which it will not stoop, including wholesale fabrication of data in seemingly legitimate analyses. it has crossed the Rubicon and can never again be trusted. it should enjoy the company of Breitbart and InfoWars. ] (]) 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I agree, except for the part on blacklisting. Blacklisting depends on whether it's being persistently and disruptively added (as Breitbart and InfoWars documentedly were per their blacklisting discussions). I don't see that happening yet, and per RedTailedHawk below, I fear it'll lead Wikipedians into a false sense of security away from the vigilance about all links, which is needed. ] (]) 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Is blacklisting dependent upon a source being found persistently and disruptively used, or simply a finding of gross and malevolent unreliability? ] (]) 23:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{outdent|3}} The former. Besides the fact that it's called the <em>spam</em> blacklist, ] says {{tq| These lists mostly contain spam sites, but also include URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting), some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus.}} and {{tq|blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers}}. ] further says it's {{tq|intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses.}} ] (]) 01:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::yeah, I've been a bit befuddled by blacklisting being limited to spamming, rather than grossly false and malevolent content. was InfoWars blacklisted for spam? ] (]) 02:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::As linked to on RSP, {{tq|I think that int he interests of protecting the project from a mix of Russian bots and Rany from Boise we should blacklist these domains}}. You need persistent mistaken addition to blacklist instead of just deprecating. ] (]) 16:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::"Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself" isn't quite true. The US government runs lots of reliable sources, but the US government has also conducted information warfare. It's a big organization with a long history. | |||
| *:::::::I'll also direct you (and others interested) to ] and ], in case you haven't seen them already. Again, ANI is MREL, and that's unrelated to its attacks ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::], and while their court case is probably of bad faith, they are still respecting the rule of law. If they sicced private detectives on the 3 defendants to expose them, that's another story. You have a point regarding the US government, but the sources that we allow have much better records and reputations regarding what they <em>do</em> publish, and arguments for continued usage like that of the ANI RfC I linked to. For the ones that don't, like ], we deprecate them. ] (]) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Ugh, what a wall of text in the replies to my last comment. Look, this isn't about retaliating, or even about not liking what they said. It's about determining whether or not something is a reliable source. And anyone who cannot see that what Heritage is doing is inconsistent with being a reliable source is, I think, very likely to be a POV-pusher making excuses for them. --] (]) 01:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Heritage is engaged in subversion and espionage, which is thoroughly inconsistent with a reliable source. yes, ''espionage''. ] (]) 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I hope you don't mean to suggest I'm a POV pusher ] (]) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To clarify: I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT, but the Forward article that prompted this discussion might not even suggest HF plans to do anything illegal, unless they dox people who live in places where that's illegal like California or the Netherlands (that's not illegal in the wider US or EU) or spear phish people who live where that's illegal (from what I can tell, not illegal across the US unless it falls under another crime like identity theft, but a bunch of states have their own laws, according to an InfoSec article that I can't link to. Might be illegal across the EU?). Like it or not, they can choose from their menu of doxing tools to try to stay within the laws of each relevant jurisdiction. I do think ANI is worse, where a hostile entity has already succeeded in breaching anonymity ''and'' in censoring Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *:::::::::For OCB's deprecation, the reasoning cites "consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda". If we're going to deprecate HF it should be for similar reasons, but I don't think most of this discussion has actually addressed concerns of dis/misinformation, apart from "if they do ''this'' they must automatically be a bad source", which I don't think is a strong argument. There are some fringe but legitimate reasons where doxing people on the internet could be seen as acceptable, like investigative journalism revealing that Prolific Reddit User X is actually Known Russian Agitator Y (or, prolific TikToker influencing the Romanian presidential election is actually ''this guy'' linked to shadowy companies). So it's not the doxing itself that's bad, but the intent to reveal WP editors' identities (unless the doxing is conducted illegally). And, as mentioned, HF is not the only place trying to do that ] (]) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Clarification: saying "'if they do ''this'' they must automatically be a bad source'" I mean "''this"'' to be doxing. Of course there are things that, if sources do them, mean the sources are bad ] (]) 15:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::It may be legal, but it's not <em>lawful</em> nor civil as ANI's case was. And I do not want to argue about ANI here again after already dedicating a lot of words to that on a separate project talk page. We don't need to build this wall of text further beyond the horizons in scope.<br>There is evidence in the opening statement of this section on their disinformation. I have not seen that refuted anywhere. ] (]) 16:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I don't see the badness distinction between legal and lawful/civil. Google was fined $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by Russia through its legal system, which is a much more hostile action than threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do. | |||
| *:::::::::::As for the info at the start of the section, thanks for pointing that out!— I'd only been looking at the RfC. I shall respond to that in the appropriate place ] (]) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{outdent|10}} That isn't lawful. India's courts are much better than Russia's.{{tqb|1=threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do}}But <em>systematic</em> doxxing with professional spearphishing? ] (]) 12:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Alternatively, burning millions of dollars in lawsuits to try to bankrupt Misplaced Pages in some country with tight libel laws like the UK. I didn't understand the distinction before, and understand it less as "hostile lawfare against WP through a court system that is of quality greater than or equal to India's" being ok while a "hostile to WP but probably legal search through public information" makes a source unusable (again, that's a big part of how investigative journalism works). | |||
| *::Anyone with the right skills can dox like anyone else (except for like intelligence agencies with restricted tools who can do it better), the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it ] (]) 19:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It has the same difference as that between a court case and a witch hunt: the presence of actually moderated discussion and true dignity.{{tqb|the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it}}That's huge difference, as seen in , not to mention training. "Anyone can do anything with or without money." ] (]) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't think the potentially-superficial presence of moderated discussion in a hostile organization's threats and attacks against WP should be a gauge of reliability of that organization. | |||
| *::::I get that unpaid people in general are less motivated, but unknown psychos with a grudge are about as motivated as physically possible ] (]) 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::What about the known psychos with a grudge that also happen to be paid? ] (]) 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Not relevant to my point ] (]) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I don't even get your point with that part. What difference does that make to how bad Heritage is for hiring systematic doxxing? Why isn't systematic doxxing always bad? ] (]) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Where I've meant to be going with this is: if there's no reliability concern about being a hostile entity, nor about attacking Misplaced Pages, nor about successfully damaging Misplaced Pages, but rather about ''having a sufficiently nice and dignified talk about all that'', then what's up with that? ] (]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Systematic doxxing is not a {{tq|nice and dignified talk}}. There are reliability concerns about all of the "no" points you listed. ] (]) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Exactly, HF is unreliable ''because'' doxing under these circumstances isn't nice and dignified enough, if I understand correctly ] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If there were reliability concerns about the "no" points then they'd apply to ANI ] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{outdent|4}} Yes, that's also what I think. I'm glad we agree on this! ] (]) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Discussion is maybe starting to work! :D ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Tell me: Why is a publication that hires Pinkerton Detective Agency for witch hunts be better than a publication that uses the courts for intimidation? The latter is discussion, while the former is pretty much violence. ] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::These arguments appear to be turning to morals and ethics for support instead of WP policies and guidelines. ] (]) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::As I've said since the beginning of this chain, it's because of those anti-intellectual morals that I significantly doubt Heritage's intellectual reliability. ] (]) 00:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense: | |||
| :*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above. | |||
| :*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories. | |||
| :*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *::Do you honestly, genuinely believe that they would use their main website domain to do that? ''Do you have any idea how these types of schemes work?'' ] (]) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Why wouldn't they? If they're aggregating data why would they not include their native data? That is exactly how this sort of legal watering hole attack works... Instead of poisioning the water with malware they just record who comes and goes (like most websites do). I would also contest the IP's use of "malicious links" as normally thats associated with links that go to malware (the illegal sort of watering hole attack) but the links in this context aren't malicious even if you could argue that *intent* behind them is. ] (]) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not going as far as the IP (I don't think that this would constitute either identity theft or blackmail) but I would note that such a scheme targeting EU citizens would be illegal even if one targeting US citizens is not. There are an awfully large number of places where these would be criminal acts, we just allow a massive amount of leeway when it comes to data harvesting in the USA. This sort of thing is inherently barely this side of a criminal organization, sometimes the lengths that even legitimate organizations like ] will go to are just up to that legal line. ] (]) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They should not be - they are primary sources. ] (]) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::They are used that way. They can publish both primary and secondary sources ] (]) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Not by us. Think tanks are ]. ] (]) 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Where do you see that? ] (]) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::In the definition of what a primary source is. ] (]) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Funny, because I see in the definition of a secondary source their function as a secondary source, almost as if they can publish both primary and secondary sources ] (]) 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::What is the role of a Think tank? ] (]) 19:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Good philosophical question, especially their place in a well-functioning democracy. Is this helpful to the discussion? ] (]) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::That's not the response that I was hoping to see. Their role determines what they publish, which in turn answers the question regarding whether they are a primary or a secondary source. ] (]) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::"A '''think tank''', or public policy institute, is a ] that performs ] and ] concerning topics such as ], ], ], ], ], and ]." | |||
| *::::::::::::May I strikethrough this half of the reply chain now? ] (]) 19:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there are times when they are primary and times when they are secondary (any think tank), and therefore it depends on the instance. WP policy and guidelines would support this as well unless anyone is able to quote something to the contrary. ] (]) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::How can entity that performs "research and advocacy" not be considered a primary source? ] (]) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::{{ec}}Research and advocacy are what we would expect from a primary source. ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::"A ''']''' provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains ''analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis'' of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. ]. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review." | |||
| *:::::::::::::::Why is "research" a problem for a secondary source? ] (]) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::It's not their so-called targetted "research" that is the issue, it's what they publish (their own thoughts, findings and recommendations) that make them a primary source. ] (]) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::Are you implying that all of their research is under this doxing agenda? | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::Think tanks publish both primary and secondary sources. Own-thoughts and recommendations are primary sources, but "findings" includes secondary sources, which come from research. | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::Thankfully, WP:DISCARD means we don't need to continue this part of the discussion because we both think we're obviously right and have nothing helpful to suggest to each other about primary/secondary sources ] (]) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::Analyses? Did somebody mention analyses? Here's another analysis: . Um, I guess that's a secondary source, too? --] (]) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure how it connects to HF publishing primary and/or secondary sources ] (]) 23:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::I really hope that the 90%+ of comments here that are completely unrelated to anything on the topic of reliability are tossed right into the garbage where they belong. ] (]) 22:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::Every single !vote is related to the reliability of the garbage source. ] (]) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"...maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough" (Nope). | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors." (Nope again) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"...their own communications indicate that they are a security risk" (Nope, not about reliability) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::"Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors." (Nope, not about "reliability"... | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Literally almost every single !vote invokes reasoning which should be ] as completely unrelated and not based in any policy or guidelines. | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Some !votes at least admit to their not being based in any policy or guideline such as this one, "Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures." | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::Would be easy to go on and on... ] (]) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::Did I say anything about doxing? ] (]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::I interpreted "so-called targetted 'research'" to be an oblique reference to doxing, but sorry if I misinterpreted ] (]) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::::I was referring to the think tanks in general, the Heritage Foundation is a garbage source (I think we all agree on that). ] (]) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::::Abort reply thread! Abort reply thread! ] (]) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::{{outdent|6}} What does that mean? ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Would the concerns here also apply to something like the SLPC? The HF and SPLC are both widely cited by RSs and if a RS says "HF/SPLC said X" then we might find weight for the attributed fact since a RS gave it weight. I would presume we wouldn't directly cite a claim by either since both are effectively advocacy organizations. ] (]) 23:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{outdent|::::::}} Per ], they have a much better factual reputation, and they should always be attributed anyways. ] (]) 23:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I don't think they have a better factual reputation given some of their court losses. Regardless, there seems to be a concern that editors would cite the HF without a RS giving the HF weight on the topic. I agree with that concern. The question is why wouldn't we treat basically all think tanks/activist organizations in a similar fashion. Why should we accept a direct reference to something like Hate Watch but not the index published by HF (I personally think we should oppose both absent a RS pointing to the claim). ] (]) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::All the cases against SPLC were dismissed. There's only 3 actual incidents mentioned in the SPLC article, all of which they apologized for and retracted, though one of them only after a $3 million settlement and 1.5 years—that's the longest time it ever took them to retract. Whereas Heritage's "expert"s still stand. ] (]) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::So they have been found guilty of defaming people. Has the HF been found to have defamed anyone? I'm not arguing that the HF is a good stand alone source. Rather I'm arguing that we are inconsistent if we treat SPLC like a relative secondary source but say the HF can't be given the SPLC's record is also quite sketchy. I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources. It would address concerns regarding potential misinformation as well as weight. ] (]) 11:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{outdent|3}} The settlement did not ever proceed to a lawsuit, though it is slightly concerning, but which has already been extensively discussed ].{{tqb|I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources.}}SPLC is treated like a primary source in that they're almost always used as ]. It's just that they're reliable. ] (]) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::They aren't treated like a primary source in that we often use their claims absent a RS establishing that the claim is DUE in an article. For example, if both SPLC and HF say something about a topic editors are likely to cite SPLC absent any 3rd party source (ie a RS article about our topic mentions SPLC) yet we, rightly, wouldn't do the same if HF said something about the same topic (say one of their indexes of X). That we treat these differently seems to be more about the views of editors vs the track record of the sources. Thus far the examples of misinformation etc seem relatively minor and at least to some extent in a gray area (ie we ultimately may not agree but the claim is not absolutely meritless). Of course, the easy way to fix this is just say activist organizations shouldn't be cited without a RS drawing the connection/establishing weight in context of the topic first. ] (]) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::That's what the consensus summary for WP:SPLC already says. {{tq|Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.}} The problem is with those articles that don't observe Due. ] (]) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::This is all moot anyway. This RFC is not about the SPLC. ] (]) 13:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I would agree. A simple solution is to say activist/think tank organization's reports/opinions should be assumed undue by default. That would also address much of the argument here about the HF. If a RS says HF said X about the proposed law then we have weight for inclusion regarding of the silly/problematic RSP numbering system. ] (]) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::There's no need for a novel policy construction here. ] works just fine. And it seems like this proposal mostly exists to create a false balance whereby any and all leftist advocacy groups will be declared unreliable just because the Heritage Foundation is a far-right advocacy group that is patently unreliable. I would suggest we should focus on the Heritage Foundation and their clear unreliability issues rather than trying to explode the scope of discussion. ] (]) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::I wasn't the one who raised the question about activate organizations. However, since the question came up it seems reasonable to look at the logic we are employing. Your argument certainly could support the impression that we should based policy on our feelings/agreement with a group's views rather than on principle. That would tend to move Misplaced Pages away from some type of neutral collection of knowledge (including conflicting views) and towards a collection of knowledge/views that align with the majority of active editors. This is why I think we should apply these rules more on principle vs forcibly based on if we 'like" the group in question. ] (]) 15:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::No. You are mistaken. I'm actually saying we should not be basing reliability decisions for advocacy groups on political alignment but rather on reliability on the basis of existing policy - specifically ] and ]. I will note that there is a tendency of far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation to be less reliable than groups that are not far-right wing. As for why that's the case, I will refer to a preeminently reliable source, ], who developed a core political theory for understanding this factual peculiarity. However, should a right-wing source demonstrate that it adheres properly to our reliability standards then it's reliable. Heritage Foundation is not. Simple as. ] (]) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I'll mention that the goal of this discussion is to determine to what extent HF adheres to or violates our reliability standards ] (]) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::{{tqb|Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than <em>a primary research paper.</em>|source=]}} ] (]) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Of course, but nothing about that quote, from what I can see there, says anything about think tanks or that think tanks are either always primary or always secondary sources. ] (]) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Their research is definitely primary. Only reviews, textbooks, etc. count as secondary research sources. And the analyses associated with such primary research is primary. ] (]) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Even if so, cited primary sources have their place on Misplaced Pages. Reliability is another thing altogether. ] (]) 22:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This particular line from ] isn't good for making a case against citing Heritage Foundation. The notion of a 'primary research paper' mostly holds in the sciences, especially the hard sciences, where journals publish what researchers call ''primary'' evidence or data. Other fields, like the humanities, consider the texts they study the raw primary data (archival documents, historical newspapers, literature, etc.) whereas the publications are secondary sources. If Misplaced Pages actually prohibited publications that do their own research, then we wouldn't cite journalism (like '']'') or book-length biographies (like '']''). The reason to not cite Heritage Foundation is much simpler than a technicality of how a sourcing guideline is phrased. It's simply that Heritage Foundation repeatedly publishes disinformation (about climate science, about political news, etc.) to the point that users cannot consistently depend on it for facts. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{outdent|8}} The premise of this chain is a counterargument against "whatever actually reliable thing they say, other secondary sources would" by claiming that Heritage is widely used as a secondary source. That is false. ] (]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It's not false to these professionals</nowiki>]</nowiki>] ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Misplaced Pages has different citation policies. ] (]) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Could you point me to where you answered that? ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So misleading the public about electoral interference and climate change denial are "generally reliable" behaviours but it's generally unreliable if a left-wing source makes and subsequently corrects an error of fact. I think this line of reasoning is more guided by POV than policy. ] (]) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Please ] and keep the discussion on the sources. ] (]) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Would you like to respond to his point on the sources or the links about the sources here since the beginning, which I've excerpted below for your convenience? ] (]) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Where did you excerpt below? This thread is a total cluster "F". ] (]) 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Right below ]. ] (]) 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them. | |||
| :That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE. | |||
| :If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] | ] | ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations. | |||
| *::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Kind of a side point but the Principia is certainly outmoded, maybe theres a better example but this one is just you shooting yourself in the foot. ] (]) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Apparently I misunderstood what outmoded means! I thought it meant "obsolete" but I guess it's "old-fashioned", which I must confess is absolutely accurate for both books then (what I meant to communicate is that both books are timeless, foundational classics, which they can be while still being old fashioned). However, it's still irrelevant to being RS that a source is inspired by something old-fashioned ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think what they mean is more "outdated". ] (]) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed. | |||
| *:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source. | |||
| *:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::It is a reasonable statement to include in the article ] (in table format, for example), but not in the article ], unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —] 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? ] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::From ]: "The ] rated Denmark as "]" in 2016. According to the ] Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index ] (]) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —] 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC ] (]) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —] 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::I disagree ] (]) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::@] is right. ] (]) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::::No, Alach E. is right. We should not be using think tank indices in article bodies like this. It's a failure of adherence to Misplaced Pages sourcing policy to treat pseudoscientific content like this - and I persist in asserting that a non-scientific economic index is pseudoscientific by appropriating the scientific language of economics without any rigor or scientific methodology - while the Heritage Foundation's hostility to our project has brought this index to attention, it's correct to remove many such indices. ] (]) 12:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source. | |||
| *::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical ]), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. ] (]) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Most of the comments in the academy that are distinct from the Heritage Foundation are critical of its methodology. EX: ''An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index. By: Cabello, José Manuel, Ruiz, Francisco, Pérez-Gladish, Blanca, Social Indicators Research, 03038300, Jan2021, Vol. 153, Issue 2'' ] (]) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Note - it took me a while to find even that because very few scholars bother to talk about it at all. ] (]) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You could also have cited ''The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters'' ( Studies in Economics and Finance 38 (3), 529-561, 2021), which is also critical, or ''Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom'' (Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing 3 (1), 1-14, 2023) or ''The relation between the index of economic freedom and good governance with efficiency of the European Structural Funds'' (Papers in Regional Science Volume 101, Issue 2, April 2022, Pages 327-350) which are not critical. | |||
| *::::::That’s just from the first page of Google Scholar search results for “index of economic freedom” so I’m not sure why you found it difficult to find anyone talking about it. | |||
| *::::::At any rate, a source receiving criticism has very little bearing on it being FRINGE when there is so much uncritical USEBYOTHERS. ] (]) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Have you seen the book cited that explores that use? I've quoted parts of it in the discussion section below. According to this academic book, Heritage is only used because of the cheap price and pure volume of what they circulate, despite great decrial from the NYT newsroom. You should borrow the book through the Internet Archive link I found and check out chapter 4, "The News Media and the Heritage Foundation: Promoting Education Advocacy at the Expense of Authority". It's quite harrowing. I think it's enough for an IAR argument in spite of UBO. ] (]) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Does the book specifically address the IEF — which is also done with the WSJ? ] (]) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I don't remember, and I"m too tired at this point. ] (]) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I found ''The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters'' but I had not read it yet and I try to avoid commenting on the contents of papers I haven't read. And even I have my limits with regard to the number of journal articles I can read in a day lol. But, yes, on the brief inspection I gave it (reading the abstract), your assessment of its contents seem accurate. ] (]) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}" | |||
| *:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Option 4, and blacklist''': clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it ''is'' here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. ''']''' (]) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:+1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. ] (]) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' – All think-tanks should follow Option 2 at a minimum. However, Heritage Foundation is particularly unreliable in that they've devolved into a mouthpiece for disinformation and fringe garbage. Even if some of their older material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than ] at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like restricting use to only archival websites, if direct links may lead to privacy issues for editors. ] (]) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4 and 5''' When it comes to reliability, Heritage was already in 3 territory even years ago and, in my opinion, breached 4 in the past few years when it began actively pushing misinformation and false claims across a variety of subjects, particularly scientific ones. So, deprecate on that alone. Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "{{tq|Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take.}}" seems not to be based in policy or guidelines, but rather in retaliation. Can you explain to me how if that is not the case, what am I missing? ] (]) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (] is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). ] (]) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::We are at that point? We are citing ]? Are there really no guidelines or policy otherwise to invoke in this instance? ] (]) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4: Deprecate''': My read on the original discussion was that this RFC was started to get opinions on the reliability outside of the security threat- if thats the case then Option 4 would stand given the rampant misinformation. ] (]) 02:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4: Deprecate''' is the best. <small>(However, if the decision is between Option 3 and Option 5, I definitely lean 5.)</small> It is not inflammatory enough to purely block as clearly as an attack site, though it does seem to be a propaganda mill, because some of their links could be usable to refer to a limited range of criteria, mostly what would generally fall under ABOUTSELF. All usage of Heritage Foundation sourcing for claims should be highly qualified and narrow in scope. ]｟] ]｠ 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4: Deprecate''' This source does not have a reputation for fact-checking and honesty that would make it a reliable source for inclusion in encyclopedia articles. In fact, it appears to do the opposite, lying to support its political agenda, so much so that it cannot not even be trusted to make truthful statements about itself. Blacklisting on the grounds that it is an actively hostile threat to editor privacy may be appropriate but is not the focus of this noticeboard. ] (]) 16:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' - Misinformation site by extremely partisan activist group. Not a news site. ] (]) 02:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5 - blacklist''' - Heritage foundation is definitely unreliable getting close to if not over the deprecate line given their involvement in project 2025. Regardless, given their stated intentions, I'd support blacklisting them as a purely symbolic measure. I'd '''strongly oppose''' blacklisting them on security grounds. As others have remarked that's security theater and highly problematic as it risks giving editors the impression we've done jacksquat about stopping them when haven't. It also makes us look like we're idiots who don't understand the basics of the internet. As I remarked elsewhere it's ridiculous to think they'd come up with this complex plan, and then plan to use domains in any way associated with them as part of it. That's like the classic movie/TV trope where some villian has this highly complex plan with some blindly obvious easily resovable flaw they ignored. There are so many reasons they'd never want to do that, including that it would have revealed they were behind the campaign when there's no reason to think they expected it to be public so soon. The fact their plans are now partly public doesn't seem particularly likely to change things especially since fair chance they'd already set a bunch of stuff up to make it less suspicious (with newly registered domains). It's still incredibly unlikely they'd want to make it easier to track what they're doing not to mention they'd need to convince their targets to click on the link in the first place. Why on earth would they do that when they could (to make up a very simple example) set up archive.now to point to archive.today etc (which already has quite a number of different domains) and it's potentially months before anyone realises archive.now doesn't actually belong to whoever the heck owns ]? And we all know how often we use archive links to bypass paywalls etc, so who's going to think anything when editor A gets editor B to visit an archive.now link? This is incredibly simple and yet still carries some risk of early detection so I'm not sure if something like this would be part of their plans, still it must be at least a thousand fold more likely than using any domain associated with them. Note that we should whitelist them as needed when specific pages are suitable for citations e.g. if something written by Clarence Thomas needs to be cited or some part of the Index of Economic Freedom. ] (]) 13:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' - Mainly due to the security risks that they have thrown against Misplaced Pages editors. If there was any sourcing from them that would pass the standard reliability policies, they can be sourced without links. ] <small>]</small> 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4 post-2016; option 3 otherwise''' - as others have said, blacklisting is ] and not an effective response to an organization planning a covert spearfishing operation against Misplaced Pages editors; comments suggesting blacklisting the organization's URL to send a message are akin to ]. The ''only'' question for this board is whether or not the publication can be considered a ]. Per the initial comments in the thread above, the Heritage Foundation has actively and intentionally published and promoted misinformation since at least 2020 (others say 2016) and for that reason alone it is not reliable and should be deprecated. For any of the organization's publications or opinions that are worth mentioning on Misplaced Pages, independent third-party sources will be available. I'm not saying that Misplaced Pages should not respond to the threat, just that this is not a useful response. An effort to educate and provide resources to users to manage their digital security would be a much better use of our time. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I can not support '''any''' of the options presented… except possibly option 2… because none of them consider context. The reliability of Heritage Foundation depends on the specifics of what we are trying to verify when we cite them. At minimum, they are reliable as a primary source for verifying statements (with in-text attribution) about the opinions of the Heritage Foundation itself. Whether it is ''appropriate'' to mention their opinion in the first place is a matter of DUE WEIGHT - and ''that'' depends on the specific WP article and topic. Certainly it is DUE to mention their opinion in the ] article itself… and probably DUE in other articles that discuss US conservative politics. The foundation is very ''influential'' in US conservative politics, and so their opinions do matter. It may be ''rare'' that it is appropriate to mention their views… but it is not zero. There ''are'' (and will be) rare situations where what they say is relevant and needs to be mentioned. | |||
| :And, ''when'' we mention their opinion we have to be able to cite them to verify that we are presenting their opinion accurately. | |||
| :Note: I would say this is how we should handle ''all'' think-tanks and advocacy organizations. We should ''always'' present what they say as opinion - with in-text attribution - and then assess whether their opinion is DUE to mention given the context of the specific article where we mention it. We should never present what they say as unattributed fact in WP’s voice. | |||
| As for Heritage’s threat to dox or otherwise hassle our editors… that is a legal issue and so should be left to the WMF’s legal team to deal with. We can take Heritage to court if they actually act on their threat. And as long as it is JUST a threat, we can ignore it. ] (]) 16:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * If this had been asked before they announced their intention to dox WP editors, I'd have said 2/3 depending on the issue. Anything else ''in reaction to that announcement'' feels retaliatory. Also never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. We play into their hands if we deprecate or blacklist. ] (]) 00:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:How so? ] (]) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::'Not citing the Heritage Foundation on Misplaced Pages will play into the Heritage Foundation's desire to control information on Misplaced Pages' (insofar as the reporting from ''The Forward'' indicates the plans to target Misplaced Pages editors are ostensibly about suppressing contributions that the Heritage Foundation deems anti-Zionist) is a take so mind-bending that I'm going to go lie down. ] (] | ] | ]) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Hey, let's see what she thinks, why she thinks it. ] (]) 12:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *All HeritageFoundation links should be '''blacklist'''ed, '''Option 5'''. But if there is a way to source their content without using their URL, then I would prefer '''option 2''' or '''option 3'''. Admittedly I am reluctant to do my research on their reliability because I don't even want to click into their website. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is ] (in case you missed it). ] (]) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I also posted some quotes near the bottom of the Discussion section. ] (]) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' in general, '''Option 3''' for global warming and related subjects. Heritage is a longstanding think tank, that, although biased and agenda-driven, produces a number of useful reports such as the Index of Economic Freedom, which is widely cited in journalism and academia. Heritage should not be considered reliable regarding global warming because they have repeatedly published uncorrected misinformation on the subject. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Generally unreliable. This puts the organization's publications in the same category as self-published. We would only be allowed to use articles if the writer was an established expert.The website itself could be blacklisted meaning that no links to it could be given. ] (]) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' + '''Option 4''': '''Blacklist and deprecate''' this fake news disinformation website which also have malicious activities in its online domains. An ] should not get littered with low quality conspiratorial websites. ] (]) 21:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' + '''Option 4''' – If anything said there is even remotely notable, it will be discussed in reliable sources which we can then cite. This organization actively takes pride in being a firehose of disinformation, and there's no indication to me that they're even reliable enough to be used in an ] fashion. Deprecate as a disinformation source; blacklist as a vector for doxxing. <b>]</b> ] 22:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4+5 - deprecate and blacklist.''' Deprecate because they are an active and deliberate source of misinformation - they are liars and they exist to be liars. Blacklist as an active and intentional danger to Misplaced Pages editors - ] (]) 10:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: Generally Unreliable''' - Based on the evidence of it's regular publishing of misinfo, the fact multiple reliable sources from news media to academic publishers, have highlighted this issue, means we should avoid using. I could be convinced of deprecation, but looking at the other sources we currently have deprecated, Heritage does not yet have seemed to cross that threshold. -- ] (]) 14:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? ] (] - ] - ]) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. ] (]) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::In fact, a lot of the ignorant comments above will likely create a news story or something that Heritage will then use for more fundraising and even more damage. I just don't get how people are so naive to good intentions and the sometimes very negative consequences. Also, I've yet to see even one single argument grounded in policy and guidelines versus anger and fear. ] (]) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, blacklisting one domain will not prevent them from carrying out their plan. As far as legal implications go, one assumes that suitable WMF people are aware, but the HF plan seems to stop short of committing any crimes. ] (]) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. ] (]) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That would discard maybe 95% of the comments or more. ] (]) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::How so? "A reliable source says Source X plans to target users with cyberattacks" sufficiently goes to reliability; resorting to cyberattack to enforce its POV is ''not'' symptomatic of a source that wants to legitimately engage the marketplace of ideas through facts and rigor. ] (] | ] | ]) 23:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It takes away one of their attack vectors. The argument that "we shouldn't take away one attack vector because we can't take away all attack vectors" doesn't seem particularly strong to me. –] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::yes ] (]) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The problem is it creates a false sense of security while providing little-if-any protection. {{tq|In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.}} ] (]) 23:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This has balloned in size. If it continues to grow as it has it will need to be moved to a subpage. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * If we can't trust the link, how can we trust the cite, therefore how can they used as a source? ] (]) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Citing a self-published, but peer reviewed, book to back up that a reservation has taken place? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I'm trying to improve the controversial article ] and in this case the section Crime. What is established is that immigrant are over represented in crime statistics and that violent crime is rising. However several editors are now trying to present possible ] explanations as facts. To even things out I would like to add different perspectives such as ] (for non Swedish users, you can read the Politco Summary ). To do this I cite ], which is ] book, but peer reviewed by ], ] and others. The book has also been praised by reviewers for it's accuracy and I wrote the following | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| :] ] ] has argued that an increased level of immigration has not lead to a increased number of crimes. Although immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics, Sarnecki argues that this is because immigrants are more likely to have grown up with lower ]. He also point out that even though the immigrants share of the total population has increased heavily since the 1990, most crimes have not increased.<ref>{{cite news |last=Sarnecki |first=Jerzy |date=2016-08-26 |title=DN Debatt. ”Ökad invandring leder inte till ökat antal brott” |url=https://www.dn.se/debatt/okad-invandring-leder-inte-till-okat-antal-brott/ |work= ] |access-date=2018-01-01 }}</ref> This was however critized by ] who claim this reasoning to be methodologically incorrect. Sanandaji argues that crime could have gone down for natives and up for immigrants while on total still go down, or that crime goes down for both groups while the share of immigrants increase. That would mean that crime would have been even lower without immigration. Sanandaji further argues that if lower ] leads to more crime, larger levels of immigration that result in more people with lower socioeconomic status will still lead to more crime.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sanandaji |first=Tino |date= February 2017|title=] |trans-title=Mass Challenge |chapter=12 Invandring och brott|pages=192-193 |language=Swedish |location= |publisher=Kuhzad Media |isbn=978-91-983787-0-2}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Frick |first=Chang |date=2017-02-08 |title=Sarnecki: Jag är mer kompetent än Tino |url=https://nyheteridag.se/sarnecki-jag-ar-mer-kompetent-an-tino/ |work=Nyheter Idag |access-date=2018-01-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| author=Studio Ett |date=2017-02-08 |title=Tino Sanandajis nya bok väcker debatt |url=http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1637&artikel=6626217 |work=SR |access-date=2018-01-03 }}</ref> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. ] (]) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what deprecated (to a stronger degree) and GUnRel designation mean. ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I should ping @], since they's the one above who initially proposed the opening statement. ] (]) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Holy heck, ! Will be a bit harder to search within, though, since it's a photo scan without any embedded text. ] (]) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry for causing so many notifications, but it looks like the Archive's search function OCRs the scan. It looks like Chapter 4 is a case study based on Heritage. I'll take a look. ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tqb|general consensus that they are an advocacy think tank rather than an academic research think tank (Weaver & McGann, 2000)}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received at least $3.5 million dollars in contributions from the industries with the most to gain from the anti-E.D.A. campaign—pharmaceutical, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco manufacturers. (para. 1)|source=Ralph Nader op-ed quoted within the book as representative of "the majority view"}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Davis and Owen (1998) conclude that new media outlets present the "research" or "facts" disseminated by conservative think tanks knowing that it is thinly veiled ideology because such materials provide inexpensive entertainment which means greater profits than producing their own}}{{pb}}{{tqb|Berliner and Biddle (1995) argue that the public perception that education is in crisis is manufactured by conservative think tanks and others who deliberately misuse and misrepresent research and who use the "compliant" press (p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation.}}(p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation. Berliner and Biddle describe}}{{pb}}I'll stop here, since I've dived into too many sources already, but the book goes on to talk about how Heritage's marketing funds made it cheap for newrooms to pander. The book also mentioned some pretty interesting stuff from Soley's book ''The News Shapers'', which I also checked out:{{pb}}{{collapse|2=Quotes on explicated mislabeling of Republican politicians as "scholar"s and other dressings-up|<br>{{tqb|The Heritage Foundation, the AEI, the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and others only pretend to do research.}}<br>{{tqb|Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, has not published one research article in any of the 1,000 social science journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index in the last 25 years. Burton Yale Pines, the Heritage Foundation's "director of research," has never published one scholarly article. Neither has Dr. Leon Aron, Heritage's "Salvatori Fellow in Soviet Studies." In fact, between 1976 and 1980 the closest that any "scholar" at the Heritage Foundation came to publishing an academic article was a letter to a journal editor.{{pb}}The credentials of "scholars" at the other conservative think tanks aren't any stronger. To mask the academic anemia of their "scholars," conservative think tanks have created their own "research" journals. The journals bear names that closely resemble those of legitimate journals and are used to inflate their spokespersons' credentials. The Heritage Foundation publishes Policy Review, not the highly regarded Policy Sciences.}}{{pb}}{{tqb|"Advocacy tank" is a more appropriate description of the Heritage Foundation than "think tank," according to Time reporter Amy Wilentz (1986). Among beltway think tanks, Heritage associates have the weakest scholarly credentials, but are nonetheless the capital city's most active policy advocates. Of its 34 permanent "fellows, scholars, and staff" members, only 7 have Ph.D.'s. None are renowned scholars in their fields. The biggest names at this think tank are not thinkers, but former Republican officials. Its "distinguished scholar" for foreign policy studies is Charles M. Lichenstein, a Nixon appointee who also served under Jeane Kirkpatrick at the United Nations. Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese became a "distinguished fellow" at Heritage after his resignation in 1988, and Congressman Jack Kemp briefly went to the Heritage Foundation after losing his 1988 bid for the Republican presidential nomination (Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1988, 38, and September 14, 1988, 36)}}}} | |||
| ::::There's an entire subchapter on Heritage. ] (]) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::From what I see I definitely think at least GUNREL for specifically (US) elections (maybe post-2016), but that seems to be the focus of these problems. I think more variety of political topics would be helpful to say for politics in general ] (]) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::After reading Aaron Liu's recent-er comments I see I'll have to update my opinion — there clearly is more political stuff to look into. I'll be a bit busier/quieter in the next few days but shall try to get my hands on those books unless someone else summarizes them first ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This discussion is now up to three quarters of the size of the last Telegraph RFC, which was greatly bloated. I've already preemptively archived four over sections to try and keep the size of the board down. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:it's decision time ] (]) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::But it feels like the useful part just started! ] (]) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This isn't meant to stop any discussion, just a heads up that it might be moved. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] is a very interesting comment from 2021 that says there's consensus that think tanks are presumed GUn and also discusses the SPLC point raised above. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Daily Signal === | |||
| As you see I also added a news article where the argument was repeated and since people questioned Nyheter Idag, I also added the radio program which in my opinion shouldn't be necessary. | |||
| ] is a link aggregator and reprinter with some original content. It was part of the Heritage Foundation up to June 2024 but has supposedly been spun out now. I would personally be inclined to treat DS as GU at absolute best, but we might want to think about its status too, both before and after the spinoff - ] (]) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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" | |||
| === References === | |||
| Since this is a mere statement of logic, I don't think it is an exceptional claim. I don't write: this was disproved by Sanandaji (which I could agree needs a stronger source), I write that: Sanandaji has a reservation. I also provide additional sources to the argument, but they refuse to accept it. They want to dismiss it on the cause that it is self-published, but I argue that if you look at what is quoted the book is more than enough for this statement. Am I wrong here? They didn't complain when I used Massutmaning for the history section and the reservations only seem to be when it goes against certain perspectives. I could take a picture of the quote in the book if that is necessary (but it is in Swedish)--] (]) 13:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | {{reflist-talk}} | ||
| :This is a ] issue, not a reliability issue. In general, content is not added to articles to "even things up". Unless Sanandaji's views have received attention in decent secondary sources their inclusion would be ] - why should Misplaced Pages be the only publication on the planet to be giving them attention. If the views *have* been reviewed by decent secondary sources, those sources could be cited. ] (]) 13:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I pointed them here. This is related to the discussion earlier in 2017 you participated in (Search Tino's name in the archives, 225 I think). The short version is, Tino's opinion/conclusions is being rejected not as undue, but on reliability. My personal view is that he qualifies as an expert, while his book is self-published its been critically reviewed in depth widely, commented on, covered in the news etc. The statistics from Tino's original papers that form the base of his book have been peer reviewed. So I would consider his book/opinion etc reliable enough if what he is discussing is notable enough to be in the article. | |||
| :::The NPOV issue is that there is a wide and vocal issue with the government statistics and crime reporting in Sweden, and the right-leaning have been very vocal about what they consider the cause. The problem is you then have editors saying 'well those people are biased'... well quite. Its goalpost moving. The issue over the figures is clearly widely covered. So Tino's research should be allowable as he clearly passes the bar for expert opinion on it. ] (]) 14:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If Tino Sanandaji does indeed have peer-reviewed scholarly publications on this topic, why don't we use them instead of a self-published book? ] (]) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Peer reviews are seldom published. You don't understand the scientific method.--] (]) 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Did I ask to see the peer reviews? What on Earth are you on about? ] (]) 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: That you are not the brightest star in the sky. You wouldn't find the reviewers summary online as you sugguest.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| :::::::: Please avoid ]. This is always policy, but it's particularly wise if ''you'' are wrong in reading what your opponent says. Please read again. ] has not suggested to use any peer reviews, but the supposed (properly) peer-reviewed papers that ] suggests exist. --] (]) 15:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't believe they are specific to this issue. Which (as I pointed out below) isn't in dispute anyway, all parties agree the basic figures are accurate. They differ in interpretation. Tino interprets them in his book - albeit rather than stating they are fact, he suggests alternatives that have not been considered or have been discarded without proper consideration. The problem really is that the right-wing have latched onto his opinion on the statistical methodology used, to push their own agenda and they are quite rightly, shown to have an extreme bias in this. As a reliability issue Tino's book has been covered, his opinion on the immigration question has been covered, he certainly qualifies as an expert on statistical methodology. And really the above section is quite neutrally worded. Even a layperson can see when you have an expert stating 'Its not because they are immigrants, its because they are poor' the obvious question 'So where are all the rich immigrants then?' appears. Which is why its a thorny issue in Sweden, given the crime statistics overwhelmingly show certain types of crime to be linked directly to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. ] (]) 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: A small clarification is that the debate is not over statistics, but rather how to interpret the statistics. Sarnecki agrees Sanandaji use the correct statistics, but not his explaination and vice versa. There is however an argument that reported crime does not equal commited crime as the willingness to report and change of laws may vary.--] (]) 14:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would argue ] as well, but the others do not. NPOV does say "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As as such this perspective should be added to even things out. | |||
| :: The views were circulated in both SR and Nyheter Idag as well as on other academical blogs. The book itself was also mentioned in all news papers in Sweden and some news papers in Norway and Germany. Maybe they don't quote exactly that, but praised the book in its entirety--] (]) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : OP misunderstands the concept of ]. The book was not peer-reviewed before publication. ] (]) 14:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. The second "reviewer" listed above has co-authored books with Sanandaji, while the first one is am eminent but 87 year old economist - not an expert, and unlikely to have to time to do an in-depth review. --] (]) 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There is a difference between an article in academic journal and a book. To claim that more 50 years of studying the economy of Sweden does not make you an expert in the field is far fetched. --] (]) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, maybe I should have been more precise. He is an expert economist, but not an expert on immigration. And conflict-of-interest applies to books as well as papers. --] (]) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof. What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway. ] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think in this subthread we are talking about Lindbeck, not (Tino) Sanandaji. One of the hints that it can't be about Sanandaji is the 50 years of experience, which a 37 year old researcher is unlikely to accumulate ;-). --] (]) 15:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well smack me with a kipper. I think the point stands though. ] (]) 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *"Self-published but peer-reviewed" is not a thing. This is just a self-published book. You might be able to cite it (with attribution to the author) if they're an acknowledged expert ''on that topic'', but it kind of rings alarm bells when an actual academic chooses to self-publish: usually it means that they are ''really'' determined to publish something that ''real'' presses turned down. It's a bit of a redflag. If it's a notable perspective (ie, the book been reviewed/commented on by independent sources) then it might be usable with attribution, but that depends on if it is ]. ] (]) 14:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::See especially comments by David A who appears to have provided most of the links there. He has however been topic banned, so don't ping or ask him about it. ] (]) 15:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This might be difficult for a non-Swedish speaker to evaluate, but the book does seem to be widely discussed in Swedish news media, which suggests that his view is noteworthy. Some of that coverage is about how its been criticized for though. I would treat it like any other highly controversial but notable polemic: mention his views, ''and'' mention the criticisms, but keep it as short as possible and don't give equal weight to more authoritative academic works. AFAICT it looks to be notable as a political argument, not as scholarship, and should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 16:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As you also know, everyone understand from the context that by peer review I mean as in it not self-published without the any input from other experts. As in it is just as good as any other book. Interesting that you talk about due weight when you include their criticism, which as largely been rejected by the economist community. When they say that not all his sources are scientic litterature. They mean not all sources can not be found in Scopus (which is a limited database and does not include official reports). Very intresting that you would like to DN, instead of SvD where you can also find his reply--] (]) 20:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic-Hierarchy.org == | |||
| ===Consensus?=== | |||
| It seems a certain editor was very efficient in side tracking from the main issue here. To get back to the discussion, can we agree that it is not unreasonable to include Sanandaji's perspective from a NPOV perspective? With that settled, let's focus on the issue of using Massutmaning (and ]) to state his academic expert '''opinion''' about the methodology of Sarnecki. I also think it is a good idea to include Nyheter Idag which cites Sveriges Radio for accessibility for readers that are not fluent enough for a Swedish radio program or have the book. It also interesting to discuss other scenarios where you cite the book for other reasons, but it's not what was discussed here. I am not aware of a survey on the subject, but I think the attention Massutmaning got proves that it a viewed shared by a substantial share of the population. | |||
| '']'' 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. | |||
| @Alexbrn with his relevance established do you think the source combined with ] is enough for its purpose? Would it helped if I included the academic from the University of Gothenburg as well? Not the abstract case, but this particular case.--] (]) 00:28, 4 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :Here is his five page argument in its entirety. Its in Swedish, but maybe you can understand some if it with the use of Google Translate (brott=crime) . It can be mentioned that similar arguments were made by --] (]) 11:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the book really has undergone real peer review, the way a scholarly article would before publication, then I say it doesn't matter if it was a vanity press that put the expert-approved content to paper. Is that what happened with this book? Was it evaluated by a panel of neutral social scientists who approved it for publication? ] (]) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::It didn't undergo peer review, as Immunmotbluescreen has admitted . Read the thread above for more details. ] (]) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I have never claimed it is an input to a scientific journal. What I mean by peer review is that it has although it is self-published, it has gone through the same level of reviewing that a book published with a publisher would have. | |||
| :::: I am less interested in the reliability of the book in general and more interested in this case in particular. If there is general rule that is blocking the use of the source, it can be ignored if it stops the improvement of the article ]. I think Sanandaji's argument disproves the credibility of Sarnecki and his peers. If you look at the last page in the images, the analogy he uses is that you wouldn't say that cookies are more healthy than ], if you account for sugar and fat. When it comes to practice however this does not change the fact that cookies are less healthy. In the same way if immigration cause inequality and you get more poor people, it is wrong to suggest that immigration does not cause more crime if you account for inequality. This has also been argued academically by Sarislan about criminology in general IIRC, but not directed towards Sarnecki. | |||
| :::: But this is more that I ask for now. Here we are discussing whether using this book is a reliable source together with the ] link for that he has made this argument and that his views are relevant to include. What has been said in the above section that is not off topic is: | |||
| *Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof . What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I would treat it like any other highly controversial but notable polemic: mention his views, and mention the criticisms, but keep it as short as possible and don't give equal weight to more authoritative academic works. AFAICT it looks to be notable as a political argument, not as scholarship, and should be treated accordingly. Fyddlestix (talk) | |||
| * Unless Sanandaji's views have received attention in decent secondary sources their inclusion would be WP:UNDUE - why should Misplaced Pages be the only publication on the planet to be giving them attention. If the views *have* been reviewed by decent secondary sources, those sources could be cited. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''I have never claimed it is an input to a scientific journal'' That is PRECISELY what you did when you claimed it had been "peer-reviewed". | |||
| :::::''What I mean by peer review is that it has although it is self-published, it has gone through the same level of reviewing that a book published with a publisher would have.'' If it's self-published, it hasn't been "peer-reviewed" or even reviewed in general. Words have meaning, you know. --] | ] 15:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Is the New York Times unreliable in gauging the notabilty of people within the New York Metropolitan area == | |||
| :{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The more global question, is local sourcing banned for gauging notability. How do we define local sourcing, a town newspaper or a hyperlocal website like Patch? | |||
| ::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles. | |||
| ::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications. | |||
| ::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? ] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, '''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? ] (]) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. ] (]) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I think we need to potentially modify WP:RSSELF so that it better delineates between USEBYOTHER and "'''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." The two prior discussions about ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' generally featured the following logic: "Work found in ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' has been published by reliable publications. As such, if the work found in ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is the product of the author of ''CH'', then we can say that the author of ''CH'' has had their work published by reliable publications." | |||
| ::::::::::::I think the problem is the way "work" and "works" can be interpreted, especially given the dozens of formal definitions for the word "work." I would argue that the bolded section from WP:RSSELF is improved by saying: "'''whose scholarly or journalistic works in the relevant field have previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." However, we also might want to entirely abandon the word "work" for some alternative. | |||
| ::::::::::::What do you think? ] (]) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::That would be a completely different standard which would expand the pool 10,000x. I would also note that you're the only editor I've ever seen get seriously confused by this... If its just a you problem and not an us problem why would we need to rewrite? ] (]) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::My proposed bolded section tries to incorporate your earlier comment about "journalists and academics." If such individuals are the (general) standard, then shouldn't we say that? I want to be clear that I am ''not'' advocating for the adoption of the logic flow used on the prior ''CH'' discussions. | |||
| ::::::::::::::Are you saying that using the word "works" is less restrictive than the word "work"? "Works" is probably generally interpreted as multiple discrete intellectual labors such as articles and books. "Work" could be interpreted as any effort expended in a field, well beyond just articles and books. ] (]) 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm saying that nothing is broken here, our existing policies and guidelines are adequate even if you don't like the result of their application. ] (]) 20:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. ] (]) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. ] (]) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I went ahead and updated the entry. Given the author's status as a "Random Catholic Dude", they cannot be a subject matter expert as defined by Misplaced Pages. And as a self-published source, it cannot be used to support claims about living persons. ] (]) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The "Random Catholic Dude" description is probably a form of ] that should not alone be used to exclude someone from "expert" status. If an MD-PhD medical school professor referred to themselves as "Some Random Hospital Dude," then we probably should not immediately exclude them from "expert" status over this form of self-depreciation. | |||
| :::::::::::Also, thank you for updating WP:RSPSOURCES. I saw that you added "limited USEBYOTHER". As Red-tailed hawk has shown elsewhere in this conversation, ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' has 1000+ hits on Google Scholar. Would you still consider this as limited USEBYOTHER"? We could probably justifiably update it to "significant USEBYOTHER", although this would not be enough to change the overall status of the source. ] (]) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::A SPS remains a SPS regardless of USEDBYOTHERS... It doesn't change the core status. The difference is that an MD-PhD medical school professor likely meets our standards, it has nothing to do with the self-deprecation. ] (]) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I came into this thinking that this was akin to those military/tank/airplane fan websites inasmuch as it was mostly compiled by one person and it's of the quality of hobbyist work. But I am seeing it get a {{URL|1=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Catholic-Hierarchy.org|2=metric ton}} of hits on Google Scholar, where it looks like it is cited in a ''ton'' of scholarly literature as a source for facts. And, in that weird way, ] considerations come into play.{{pb}}I tried to find sources that specifically analyzed this database or evaluated it in a comparative fashion to other commonly cited databases. It's a bit hard to find specific studies, since the majority of citations are just using this plainly as a source for facts (which itself says something, albeit subtly). But I did manage to find a by economic historian that compared the website against other databases of Catholic hierarchies in the section describing his research methods. What it found was quite simple, and went against my initial impression. Schulz found that, among various Catholic heirarchy databases he had assessed, there was {{tq|a high level of consistency. In case of disagreements between sources they were most often in the range of less than one or two decades – a rather small inaccuracy in relation to the duration of Church exposure up to the year 1500}}. In other words, this database is more or less as accurate as the other ones he had assessed (though, as he notes in his paper, none of the databases are ''quite'' complete).{{pb}}It might just be a weird edge case where we've got a decently reliable database that's also self-published. And that's fine, ] notes that self-published sources {{tq|are largely not acceptable as sources}}, but it <u>doesn't</u> say {{red|are always not acceptable as sources}}—as ] notes, {{tq|common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process}} when assessing issues of source reliability.{{pb}}We should follow common sense here. And, in light of the scholarly literature, the common sense thing to do is to treat it in the same way that we treat other sorts of curated databases regarding Catholic Church hierarchies. That is to say: it's ''okay''; it'll do fine for ordinary historical dates of bishop reigns etc., but when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead.{{pb}}— ] <sub>]</sub> 02:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that {{tq|when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead}}. But, alas, the data aren't public (or, if they are, I can't quite find them). — ] <sub>]</sub> 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The core BLP problem isn't going to go away though... At best we can say that the source is usable for dead figures but I don't see a policy or guideline path to genuine reliability (even if just on technical grounds). Theres also the general problems that come with online databases (don't count towards notability, almost never due, etc). If it isn't covered in other sources then its almost by definition a level of detail that isn't due. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-''CH'') sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. ] (]) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. ] (]) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Sure. But also this isn't ''just'' a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has ''explicitly'' been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Unless it comes back with the result that its not self published it doesn't matter... Self published is self published regardless of underlying reliability. There is no way in which self published works become non-self published by being accurate, its still treated as self published. ] (]) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Does this source even exists? == | |||
| The following arguments are being made at AFDs: "" and | |||
| I saw this ''{{code|ড. মুহম্মদ আব্দুল করিম. বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাস. মগ বিতাড়ন ও চট্টগ্রাম জয়.}}'' cited on an article (here ]) but I couldn't find any source with this name anywhere on the internet, can anyone confirm if it is real or not? ] (]) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I started an RFC at ] covering this topic, please respond there. --] (]) 16:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot depends on what KIND of obituary you are talking about... One that is paid for by the family or friends of the deceased would not count towards notability... one prepared by the obit staff of the NYT itself would. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Making blanket statements about events and persons covered in the NYT's local circulation area is just plain silly. The ''Times'' has multiple versions and sections which some are or some are not indicative of general notability and that's not even getting into the death notice versus editorial obituary {{u|Blueboar}} mentions. ] has to be carefully applied and not used as an automatic excuse to remove articles, it is an essay after all. In general, however, I would consider NYT coverage of events in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that is not in one of the local sections as satisfying ] sources criteria. ] ] ] 19:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's a national paper not just a local one, and a staff-written obit is a good indication of notability. I would not take it as sufficient on its own, but the NYT is selective in staff-written obits. These are not news stories as such, they are feature content really. Two obits in national papers or one plus some other feature content in another paper would very likely satisfy ] even for a hardened deletionist like me. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :If it is a hard copy book (or similar), it may not be on the internet. That said, a lot of library databases are in English, so have you tried searching for an English language translation? ] (]) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == American Thinker == | |||
| :I tried google translating it from Hindi to English… not completely successful, but I suspect the author may be ]… something for you to look into. ] (]) 17:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've just tried it too and searched it in English but I still couldn't find anything, The only person I could find who has the same name as the author of that source is ] who is not a Historian. ] (]) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Google scholar does not mentions any book of ] with that name. ] (]) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The following website is using the same source but is referencing different pages in the source than the wiki article: https://www.teachers.gov.bd/blog/details/686411?page=2546&cttlbasee-smrn-rakheni-cttgramer-itihas-bujurg-umed-khann-cttgram-punruddharer-mhanayk | |||
| :It may be a physical source that is only available as a printed book. | |||
| :The following website also uses this source and is also mentioning the name "জাতীয় গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ" (Jatiya Grantha Prakash / Jatio Grantho Prokashon) for the publishing house that published the book: https://www.sachalayatan.com/shashtha_pandava/56984. And it looks like this publisher actually exists: https://www.rokomari.com/book/publisher/498/jatio-grantho-prokashon?ref=apb_pg96_p34. ] (]) 17:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The author appears to be this guy: ]. That wiki article references the following website: https://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528. This website is talking about Abdul Karim and the history of Chittagong, and given that the source Koshuri Sultan is asking about is also about Chittagong (translated by Google as "Dr. Muhammad Abdul Karim. History of Bangladesh. Expulsion of the Mughals and Conquest of Chittagong."), I think that this the Abdul Karim who authored the source in question. ] (]) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or it's this other Abdul Karim who is said to have written a two volume book by the title of "History of Bangladesh": . ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.<br>This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion (under ]) but the author of that article without discussing it properly . ] (]) 18:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we have enough info to verify that the source exits. That last website I linked clearly mentions a book by a historian named Dr. Abdul Karim with the title "History of Bangladesh". He wrote (according to the Google translation) "about forty books and about two hundred original research articles in Bengali and English" and "taught at Dhaka University from 1951 to 1966. In 1966, he joined the newly established History Department of Chittagong University." Regarding the author of that article, the website states "Author: Teacher, Department of History, Chittagong University zahidhistory¦gmail.com". The article is not from a blog, but from a Bengali newspaper: on which we have a wiki article, see ]. This website pretty much states the same but in English and calls Karim "an authority of the field of medieval Bengal could recognise from a distance if a mosque was from the Sultani or from the Mughal period". The publication list of the Chittagong website lists several works by Dr. Abdul Karim (though it only goes back until 2005): . Doing some further digging, I even found volume 1 of the book on Amazon. The book might be available at some universities in the US: . Google Scholar does have an entry for a book on Bengal 16th-century history by the historian Abdul Karim (even if not for the particular one you are looking for), see (and the internet archive appears to have a scan of that book). The University of Asia Pacific lists even more of his books. Banglapedia (which is written by scholars) might also help in verifying the content, see for example these entries: . ] (]) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, appears to be the Google Scholar entry on (the 1st volume of) the book in question. The title is just not "History of Bangladesh" but "History of Bengal". Google translation probably messed up. ] (]) 17:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Sources for Chapel Hart == | |||
| I have become aware that a number of Misplaced Pages articles as if it is an acceptable reliable source for factual claims. I do not believe this to be so, and thus I have begun removing it where it is inappropriately used - particularly for claims about living people. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Firstly, ] does ''not'' have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as ] requires - indeed, it essentially has no journalistic reputation whatsoever. The vast majority of what it publishes are essentially first-person opinion columns, many of which make wild, unsupported, conspiracist claims. | |||
| *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) | |||
| Secondly, the site is noted for publishing white nationalist or supremacist apologia, such as , entitled "The Forbidden Faction: Stigmatizing White Identity Politics", which declares of the Charlottesville Nazi protesters, {{tq|they were also protesting to promote the forbidden idea that there's nothing wrong with white Christian Americans advocating for their group or being proud of their heritage.}} Also see fawning profile of ], one of America's most notorious white supremacists, , by Colin Flaherty, etc. etc. These are not what we expect from a reliable source. | |||
| ::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. ] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My assessment: | |||
| ::* The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality ] that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support. | |||
| ::* The DRG News source is labeled as being from '']'', which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They ''might'' be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com | |||
| ::* ] is a reliable source. | |||
| ::] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AllMovie == | |||
| Thirdly, they published of with no apparent retractions or corrections. | |||
| 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. | |||
| All of this is evidence that the site should not be considered an acceptable reliable source. ] (]) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree fully with this assessment ] (]) 00:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is reliable only for its city of publication and the name of its current managing editor, and I recommend double checking both of those. ] ] 07:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I agree with all of the above, except that I would say that it is reliable for the opinions of the writers of the articles, just as a blog post of other SPS written by them would be. ] (]) 09:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Sure, but given the ] nature of the site's ideology, I would be highly skeptical that we should be routinely quoting the site's writers' opinions, absent some compelling reason to do so. ] (]) 12:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ] used to be a resource with professional reviews, as a sibling site to ] and ]. At some point, the site was acquired by Netaktion (] has a ). Since then, nearly all of the previous content has been removed. The current version is basically a ] ] of Misplaced Pages and Wikidata. They include a simple "Description by Misplaced Pages" label that doesn't meet the terms of our license, and they've republished on their site several articles that I myself have written, without proper attribution. Here's an example of what '']'' looked like , , and . The ratings on the site also appear unreliable, and somehow they manage to include star ratings for many ]s. Recent discussions about AllMovie have happened at ] and ]. | |||
| With regards to fact checking in Professor ]'s ''The Communist'' he writes that it does occur. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yJiybwYPPEIC&q=fact-checking#v=snippet&q=fact-checking&f=false --] (]) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, , which states as fact that a dozen or so named living people are part of a "criminal conspiracy to cover up their crimes and bring down duly elected President Trump" was definitely fact-checked. :rolleyes: ] (]) 14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, one professor at a "Christian" college who is a member of several paleoconservative groups, who publishes with ], and who has written nearly himself, claims one instance of fact checking in a book published by ]'s outfit. That's basically like a joint statement by ], ], ], ], the current ], and the ]. --] (]) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Because the content and editorial practices of AllMovie are now extremely different from AllMusic, I think we should create a separate entry for it and split off any discussions of the post-acquisition version of the site. The current AllMovie site should be considered unreliable, and any archived URLs from previous iterations of AllMovie would be still evaluated under ]. ] (]) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The magazine's articles should be seen as opinion pieces rather than news articles and evaluated individually. For practicle purposes that would mean that none of their articles would be considered reliable or the opinions expressed carry sufficient weight to be used for any articles. Of course the odd exception might exist, however unlikely. Professor Kengor's passing reference is unhelpful to the determination. It does not say whether fact-checking is consistently applied or just in this particular case or whether it follows the same standards as news media. Note too that the standards required for opinion pieces is different from news reporting. Double-sourcing for example is not required. Why political orientation is independent from reliability, magazines representing minority views are best avoided for topics that receive coverage in mainstream media. An exception is where an opinion or report originally published in a minority outlet becomes itself widely reported and hence part of the story. ] (]) 19:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch, and I agree with your proposal. AllMovie's blog post , dated March 24, 2024, suggests that AllMovie's transition from independent content to Misplaced Pages mirror occurred around the beginning of 2024. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| =="ADMIR"== | |||
| :Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- ] (] | ]) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| claims to be of the purported '''American Diplomatic Mission of International Relations Intergovernmental Organization''' (ADMIR). I have found nothing about this organisation on Misplaced Pages or the internet and the America First sticker with the eagle makes it obvious that they are fake. Still, it is baffling that they use "-gov" (but, see, "-gov", not ".gov"!) and a seal similar to these of U.S. governmental organisations. The articles I located using it as a "source" were Brazil-based Lebanese billionaire ] (called "His Excellency Honorary Member of Honor and Distinction") and defrocked Georgian Bishop ] (the link serves as a "source" on a different person, which is extremely funny as this is a five-line stub) but there may be others. This organisation smells ] from afar but I place it here to investigate if there is a remote possibility of it being even halfway legitimate and to raise awareness of it in case someone else encounters it in an article.--] (]) 08:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :A quick look at the page shows grammatical errors, seemingly contradictory indications of focus and a design that reminds me of the "good" old days of geocities, even though it is obviously nowhere near that old. So that tells me that their copy was written by someone who doesn't speak fluent English, and their website was designed by an amateur. Looking at the source code shows that it was built by ]. So no, not reliable for anything but their own claims/views. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed - far from reliable. Fake News... :) ] (]) 02:29, 10 January 2018 (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) | |||
| == The Root == | |||
| *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. | |||
| Is a RS for information on a BLP? It strikes me as just another gossip site. ] (]) 00:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, ''never'' use a site like this to cite a living person's date of birth. I've come across far too many examples of incorrect DOBs being added to Misplaced Pages bios, then subsequently repeated by an ostensibly reliable source, then later when someone tries to correct the info here other editors keep changing it back to the wrong date with a citation to the incorrect source. Things like this have real consequences for real people in the real world. We need to do better, and it's fine not to have a date when we don't know what the ''correct'' date is. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I would argue that it is reliable as its about page (linked ) shows that there is editorial oversight over what is published on the site. ] (]) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == MintPress News == | |||
| The disputed article is ] (not a living person, an organisation) and the disputed edit is . ] (]) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :What is said in the Root article is also backed up in second source also linked in the Proud Boys article from Southern Poverty Law Center <span style="background-color: black">]</span>] 01:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Peter the source is used for information on a BLP, not an organization ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :TheRoot is not a "gossip site," it's a general interest news and culture magazine aimed at African-American audiences. Paging through a few articles, I see no content which would raise immediate RS red flags (conspiracy theorizing, promoting fringe beliefs/ideologies, making obviously false claims, etc.) Is there anything in particular which makes you believe it's not an RS? ] (]) 07:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Root may be usable for uncontentious claims, but I would consider it a pretty weak source in general. Much of their content is opinion oriented. I would treat it similarly to other Gawker sources like Gizmodo, Jezebel, etc.- ] 19:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with MrX's opinion here. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::ETA: I would probably lean slightly toward not considering it a reliable for the specific content in question. The SPLC is already cited anyway.- ] 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd say not reliable for this, and probably not acceptable for anything other than the most anodyne and uncontroversial statements. There will almost always be a better source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ] was given rather short thrift at an , sending it straight to deprecation. The RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked (and contributed 2 of the deprecation votes at the time), including Icewhiz. MPN is definitely strongly left-leaning and, would put it, "hyper-partisan", and this often leads to quite sensationalist headlines, but that is not strictly a reliability matter. The same tracker came out with a mixed reliability assessment of MPN. The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources, which it does frequently. At the same time, it generally heavily attributes other sources, while not necessarily affirming them in its own voice. As the last commenter in the RFC noted, while they might not themselves use MPN, it was unclear if it reached the high bar sufficient to merit deprecation. I raise this largely because deprecation shouldn't be used casually, but only on those sources where the demonstration of the purveyance of misinformation is ironclad. ] (]) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Based on this discussion I have replaced The Root with {{diff2|819147127|The New York Times}} ] (]) 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :As one of the participants in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|July 2019 RfC}}, my assessment that '']'' should be ] has not changed. I believe the evidence I listed is more than sufficient to justify deprecation. I have analyzed ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated, and due to its length, I will place my analysis in a separate subsection. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *And it keeps getting restored, so is this source RS for BLP content or not? ] (]) 12:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :As a non-participant in the 2019 discussion I would like to say that deprecation was the right choice and reliability issues only seem to have gotten worse since. Note that just republishing Zero Hedge would be enough to get them over the deprecation line even if all of their native work was beyond reproach (which it is not). ] (]) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If there is NYT source I don't understand why use questionable sources.--] (]) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :You drew on Ad Fontes Media's analyses in your comment, and AFM is itself considered generally unreliable on the RSP. It's also not accurate to say "The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources," as can be seen if one clicks though to read all of the RfC comments. I have no direct experience with MintPress, but a bit of searching pulls up info like "According to experts, MintPress news is a disinformation site with opaque funding streams run out of Minneapolis that aligns with the Kremlin’s view of a “multipolar world” and often promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. MintPress News has been reprinting copy from Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik since 2016" ( from the ] in 2021), and the ] article cites a number of other sources with similar claims. What's your evidence that they've become reliable? ] (]) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :At a guess because of a previous dispute with the editor restoring it ] (]) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reprinting copy from other websites doesn't automatically or implicitly make any of the content that MPN produces inherently unreliable. It might seem distasteful to republish material from insalubrious sites, but as long as it is clearly labelled, reprinting is all it is. Anything from other sites that we wouldn't use we still don't use if it's syndicated elsewhere. ] (]) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If they regularly reprint news from unreliable sources, yes, that does contribute to their being GUNREL, as it tells us that they have no commitment to accuracy. You've also ignored the rest of the quote and the info in the references on the MintPress article. ] (]) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure the NCRI is an RS or a source worth taking cues from. There are journal pieces on the MPN page that are more reliable and insightful. ] (]) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not going to spend time convincing you that it's reliable. If you find the other sources' critiques to be reliable, then use those. The bottom line is: you question whether it should have been deprecated, but you haven't presented any convincing evidence that it should instead be assessed as generally unreliable. ] (]) 20:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, I don't believe that I've actually claimed anywhere that they've become reliable. I have merely raised questions about their deprecation. ] (]) 18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Isn't that obvious from the fact that you opened this? You are currently contesting the consensus on reliability for MintPress News. The alternative would be that you are engaging in a form of "I'm just asking questions" ]-esque trolling and I think everyone is trying to AGF. ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. ] (]) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @]'s comments below. ] (]) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. ] (]) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I really don't understand the objection to deprecating the source then. Sources are not deprecated because they're more unreliable than GUNREL, the "high bar" for deprecation after something is found generally unreliable is "people think it might be a problem". ] (] • ]) 04:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(Also not part of the original RFC) Looking at what was brought up in the RFC and at the site itself, I think the RFC had the right result. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't involved in last RFC, but I will vote to deprecate if you start another one. The front page is nothing but conspiracy theories, and reading through some articles it has a really strange tendency to cite Russian thinktanks and commentators who are never mentioned by any other English-language outlet. ] (]) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The central motivation seems for revisiting to be that {{Tq|the RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked}}. People become blocked or banned all the time down the line for transgressions unrelated to particular discussions—when that happens, it does not void their prior contributions. If these users were in good standing at the time of the RfC, and weren't evading a block/ban at the time of the discussion, I don't really see why this motivates a change. And, the close seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion. | |||
| :Has the general reputation of the source improved since 2019? If so, there could be some evidence of this that would be useful here. I haven't searched for any, but I also haven't seen it brought up in this discussion. And unless there's good evidence that the source has improved its editorial processes/fact-checking reputation in some way since the prior discussion, I don't really see a need to reassess at this time—we'd probably wind up with the same result. | |||
| :— ] <sub>]</sub> 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article. | |||
| ::*{{tq|The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for .”}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online... These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.}} | |||
| ::*{{tq| Its bestknown article—falsely claiming a chemical weapons attack in Syria had actually been perpetrated by rebel groups rather than the Assad regime—was cited as evidence by Syria, Iran, and Russia, though it turned out to have been reported by a man in Syria who at times appears to have been based in St. Petersburg and Tehran.493 When staff asked who funded their paychecks, they were told it was “retired business people.”494 The hidden nature of the funding caused some staff enough discomfort that former employees cited it as their reason for leaving Mint Press.495 Local journalists have tried and failed to figure out where Mint Press’s money comes from.49}}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|The next five domains (rt.com, mintpressnews.com, sputniknews.com, globalresearch.ca, southfront.org) are alternative media domains that spread master narratives in the Russia’s disinformation campaign.}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|Mintpress has been accused of promoting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and also regularly pushes pro-Russian propaganda, most notably the unfounded claim that a 2013 chemical weapon attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people was perpetrated not by the Syrian regime but by rebel groups with weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia. Mintpress News, alongside The Grayzone, which Maté writes for, has continued to publish Russian-backed narratives that the Syrian regime has been framed for further chemical weapon attacks during the years-long war in the country. The sources of both websites’ funding are unknown.}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|Some of the American Herald Tribune’s articles did survive in other parts of the echo system. Seventeen of them had been cross-posted on the website of Mint Press News, which had similar sharing arrangements with several other “partner” websites including Project Censored, Free Speech TV, Media Roots, Shadow Proof, The Grayzone, Truthout, Common Dreams and Antiwar.com... The only time Mint Press made much impact (though for the wrong reasons) was in 2013 appeared to be based on rumors circulating in Damascus at the time, and there was no real evidence to support it... Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cited the story as evidence that the U.N.’s investigators in Ghouta had not done a thorough job.}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency.}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|The thirteen fake accounts identified by Facebook were promoting the ] website. To build a reputation as an alternative media (progressive and anti-Western) and attract contributors, Peace Data, created at the end of 2019, initially relayed articles from other existing protest media, such as MintPress News or World Socialist Website, or openly pro-Kremlin, Strategic Culture Foundation, The GrayZone or Russia Today.}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|On five occasions, Peace Data published articles that it listed as “partners.” Between August 11 and August 19, the website published two articles each from Citizen Truth and MintPressNews.}} | |||
| ::So, no, it's reputation hasn't improved. ] (]) 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Also not a participant in the original RfC, but concur with those above that it ended with the correct result. Not seeing any conclusive evidence to the contrary, especially given Ad Fontes is itself not considered reliable per ]. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't a participant in the original RfC. I think the RfC should be relisted, as I don't think MPN deprecation was warranted, if anything, I'd support an "Additional considerations apply" designation. ] (]) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry sources == | |||
| === ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated === | |||
| 1. Sources. | |||
| In July 2019, ''MintPress News'' published {{small|()}} after discovering that they were deprecated. The response falsely claimed that all of my comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the July 2019 RfC}} were written by another editor (<ins>{{np|Jamez42}} – misspelled as</ins> {{!xt|"Jamesz42"}}), and then attacked that editor for writing {{xt|"several English-language Misplaced Pages articles on ] of ] politicians as well as on ] and ] who are aligned with Popular Will"}} in a misguided attempt to discredit the author of the RfC comments. However, since those RfC comments were written by me and not by Jamez42, all ''MintPress News'' did was demonstrate their own lack of accuracy and poor fact-checking in their response.{{pb}}One of the pieces of evidence I cited in the RfC was ''MintPress News''{{'s}} most recent "inside story" at the time, , an article that used false information to promote a ] about ]. The original ''MintPress News'' piece claimed: | |||
| * | |||
| {{qb|align=none|Similarly, Microsoft’s that it “will not charge for using ElectionGuard and will not profit from partnering with election technology suppliers that incorporate it into their products” should also raise eyebrows. Considering that Microsoft has of predatory practices, including , its offering of ElectionGuard software free of charge is tellingly out of step for the tech giant and suggests an ulterior motive behind Microsoft’s recent philanthropic interest in "defending democracy."}} | |||
| * . | |||
| Above, ''MintPress News'' linked the term '']'' ("increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some") to that described Microsoft engaging in ] ("the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition") with its ] software. ''MintPress News'' then used that incorrect reading to push their conspiracy theory about Microsoft's ] software. A reliable source would retract this article after discovering such a prominent flaw in the logic of their argument, but as they mentioned in their reaction piece, ''MintPress News'' doubled down by removing the reference to OneCare altogether and pretending that evidence against its conspiracy theory did not exist. In the {{small|()}}, ''MintPress News'' replaced {{!xt|"including "}} with {{xt|"including "}}, with the term ''price gouging'' now linking to another article about a different piece of software (]).{{pb}}In my RfC comments, I also noted that ''MintPress News'' republished 340 articles from {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}}, a source deprecated for frequently publishing conspiracy theories and false information. Despite acknowledging this in their reaction piece, ''MintPress News'' did not take down the Zero Hedge articles from their website. Instead, ''MintPress News'' has since changed their site design to remove the counter for the Zero Hedge articles. The articles are still published on their site, and can be found in a web search using the following query: .{{pb}}Everything I have mentioned here only concerns my comments in the previous RfC and how ''MintPress News'' responded to them. Additional evidence against this publication's reliability can be found in the article '']''. Altogether, I see no reason to change ''MintPress News''{{'s}} status as a deprecated source. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Corrected username — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * . | |||
| * . | |||
| * . | |||
| 2. ]. | |||
| 3. Content. <blockquote>Sosa's paternal family, the Peraltas, are Dominican of Haitian descent.</blockquote>. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Any reliable source about that well known baseball player, not a single document have been shown by any of the sources cited. Should any of the sources be used to back that statement? --] 17:00, 6 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::The book in your first link is an autobiography with Sammy Sosa as one of the authors. He's certainly an expert on himself! That source alone is plenty for the statement, "According to Sammy Sosa, he has Haitian ancestry" (if that's what it says; I can't access the specific page right now). Is there any reason to doubt that Sosa really wrote that book? This would be allowed under ], unless the claim is considered exceptional by reputable entities. Think about how American politician Elizabeth Warren was criticized for saying she had Native American ancestry. There was no evidence; it was just part of her family lore and looks like it's not true. Is there controversy like that over Sosa's claim of Haitian ancestry? ] (]) 02:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of ] to allege an {{!xt|"ulterior motive"}} based on Microsoft's situational use of ] is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, ''MintPress News''{{'s}} rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the ] policy states that questionable sources {{xt|"include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion"}}, which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The book only was used to support a nickname, Mickey but the book do not show any indication of Haitian ancestry. --] 03:42, 8 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::Regarding the third link, the site is quoting the president of the Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH), Virgilio Almánzar. Has Almánzar made an official public statement that we could use instead? ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}} and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).{{pb}}As a ] website with a ] rank of , MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of ]'s book that debunks MPN's promotion of the ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, and at the end of that source says: "''En ningún momento Almánzar acompañó sus aseveraciones de alguna evidencia al respecto, por lo que todo lo dicho huele a conjeturas y especulaciones''" (At no time Almánzar accompanied his assertions of some evidence about it, so everything that smells of conjecture and speculation). Almanzar seemed to claim that, without any document. There is no video link either. --] 03:42, 8 January 2018 (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 | |||
| ::::Well if the book doesn't actually say either "Sosa has Haitian ancestry" or "Sosa says he has Haitian ancestry," then it doesn't matter if it's ''reliable''; it's not ''relevant''. It's an issue, just not a reliability issue. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::''Does'' Sammy Sosa, anywhere, say "I have Haitian ancestry," regardless of whether he has proof? Is there a TV interview, a personal website? Where is the original Wikieditor who added this content getting it? ] (]) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim: | |||
| :::::No, he have not, that would be a big deal and would be noted in all media. --] 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote. | |||
| ::::The article lists source currently numbered 5, the article "Miniaturas del béisbol: Más de Haitianos," in which the assertion that Sosa's dad is Haitian is attributed to journalist (''periodista'') Julio Reyes. I'd say that's good enough. It would be better to actually cite the work by Reyes that Cruz is quoting, but I'd say due diligence is done. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities. | |||
| :::::Miniaturas del béisbol source is a letter from that journalist who claim having documents, but have not sent anything, is just a claim. That is the main source in the article right now backing that claim. The journalist is not sure about what he is saying with wording like: "por lo menos en los últimos 15 ó 20 años", if he has documents he should write a letter with statitistics not an open period of time; "que su primer apellido Gilliard, no estoy seguro por el momento que se escriba así, pero el padre es haitiano del ingenio Quisqueya" he is not sure how is the last name is written, again, how is written in the documents he claims (La lista es grande, pero como estoy fuera de San Pedro de Macorís y tengo un archivo personal con toda esa relación sería en otra ocasión que se la mandaría) to have? He is not sure about the information he is giving, that source seems not to be good. --] 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending. | |||
| :::::::So Minaturas is not quoting a ''published'' article by Julio Reyes but either an unpublished work or a self-published work? Then per ] we are not allowed to use it for a biography of a living person, even if it is reliable for other matters. | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter. | |||
| ::::::::Yes, it is an unpublished work. That source have been used at least 5 times for the same matter, back Haitian ancestry for other baseball players mentioned in that unpublished work. --] 02:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians. | |||
| :::::::Again, is this something controversial? If Sosa is Haitian there's probably a TV interview or something in which he says so. Then the article could read "according to Sosa, he's Haitian." The claim is not outrageous or unduly self-serving, per ]. ] (]) 22:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Because {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}} is a source that was deprecated for repeatedly publishing ] and false information, MPN's use Zero Hedge for factual claims on numerous occasions and MPN's republication of hundreds of Zero Hedge articles both contribute to MPN being a ]. MPN using sources other than Zero Hedge does not excuse MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fixed link to article #2 again — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::::::Again, he have not said that ever, Sammy is such an important figure in the Dominican Republic, if he ever says that it will be published everywhere and will be noted in the whole country. Again, there have been a lot of investigation about his life, even people who does not like him and openly want him to look bad, but never ever have been anything published about him being from Haitian ancestry, not a book, not a magazine, not a documental, anything, and if ever comes out, will be a very big deal. --] 02:13, 9 January 2018 (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. | |||
| Well according to ''Postwar America: An Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and Economic History'' Routledge p781 he's from the Dominican Republic ] (]) 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<u>Article #2</u> It is the same link as Article #3 | |||
| :Yes, that doesn't seem to be in dispute, though. ] (]) 23:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<u>Article #3</u> It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public. | |||
| ::He is Dominican, a proud Dominican. --] 02:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<u>Article #4</u> But it does say "estimate", rather than treating it as an absolute and factual value, it is simply relating what ZeroHedge has estimated. The article does not rely on Zero Hedge reporting, but includes | |||
| :::The issue seems to be whether he's a Dominican ''of Haitian ancestry'' or not and whether these sources support that statement. It seems that blackness is a very loaded issue in the Dominican Republic, so this might be more controversial than whether someone is an American of Haitian descent, for example. ] (]) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<u>Article #5</u> It also links to the Washington Post article that Zero Hedge is using, not relying on Zero Hedge alone for the claim. | |||
| ::::You have identified the issue correctly, is he from Haitian ancestry? Are this sources cited by the one who edited the article enough to include that statement in the article? There is no blackness discussion.--] 04:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think MPN is an unreliable source, it doesn't satisfy: {{tq|"have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."}} Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the other part of the policy: {{tq|"websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."}} | |||
| :::::I don't think the sources presented here establish that Sammy Sosa has Haitian ancestry or that he has claimed to have it. At most, the article could say "journalist Julio Reyes has referred to Sammy Sosa as having Haitian ancestry." ] (]) 14:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Citing Zero Hedge once per article, for claims that can be idependently verified, among many other sources that are WP:RS isn't enough to deprecate MPN. ] (]) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As a living person (Sosa) we would almost certainly not include information that even indicates his ethnicity/ancestry is other than as stated in reliable sources or by the subject himself. We wouldn't even attribute that unless it had been discussed in multiple reliable sources. Anything regarding nationality/ethnicity etc is always a contentious issue and requires extremely strong sourcing. Like yourself, I cant see any of that here that would be enough to state he has Haitian ancestry. Osplace: If you want another viewpoint, you could try ] but that board will almost certainly conclude without strong sourcing, speculation like that cant be included in a ]. ] (]) 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing {{rspe|Infowars|'']''|d|y}}; a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the ].{{pb}}My comments in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you very much. --] 16:24, 10 January 2018 (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. — ''''']''' <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) == | |||
| == FFE Magazine as a source on Philippine History== | |||
| 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) | |||
| '''Request for:''' Comment on the overall reliability of FFE Magazine as a source on Philippine History | |||
| :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) | |||
| '''Specific Source Page cited:''' http://ffemagazine.com/lakandula-peaceful-king-takes-stand/ | |||
| ::Ah i see thank you | |||
| ::Even though the subject was part of the interview I believe myself it would not be reliable as it's a motorsport related podcast and even though the youtube channel also has a website which has been referenced in other articles I believe the youtube channel would not be reliable unless otherwise notified ] (]) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It depends what the statement is. If the driver says something like 'I'm 23 years old" that's a good enough source. If the driver says "Castrol Oil is superior to every other oils out there" while also being sponsored by Castrol, then no. | |||
| :::For Youtube channel, they are as reliable as their owners/parent company. A NASA video hosted on NASA's youtube channel is as reliable as anything else produced by NASA. A rocketry video hosted by ], not so much for anything but uncontroversial statements about Bob.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts== | |||
| '''Misplaced Pages Article where used:''' ] | |||
| A senior "editor" recently reverted some of my posts. I posted sources from https://mma.bg/ - It is a Bulgarian MMA news site. The website began in 2008 - https://mma.bg/pages/mission. The previous website was www.mmabg.com as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210601000000*/www.mmabg.com. There is a lot of dicussion on ] sources when it comes to reports of UFC fights. The general rule is if the bout is listed on the official page, for example: https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-february-01-2025, then, we can put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/UFC_Fight_Night:_Adesanya_vs._Imavov. But if it is not on the UFC page, we put the bouts on "Announced bouts" based on independent reports. The UFC Events page takes time to update. | |||
| The thing is an editor only accepts reports from websites other than UFC/ESPN (ESPN is the channel that broadcasts UFC), but if the UFC posts a column saying there is a new bout, I feel the report is sufficient to be put on the Misplaced Pages page, since it is merely reporting the company's scheduled bout. Only within hours, other independent news sites would use the official post from the UFC in their reports. | |||
| '''Specific Content:''' "In fact, Manila wasn’t conquered, but it was occupied through a peace pact that joined Legazpi and the three kings Lakandula, Rajah Ache and Rajah Sulayman." | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Concern in specific instance:''' This is a relatively minor concern: many Philippine historians characterize Maynila as having been "conquered" in a general sense, since Legazpi and his successor, Levazaris, eventually gained full control of the city. (If not in 1572 when the peace pact was signed, then arguably in 1574 and 1588 when uprisings by local rulers were put down, and the old ruling families of Manila decimated.) Whether Maynila was conquered by open conflict or by signed agreement, the outcome is the arguably same. But the editor who wrote this seems to be trying to emphasize that 1572 was not a martial defeat ''per se''. I'm not actually going to contest this, because I've heard both points of view, but | |||
| * a) Based on my familiarity with other texts, I don't think this sentence captures other (possibly more mainstream) perspectives; | |||
| * b) I don't actually think the ] article, which is about the individual, is the appropriate place to settle the detailed political dispositions of ] and the ] as of 1572 (perhaps ] is the best place) because a mention of that controversy would introduce a long, off-tangent discussion; and | |||
| *c) I'm concerned about the overall reliability of FFE Magazine as a source. | |||
| 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? | |||
| My complaint is more with the reliability of the source than it is with the veracity of the content. | |||
| Basically, I would like you to review the following: | |||
| '''General concern regarding source:''' According to its ], FFE Magazine "''is a general interest European magazine for and about everything of interest to all Filipinos working and living in Europe, their non- Filipino spouses, family and friends.''" Not to disparage the site in any way because its goals seem laudable enough; but it makes no claim to be a reliable or scholarly source on Philippine History. It also does not name its staff, does not cite the staff's credentials, and does not explain its editorial policy with regards to fact-checking and historical veracity. | |||
| 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> | |||
| '''Action requested:''' For now, I'm going to tag the edit as coming from an unreliable source. And I'm going to look for reliable secondary sources. But may I request comment on whether FFE Magazine should be considered a reliable source on Philippine History for Misplaced Pages? Obviously I don't think so, but I'd like to hear community inputs. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Thanks - ] (]) 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::If FFE has editorial oversight, and it looks like it does, then because "Is it reliable" is a yes/no question, I say yes. However, sources such as history books and scholarly journal articles are of course ''better'' than a general audience magazine that's mostly about modern topics. This magazine would be enough on its own except that superior sources seem to contradict it. If "Manila was not really conquered" is a legitimate historical view, then there will be at least a few history books and scholarly articles that say so. Use those instead. I imagine this article will end up reading "Some historians, such as Dr. Lastname of Such-and-such University, who argue that Manila was not conquered but rather absorbed by treaty" with a link to the article about Tondo for more information. | |||
| ::So the person who added this content using this source did not do anything wrong. They did ''enough''. But because the content has now been challenged, more must now be done. ] (]) 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :If it's just a matter of one or two days, just wait for the official announcement.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == country-data.com as a source for history and ethnogenesis == | |||
| == RfC: TheGamer == | |||
| * '''Source:''' (http://www.country-data.com) | |||
| * '''Article:''' ] | |||
| * '''Content:''' ''"The Bactrian and Sogdian people are the principal ancestors of Tajiks."'' --] (]) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| <s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site? | |||
| :At the bottom of the page, it reads ''Based on the Country Studies Series by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress''. That's a good sign but we need more. I don't see an about us page or a place to find out about their editorial oversight. I checked the bibliography of the China article, and it's credible and extensive. This looks like a professional compiled source. We just need to confirm it. ] (]) 13:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I went looking for the official government website for the Country Study Series and found it: Okay, the Tajiks appear to be covered in the book about , of which 69 of its roughly 450 pages contain the word "Tajik" and 6 Does this get you what you need? ] (]) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| I would not say that country-data.com is a RS. It's owned and operated by . Private company that has a range of sites like this to generate ad revenue. I have found some of their other sites to be horribly inaccurate, and they often just reuse & repost content from elsewhere. ] (]) 14:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| : To follow up: is your source, the content is wholesale ripped from there. The source material ''is'' a RS, but cite that not the people reposting it for profit. Note that it's 20 years old and likely a bit out of date though. ] (]) 14:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| ]</s> | |||
| {{Ping|Darkfrog24|Fyddlestix}} Thanks for the help. --] (]) 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Linguist's history == | |||
| * '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 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== | |||
| '''Source''': {{citation |author=M. Ashraf Bhat |title=The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eVwpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55 |date=23 June 2017 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |isbn=978-1-4438-6260-8 |pages=55–}}. () | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Page''': ] (]) | |||
| 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 | |||
| The entire content of the Origins section (prehistory) is sourced to this book. Much of this is ignored/dismissed by authentic historians. The involved editors dismiss HISTRS as an essay and contend that this source covers "all theories"(]). What do you think of the reliability of this source for history? -- ] (]) 08:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sorry but where did you get this part from {{tq|Much of this is ignored/dismissed by authentic historians.}} I am afraid this is not a good representation of the matter. ] (]) 11:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please address the reliability of the source, not your opinions on the content. | |||
| ::A useful tidbit from an author published by the so-called "Cambridge Scholars Publishing": {{tq| Now that the book is out, I have mixed feelings about the experience--as other posters said, there was little feedback and no editing from them--we did it all. We couldn't get enough complimentary copies for contributors, and getting the book reviewed is a challenge b/c they are not sending review copies, just queries. These were issues we had not thought to negotiate up front.}} | |||
| ::And the publisher seems to leave the copyright with the author, probably a representation of the minimal value they add. -- ] (]) 12:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Reliability is just one issue here... the idea that ANY group of people are a “Lost tribe of Israel” is somewhat fringe. Is mentioning this UNDUE? (Note... the source in question does not propose this theory... it notes someone else claims the Kashmiris are a lost tribe... still, I have to question stating it at all). ] (]) 13:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not a content dispute, its a source topic. The Israel theory is not the author's opinion, he just mentions that a theory of that kind exists. A tertiary source cited on the Kashmiris article also mentions the theory,<ref>{{citation |title=Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&pg=PA372 |first=Barbara |last= West |year=2010}}</ref> though it does nor adopt it. Mentioning a theory while not adopting it does not make the source ″fringe″. | |||
| ] (]) 13:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that... but there is no need to cite the source if we don’t mention the fringe theory in the first place. Context matters. ] (]) 13:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed but the source is not for that theory, its for other content too. ] (]) 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What other theories?... the only place that the article cites Bhat is to support the statement that "{{tq|...some scholars and Kashmiri historians such as R.K. Parmu believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews...}}". Now, Bhat may well be narrowly reliable for this statement... R.K. Parmu (and unnamed other scholars) may actually say this. '''However''', we ''then'' have to ask another question: how reliable is '''R.K. PARMU''' (or these unnamed other scholars)? If '''Parmu''' isn't reliable, then there is no reason to mention his opinion. And if we ''don't'' mention what the fringe theorists think, then the entire issue of whether '''Bhat''' is reliable (or not) becomes ''irrelevant''... because we no longer have any reason to cite him. ] (]) 14:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, this is not a content dispute. This is a discussion on sourcing. Sourcing for content beyond the ″fringe theory″. ] (]) 14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But sourcing is always tied to the content which it supports. Context matters. The two can't be separated. Again, the question of sourcing becomes irrelevant if we don't include the content... but I can raise this in another venue if you prefer. ] (]) 14:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Raised at: ]... please comment. | |||
| 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/ | |||
| === Manohar publisher === | |||
| 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. | |||
| How much weight should this book '''Hangloo, Rattan Lal (2000), The State in Medieval Kashmir, Manohar, ISBN 978-81-7304-251-5''' published by a relatively unknown publisher and little known writer/professor Rattan Lal Hangloo be given in contrast to a book written by a scholar (M Ashraf Bhat) and published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing ('''M. Ashraf Bhat (23 June 2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–, ISBN 978-1-4438-6260-8'''.)? ] (]) 11:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Manohar is a well-known Indian publisher of academic works, which have been cited on Misplaced Pages . | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote> | |||
| : Ratan Lal Hangloo is a historian, with a PhD from ], was a professor of history at the ], and currently a Vice-Chancellor. | |||
| : Any more questions? -- ] (]) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote> | |||
| :::I cannot find any evidence that Manohar is a well-known publisher from any independent source. The Misplaced Pages link you have provided means very little because it shows 596 results (of which there are unrelated pages) while You will have to do better to prove to us that Manohar is good enough. We also have no independent proof for Hangloo's history credentials. ] (]) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh, and the most shady thing about "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" is that it has . -- ] (]) 12:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh really? Here's their description: {{tq|Cambridge Scholars Publishing is an independent academic publisher, committed to providing a forward-thinking publishing service that champions original thinking, whilst ensuring we put our authors at the heart of everything we do. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::Founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge, we publish original academic work across a wide range of subjects in four key areas: Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS); Health Sciences (HS); Physical Sciences (PS); and Life Sciences (LS). | |||
| I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are unique in the balance we establish between our editorial guidance and the level of control retained by each of our authors; acknowledging the value they place on presenting their own work in a way that retains the integrity of their original argument. | |||
| :Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for wikipedia standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.''' | |||
| :::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself. | |||
| :::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop" | |||
| :::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page | |||
| :::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate? | |||
| ::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist. | |||
| ::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious. | |||
| ::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future. | |||
| ::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include. | |||
| ::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::With a strong reputation for author satisfaction, we understand the importance of making the publishing process a rewarding experience, with no cost to the author/editor, complimentary copies, a substantial author discount, free access to our eBook titles, and a generous royalty scheme. Our publications are marketed worldwide and sold through international booksellers and distributors including Amazon, Blackwell, Baker & Taylor, YBP and Ingram, and are widely purchased by academic libraries. In addition, we have distribution partnerships in key geographical territories such as the USA, China, India and the Middle East.}} ] (]) 13:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ] ] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Cambridge Scholars Publishing does not just have editorial oversight. It has what looks like the standard ] process common to the hard and social sciences. That is ''better'' than editorial oversight. It means that other experts in the field, other historians or linguists with Ph.D.s and good reputations, read the entire book and gave constructive criticism before allowing it to be published. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :There are some fake journals out there, pay-to-publish, usually. I'd say it is on the challenging editor to prove that this is a fake journal. It doesn't look like one, though. ] (]) 13:06, 11 January 2018 (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. ] ] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct. | |||
| ::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places, | |||
| ::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ] ] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}} | |||
| :::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I’m just here to say that a source being ''generally'' unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on ]. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely agree with this, both "''generally'' reliable" and "''generally'' unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. ] (]) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? ] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). ] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::EDIT CONFLICT: :'''' refers to the author as "Professor Hangloo." It seems he teaches at a and his credentials are good, and in the field of history. He looks like an expert to me. <strike>I can't find enough information on the publisher to tell whether it is a vanity press or not, but even if it is,</strike> this first book meets our minimum requirements. <strike>See ] for how to use expert sources.</strike> You are allowed to cite information from this book in Misplaced Pages's voice. Even if the publisher is suspect (and Kautilya3 has addressed that), the author is not suspect. ] (]) 12:50, 11 January 2018 (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. ] ] 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 cannot find any website giving details on this Rattan Lal Hangloo. I have found a '''' though which gives a list of his credentials without giving much information on what exactly his doctorates and degrees were for. All it says he was a ''brilliant student of history'' (keep in mind this is a seeming self published blog). No other information can be found on his credentials. ] (]) 13:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''Update''', I have found some information on Rattan Lal Hangloo, I still cannot find any information on him or his credentials from any independent, reputable website but I have just discovered that Mr Hangloo has been present in the news for very controversial and questionable things. See . ] (]) 13:44, 11 January 2018 (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? == | |||
| :::::'''Another update''' ,Sadly Hangloo is at the center of too many controversies, , which raises questions on his credibility and reliability. ] (]) 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hungloo is a controversial ''administrator''.Since, his days as a VC at Kalyani University he had his tensions with the political regime et al and this has continued unabated.But, he is ''reliable'' as an academic source, as would be someone who has held multiple ''chairs'' and has been VC of 2 quite-reputed universities..]<sup>]</sup> 16:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"M. Ashraf Brat" pulls up multiple hits, but if it's at IIT, then he can be considered a linguistics expert. Again, Kautilya3 seems to have dealt with the publisher. You are good to go on both these sources. ] (]) 12:58, 11 January 2018 (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 ]? | |||
| 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) | |||
| But your question wasn't whether they are good enough or not (they are). The question was how much weight to give them. They are both professionally published works written by academics with good credentials, one of them with exquisitely good credentials. I'd say give them more weight than most other sources. If you posted here because some lesser source contradicts these books, go with these books. The only possible problem would be if the author goes against the grain in some way, like if Hangloo is one of only a few professors who believe X when most of his field believes Y. In the case of any such information, say something like "although the majority view is Y, some historians, such as Professor Hangloo, believe X." ] (]) 13:02, 11 January 2018 (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) | |||
| * Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a dodgy operation, as you would expect from the fact that it is falsely implying a connection with an institution with which, in reality, it has no connection at all, and its authors are primarily not only not connected with Cambridge but not even in its home country. Oh, and they engage in spamming. It apparently exists to suck in naive and well-meaning academics from outside the US and Europe. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], well Hogo that the guardian piece is an ], the politico piece is a ] and there's no consensus for salon at ]. These are all ]-based arguments.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So it is a fake, pay to publish journal? ] (]) 13:18, 11 January 2018 (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) | |||
| :: I don't think so. I suspect it is a new company that is trying a bit too hard. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:24, 11 January 2018 (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 agree. I think it is a legitimate publisher, but of questionable quality and fake pretensions. -- ] (]) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (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) | |||
| ::::So far these are speculations, but do you have concrete evidence for them ]? ] (]) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that this is solid advice. ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, so let's say that Cambridge Scholars Publishing is not a fake publisher but it is a ''new and unproven'' publisher. They might have peer review and editorial oversight but we don't know if they're good at it yet, now in January 2018. Are we okay with treating the published thesis by the same way we would an expert ], relying on the author's credentials alone? ] (]) 20:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The trouble is the author has no credentials for history. He is merely reproducing what he has read here and there, without being able to evaluate what is myth, what is folklore and what is history. -- ] (]) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for ] == | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found a link to the pdf but which I don't read well. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] @] My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.] (]) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the ] in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. ] ] 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of ''x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian'' and ''the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion''. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of ''folie à deux'', or whether they are publishing an academic joke.] (]) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by ]. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.] (]) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that ] talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::If there are secondary sources for what he says in his page, it would help. Those can be cited. ] (]) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Pirate Wires''?== | |||
| '']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] | ] |''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case. | |||
| :Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] | ] |''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] | ] |''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Reliability of R.K. Parmu=== | |||
| * ''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) | |||
| Related question... since the above sources are being used to support a statement about what R.K. Parmu (and other unnamed scholars) says (ie that the Kashmiris are decended from the "Lost trives of Israel"(... I thought I would ask the unasked question: Who is '''R.K Parmu''', and is '''he''' reliable? ] (]) 15:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :He's someone who was publishing works in 1969. That's probably why I can't find a web-based bio. of one of his pieces, though (scroll to bottom right). ] (]) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. — ''''']''' <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 == | |||
| == It's time to talk about biography.com generally== | |||
| I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I know they are owned by A&E, which gives them an air of "truthiness," but they do not cite sources or list authors. In particular, the birthdates they give are very often in conflict with journalistic sources of high repute. For examples, see ] and ]. I'm not convinced we should be treating them as reliable at all, especially when their information contradicts better sources such as interviews and journalistic mini-bios. Does anyone have any insight into their editorial process? Without that knowledge, I see no reason to assume they are doing anything but copying other websites. ] (]) 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :This () hosted by ] lists it under the section "INTERNET SOURCES TO AVOID". --] (]) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>along with us --] 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::A&E as in Arts and Entertainment as in entertainment. That's not a credential. ] (]) 20:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC on self-published announcements of works and roles == | |||
| == Fantasy Literature == | |||
| There's a RFC on whether self-published announcements of works and roles are acceptable as a reliable source. There are typically in the format of "Catch me on show X as role Y". Discussion at ] Thanks in advance for your input. ] (] • ]) 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Media Matters == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I recently removed text from our article ] citing criticism of him in ] for being overly critical of ] during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign. This was in light of a recent article in the notable liberal political journal '']'', which said: | |||
| <blockquote>"Employees were asked to stay late or work on the weekends specifically to cover Clinton, which many felt came at the expense of other stories and the organization’s mission. Nearly every former staffer we spoke to felt that researchers, in particular, were underpaid and overworked, and that these problems often surfaced when they were forced to work on stories they felt were dubious. As one former staffer described it, “They were paying me $35,000 a year to watch Fox all the time and to do rotating shifts where I’d have to change from a day shift to a night shift every two weeks. It was just a miserable job...”</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>When it came to the organization’s research standards, most former staffers we talked to agreed that they were lowered when it came to Clinton-related content. One former staffer told us that, compared to “the amount of evidence we would have to collect to go after another story,” Clinton pieces had a “much lower bar. It literally just had to involve Hillary Clinton and that was it.” Another said that they often weren’t allowed to publish Clinton-related pieces “until they had been read by someone in leadership...”</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>Then there was James Carville’s guest column for the site. In his inaugural post, the longtime Clinton ally stated his intention was to use the space to defend the Clintons: “That’s what happens when you have one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else, which is why I’ll be writing regularly in this space.” (Bradley Beychok, who was president of Media Matters from 2013 until early December, and who was thought responsible for enforcing the site’s pro-Clinton bent, is close to Carville)"</blockquote> | |||
| '']'' was generally positive about Media Matters: "With the proliferation of conservative misinformation and the rise in popularity of far-right websites like Breitbart, there is a need for organizations like Media Matters now more than ever," but was scathing about their slant toward Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign. Quoting ''The New Republic'' article again: | |||
| <blockquote>" Media Matters derives its credibility from its objectivity—its posts are dry, often consisting almost entirely of transcripts that aim to show how conservative media is misleading the public. Media Matters is also classified as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group in the tax code, which means that it cannot explicitly advocate for a political candidate. The organization is careful not to step over that line, always framing pieces with a media angle—for example, “New York Times’s Maureen Dowd Writes Yet Another Anti-Clinton Column.” But with Carville’s column, that veneer of objectivity was tossed aside. Media Matters also had one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else."</blockquote> | |||
| :It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is an ] indictment of ] as an unreliable source of information on ] or her critics during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign. '']'' is a notable liberal political journal which addressed its complaints not to Media Matters' political stance, but to their journalistic ethics and to their violation of the US Tax Code by systematically advocating for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign despite registering with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. | |||
| ::This is the terms its staff work under: | |||
| ::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == NASASpaceFlight.com == | |||
| Is this enough to initiate a discussion in the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard's Project Page of Media Matters for America's reliability when cited to support statements regarding Hillary Clinton and/or her critics during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign? ] (]) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on 's use as a reliable source in articles related to ], specifically in its use in ] and ]. | |||
| :Looking at that text you removed, the claim has in-text attribution to Media Matters ("Matthews has been accused by ]..."). Obviously the organization is a reliable source for its own viewpoint, so reliability is really not the issue. The question is whether Media Matters' opinion of Chris Matthews is significant enough to be in the article. That's not a question for this noticeboard, as far as I can tell. ] (]) 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies. | |||
| ::The issue never was "is Media Matters for America a reliable source for their own viewpoint?" but "are they a reliable source of information about how fairly journalists treated Hillary Clinton?" | |||
| ::It is a ''very'' reasonable question for this noticeboard to ask, "When Media Matters' critcism of reporting on the 2015-6 Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton is called systematically biased by a politically friendly journal, do we warn our editors about recognizable bias in that criticism?" ] (]) 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *There seems to be a bit of an agenda here, as Vfrickey (loupgarou) is also trying to use this source to push for a paragraph-long indictment of MMfA at ], complete with links to irs.gov web pages embedded in text accusing MMfA of violating tax laws. This source is already used in the article, though the single sentence it supports probably needs a bit of expansion (and a serious grammar check). I've proposed what I feel is a ] amount of coverage at talk. | |||
| :I'm also seeing some serious NPOV problems with the editing at Matthews' article, but that's not for this forum. For the record: criticism should almost always be attributed, so as long as MMfA's criticism of Hillary's critics is attributed, it's perfectly fine. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : is the change you're talking about, right? First of all, the line said absolutely nothing about Clinton, and the source was published in 2005. What bearing does a 2016 National Review article about Media Matters' opinion on Clinton have? Second, this still isn't a question of reliability. Unless someone is using Media Matters as a source for factual claims in Misplaced Pages's voice (rather than claims about Media Matters' own viewpoint), then its a question of weight: is Media Matters' viewpoint on the subject significant enough to include in the article? See ]. ] (]) 20:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing wrong with a biased source as long fact checking has occurred. However other factors such as due weight and whether they are fringe or common views need to be accounted for. ] (]) 20:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I just restored that edit, as the justification for removing it was completely inaccurate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br> | |||
| ==Is a government agency a RS for statements attributed to the agency? == | |||
| {{tq|1="should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. ] (]) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] calls for {{tq|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search appears to show ], and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per ].<br>Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm feverishly trying to salvage (no pun intended) ] from deletion. It was a mess before and was heavily ] and also whitewashed the company's very sketchy history. I think I've repaired it pretty well. However, one sentence I added was: | |||
| ::{{tq|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * "{{xt|'''According to the Port of Los Angeles''', it is the largest recycling company in southern California.}}"<ref>{{cite web|title=Port of Los Angeles, SA Recylcing Move Forward with Crane Replacement Project |url=https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/progress/news/new-electric-crane-debuts-port-la/|website=portoflosangeles.com|publisher=]|accessdate=January 11, 2018}}</ref> | |||
| :::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is cited to the Port of Los Angeles' official website. | |||
| ::::{{tq|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for ]. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. ] (]) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] keeps adding an "unreliable" tag and has inquired if I can {{xt|"demonstrate editorial control plus oversight?"}}* My question is: is an official website of the Port of Angeles a RS for statements ''attributed to'' the Port of Los Angeles per ]? Thanks! ] (]) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)<br/> | |||
| :I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. ] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>*(in fairness, this might be a little bit of a "gotcha" attempt at me for posing ; if that's all that's happening, I apologize in advance for wasting the noticeboard's time with this inquiry)</small> ] (]) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|1=I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.}} well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| :::In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). ] (]) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That last jibe is both unnecessary as well as a violation of ]. Consider yourself warned. Perhaps you should read over AGF. I am a bit surprised you came here, you so adamantly were citing ''policy'' to me, I thought you might know the exact chapter and verse on the ''policy''. Bringing up a bad faith accusation is really not a way to curry any favor here. Thanks! ] (]) 02:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{xt|"That last jibe is both unnecessary as well as a violation of AGF."}} Very sorry if I inadvertently offended. It was merely an observation of a diff'ed fact (see my post to you here: ''"Does it have editorial controls?"'' and your edit summary 40 minutes later to me here: ''"Can you demonstrate editorial control"'' . I brought it up only, as I explained, to make sure no one spent time replying here if this was a ] and not a ] question. But your affirmation that it was a GF coincidence by you is good enough for me and I absolutely AGF it at face value. | |||
| ::{{xt|"I thought you might know the exact chapter and verse on the policy"}} Thanks, I do! The exact chapter is ] and the verse is ]. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :My thoughts about the situation at hand would not be proper to post about at this particular venue. ] (]) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:48, 17 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RfC: Bild
Although I'm involved in the discussion the result seem uncontroversial, and so asking for a close at WP:CR wouldn't be appropriate. The result is that is no change, Bild remians Generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated
Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Bild)
- Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation)
Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.
...The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary
... EDIT: another quoteBILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.
} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. signed, Rosguill 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Bild)
Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de 
. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"
- this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities- In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.
- If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
- These are the key points from the foreword
- articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
- BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
- is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
- A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
- A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
- I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
- In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
- I'm not really sure what is meant by
classif sources based on vibes
, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE saysreputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC: NewsNation
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (NewsNation)
- For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Jacobin
Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Addendum: I think The wub sums up my thoughts well.
It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place.
feminist🩸 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom:
Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.
So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if correct this is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions.
- Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started after someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things.
- Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion.
- Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This has already been demonstrated by @Springee and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if correct this is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. Loki (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. There's even a (less serious) error in the next sentence: Monsanto hasn't existed in 6 years. Combined with the past concerns and the borderline result of the past RfC, it's time for a discussion whether "generally reliable" is still a fair assessment. the wub "?!" 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- All good points! Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. There's even a (less serious) error in the next sentence: Monsanto hasn't existed in 6 years. Combined with the past concerns and the borderline result of the past RfC, it's time for a discussion whether "generally reliable" is still a fair assessment. the wub "?!" 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Jacobin is a far left news and analysis site, and adds opinion and commentary in their articles. I consider sites like this on the right and left not too far removed from activists, and thus should be ignored. It is popular among left leaning people on twitter, reddit, and elsewhere but we should not confuse social media popularity for it being a valid source. We should trim these low quality heavily opinionated pages and rely upon high quality sources such as Associated Press and so forth. Secondly, they aren't particularity useful as anything they're going to cover will be covered by other proper news sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious argument to moderation, reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Misplaced Pages articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, our guideline for reliable sourcing is explicit that
reliable sources are not required to be neutral
. To use political perspective (such as the Jacobin magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- RfCs are time intensive, so starting one should be done for good reason. Jacobin having made and corrected an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read in the last close information presented by @Springee that it was in fact a problematic close which moved Jacobin from Yellow (its prior state) to Green. I mistakenly was just commenting on that, then self-reverted, but I think that we should also remember WP:TIND and not delay a necessary discussion just because it may be "time intensive" for those interested in improving the source reliability determinations that this encyclopedia relies upon. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- RfCs are time intensive, so starting one should be done for good reason. Jacobin having made and corrected an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on WP:RSP). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised at the RfC and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough WP:CONSENSUS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. Springee (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Misplaced Pages looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.
- And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Misplaced Pages giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation. This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. Springee (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Springee that, "
I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify.
" Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.
You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)
- And this makes sense thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.
- Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake
— A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Springee that, "
- Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. Springee (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. Springee (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
This discussion has really dragged on, especially for something that was prompted by a reddit thread related to one sentence in what appears to be an opinion article. Are editors aware that we have whole articles on New York Times controversies, BBC controversies and criticism etc? Have editors been following the deconstruction provided by social media users of corporate media coverage of the assault on Gaza? Are editors aware that the BBC employs Raffi Berg, a former CIA propaganda unit employee with Mossad connections, to head its Middle East desk and whose "entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel"? What about when an IDF embedded CNN reporter visited Rantisi Children’s Hospital with an IDF minder and swallowed the minder's claim about a roster of Hamas members watching over Israeli captives? The document was actually a calendar, with days of the week written in Arabic. Sorry to go off on a tangent but some perspective is needed and, in the scheme of things, a reddit thread is hardly cause for starting an RFC about reliability. Burrobert (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was only one aspect. A much larger aspect was related to open questions from the last RfC and the questionable close that seemed to have moved it (correctly?) from "yellow" to "green". Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Jacobin
 |
|
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey: Jacobin
- Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3
or 4They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the
no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2
position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear.
- Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
- I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK
Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.
A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
- It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
- Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
- They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The author's attitude certainlyleaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to:
centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement
. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge
. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:- Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
- Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
- THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
- The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
- So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
socialist perspectives
and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supportingradical politics
andvery explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism
. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
- Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: Jacobin
- Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
- That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
- What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
- On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
- Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
- It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's more valuable to treat them as WP:PRIMARY than to treat them as WP:SPS personally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed that primary makes more sense than SPS for HF, though there are instances where their work would be or could be a secondary source. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's more valuable to treat them as WP:PRIMARY than to treat them as WP:SPS personally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state
). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.
Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
- I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
RFC: The Heritage Foundation
|
|
What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
- Option 5: Blacklist
Poll: The Heritage Foundation
Option 5: Blacklistlean Option 3, possibly 4, no blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
- is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made this RFC mostly because folks had already started sending bolded votes. with some time, and red-tailed hawks suggestions, I think it makes sense to not blacklist heritage foundation... there are technical ways to reduce the risk.
- Could also be useful to see if there is a way to send folks to the internet archvive version of the heritage foudnation urls instead of the actual urls if there is risk. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization
—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment:
Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).
Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise.But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?
Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question ofDo paperbacks get special dispensation ...
. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...
)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote:... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...
. —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not a cybersecurity expert, and I'm not going to get into the long back-and-forth about HF using links to their website to scrape the IPs of Misplaced Pages editors. My concern is far more basic: if they are doxxing editors, or even threatening to, we should not be linking to them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, why don't we just treat them like a printed source? Mention the author, the title of the article, the year of publication, but leave out any URL to the article. Makes a good compromise: if it's necessary to cite them, then they can be cited without any security concerns that they'll grab a users IP. Those who want to verify the information can google the title of the article and access the article via the search engine so that all that HF would know is that IP so-so accessed their website via a search engine rather than Misplaced Pages. Nakonana (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with editors that have voiced that the security concern is more "security theater" and !vote that the real agenda here should be based in reliability and reliability alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly out of the fact that if HF wants to be a bad actor and do what they plan, us removing the links barely stops them if at all. That just seems silly as a "defensive" move unless I am sorely missing something. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was talk that they wanted to create links that would redirect to some fishy sites. If we don't include any of their links then at least that can be avoided. Plus, I'd think that would make it harder to track editors' activities across different platforms/website. At the same time, HF can still be used a source without any particular limitations other than the policies that are in place and have already been applied to them all this time. Nakonana (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal. I hope your idea catches on in this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- NatGertler actually suggested the same thing as I just saw (the post is right below this thread; here:), but it probably got buried in all the notifications and went unnoticed. Nakonana (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why should a source that publishes disinformation and misinformation be used in an encyclopedia? M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the required consensus to depricate HF might not be reached.
- Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the quality of HF's content, but I see that others consider HF's content useful (at least to some degree) that's why I'm suggesting a compromise in case HF will not be depricated, so that at least the security concerns could still be addressed. Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I for one think that is very reasonable and level headed of you @Nakonana. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The consensus so far appears to be somewhere between "deprecate" and "deprecate and blacklist". M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS can be tricky, as it is not a simply or even a super majority of !votes. That is why we call them not votes (!votes) after all.. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The good news is that they are all proper !votes. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would you consider to be an "improper" !vote? Generally speaking. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The good news is that they are all proper !votes. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS can be tricky, as it is not a simply or even a super majority of !votes. That is why we call them not votes (!votes) after all.. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal. I hope your idea catches on in this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was talk that they wanted to create links that would redirect to some fishy sites. If we don't include any of their links then at least that can be avoided. Plus, I'd think that would make it harder to track editors' activities across different platforms/website. At the same time, HF can still be used a source without any particular limitations other than the policies that are in place and have already been applied to them all this time. Nakonana (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly out of the fact that if HF wants to be a bad actor and do what they plan, us removing the links barely stops them if at all. That just seems silly as a "defensive" move unless I am sorely missing something. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with editors that have voiced that the security concern is more "security theater" and !vote that the real agenda here should be based in reliability and reliability alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, why don't we just treat them like a printed source? Mention the author, the title of the article, the year of publication, but leave out any URL to the article. Makes a good compromise: if it's necessary to cite them, then they can be cited without any security concerns that they'll grab a users IP. Those who want to verify the information can google the title of the article and access the article via the search engine so that all that HF would know is that IP so-so accessed their website via a search engine rather than Misplaced Pages. Nakonana (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not a cybersecurity expert, and I'm not going to get into the long back-and-forth about HF using links to their website to scrape the IPs of Misplaced Pages editors. My concern is far more basic: if they are doxxing editors, or even threatening to, we should not be linking to them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to note, since some are treating deprecation as being more expanse than it is, Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources says:
Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB).
- That should be sufficient to cover the times when we would need to cite this source, and preferably either with archival links or w/o links at all depending on implementation given the other concerns. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify this, I think an archival link in citations would resolve the security issues of using a Heritage Foundation link, not that blacklisting would be a panacea to the doxxing campaign. I think that a link to an organization's own website is the most likely candidate, among links, for a court to decide is a legal way to obtain information. Blacklisting won't stop dedicated efforts to create 3rd-party tracking links, which we should warn editors about, but it is a relatively easy way on our end to throw up a small impediment to the goals and increase the legal risk of any doxxing campaign. If this site is blacklisted, editors should be directed to the various resources on account security that have been discussed. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 + Blacklist I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Amended to include Blacklisting Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
- While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
- Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
- With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
- It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.
- If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...
" Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, it's not for retaliation. I am commenting on the source's reliability. In addition to the incidents documented above and in the parent section's opening statement—which I, again, don't see you refuting—I don't trust Heritage to publish reliable information if they mount a personal assault on information itself. Even if we were on a site unrelated to Misplaced Pages, I would not trust it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, blacklisting is not about retaliation. any political organization that chooses to stoop to this level signals that there is no level to which it will not stoop, including wholesale fabrication of data in seemingly legitimate analyses. it has crossed the Rubicon and can never again be trusted. it should enjoy the company of Breitbart and InfoWars. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, except for the part on blacklisting. Blacklisting depends on whether it's being persistently and disruptively added (as Breitbart and InfoWars documentedly were per their blacklisting discussions). I don't see that happening yet, and per RedTailedHawk below, I fear it'll lead Wikipedians into a false sense of security away from the vigilance about all links, which is needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is blacklisting dependent upon a source being found persistently and disruptively used, or simply a finding of gross and malevolent unreliability? soibangla (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, except for the part on blacklisting. Blacklisting depends on whether it's being persistently and disruptively added (as Breitbart and InfoWars documentedly were per their blacklisting discussions). I don't see that happening yet, and per RedTailedHawk below, I fear it'll lead Wikipedians into a false sense of security away from the vigilance about all links, which is needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, blacklisting is not about retaliation. any political organization that chooses to stoop to this level signals that there is no level to which it will not stoop, including wholesale fabrication of data in seemingly legitimate analyses. it has crossed the Rubicon and can never again be trusted. it should enjoy the company of Breitbart and InfoWars. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The former. Besides the fact that it's called the spam blacklist, Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist says
These lists mostly contain spam sites, but also include URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting), some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus.
andblacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers
. Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting further says it'sintended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses.
Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- yeah, I've been a bit befuddled by blacklisting being limited to spamming, rather than grossly false and malevolent content. was InfoWars blacklisted for spam? soibangla (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As linked to on RSP,
I think that int he interests of protecting the project from a mix of Russian bots and Rany from Boise we should blacklist these domains
. You need persistent mistaken addition to blacklist instead of just deprecating. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As linked to on RSP,
- yeah, I've been a bit befuddled by blacklisting being limited to spamming, rather than grossly false and malevolent content. was InfoWars blacklisted for spam? soibangla (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, it's not for retaliation. I am commenting on the source's reliability. In addition to the incidents documented above and in the parent section's opening statement—which I, again, don't see you refuting—I don't trust Heritage to publish reliable information if they mount a personal assault on information itself. Even if we were on a site unrelated to Misplaced Pages, I would not trust it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself" isn't quite true. The US government runs lots of reliable sources, but the US government has also conducted information warfare. It's a big organization with a long history.
- I'll also direct you (and others interested) to this Signpost article and WP:ANIGATE, in case you haven't seen them already. Again, ANI is MREL, and that's unrelated to its attacks Placeholderer (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are very good reasons to cite ANI, and while their court case is probably of bad faith, they are still respecting the rule of law. If they sicced private detectives on the 3 defendants to expose them, that's another story. You have a point regarding the US government, but the sources that we allow have much better records and reputations regarding what they do publish, and arguments for continued usage like that of the ANI RfC I linked to. For the ones that don't, like WP:OCB, we deprecate them. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, what a wall of text in the replies to my last comment. Look, this isn't about retaliating, or even about not liking what they said. It's about determining whether or not something is a reliable source. And anyone who cannot see that what Heritage is doing is inconsistent with being a reliable source is, I think, very likely to be a POV-pusher making excuses for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Heritage is engaged in subversion and espionage, which is thoroughly inconsistent with a reliable source. yes, espionage. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mean to suggest I'm a POV pusher Placeholderer (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify: I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT, but the Forward article that prompted this discussion might not even suggest HF plans to do anything illegal, unless they dox people who live in places where that's illegal like California or the Netherlands (that's not illegal in the wider US or EU) or spear phish people who live where that's illegal (from what I can tell, not illegal across the US unless it falls under another crime like identity theft, but a bunch of states have their own laws, according to an InfoSec article that I can't link to. Might be illegal across the EU?). Like it or not, they can choose from their menu of doxing tools to try to stay within the laws of each relevant jurisdiction. I do think ANI is worse, where a hostile entity has already succeeded in breaching anonymity and in censoring Misplaced Pages.
- For OCB's deprecation, the reasoning cites "consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda". If we're going to deprecate HF it should be for similar reasons, but I don't think most of this discussion has actually addressed concerns of dis/misinformation, apart from "if they do this they must automatically be a bad source", which I don't think is a strong argument. There are some fringe but legitimate reasons where doxing people on the internet could be seen as acceptable, like investigative journalism revealing that Prolific Reddit User X is actually Known Russian Agitator Y (or, prolific TikToker influencing the Romanian presidential election is actually this guy linked to shadowy companies). So it's not the doxing itself that's bad, but the intent to reveal WP editors' identities (unless the doxing is conducted illegally). And, as mentioned, HF is not the only place trying to do that Placeholderer (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clarification: saying "'if they do this they must automatically be a bad source'" I mean "this" to be doxing. Of course there are things that, if sources do them, mean the sources are bad Placeholderer (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- It may be legal, but it's not lawful nor civil as ANI's case was. And I do not want to argue about ANI here again after already dedicating a lot of words to that on a separate project talk page. We don't need to build this wall of text further beyond the horizons in scope.
There is evidence in the opening statement of this section on their disinformation. I have not seen that refuted anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I don't see the badness distinction between legal and lawful/civil. Google was fined $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by Russia through its legal system, which is a much more hostile action than threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do.
- As for the info at the start of the section, thanks for pointing that out!— I'd only been looking at the RfC. I shall respond to that in the appropriate place Placeholderer (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh, what a wall of text in the replies to my last comment. Look, this isn't about retaliating, or even about not liking what they said. It's about determining whether or not something is a reliable source. And anyone who cannot see that what Heritage is doing is inconsistent with being a reliable source is, I think, very likely to be a POV-pusher making excuses for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are very good reasons to cite ANI, and while their court case is probably of bad faith, they are still respecting the rule of law. If they sicced private detectives on the 3 defendants to expose them, that's another story. You have a point regarding the US government, but the sources that we allow have much better records and reputations regarding what they do publish, and arguments for continued usage like that of the ANI RfC I linked to. For the ones that don't, like WP:OCB, we deprecate them. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That isn't lawful. India's courts are much better than Russia's.
But systematic doxxing with professional spearphishing? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)threatening some doxing that any determined private citizen could do
- Alternatively, burning millions of dollars in lawsuits to try to bankrupt Misplaced Pages in some country with tight libel laws like the UK. I didn't understand the distinction before, and understand it less as "hostile lawfare against WP through a court system that is of quality greater than or equal to India's" being ok while a "hostile to WP but probably legal search through public information" makes a source unusable (again, that's a big part of how investigative journalism works).
- Anyone with the right skills can dox like anyone else (except for like intelligence agencies with restricted tools who can do it better), the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it Placeholderer (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the same difference as that between a court case and a witch hunt: the presence of actually moderated discussion and true dignity.
That's huge difference, as seen in the maintenance of software, not to mention training. "Anyone can do anything with or without money." Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)the only difference for "professional" is if they get paid for it
- I don't think the potentially-superficial presence of moderated discussion in a hostile organization's threats and attacks against WP should be a gauge of reliability of that organization.
- I get that unpaid people in general are less motivated, but unknown psychos with a grudge are about as motivated as physically possible Placeholderer (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the known psychos with a grudge that also happen to be paid? M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant to my point Placeholderer (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even get your point with that part. What difference does that make to how bad Heritage is for hiring systematic doxxing? Why isn't systematic doxxing always bad? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where I've meant to be going with this is: if there's no reliability concern about being a hostile entity, nor about attacking Misplaced Pages, nor about successfully damaging Misplaced Pages, but rather about having a sufficiently nice and dignified talk about all that, then what's up with that? Placeholderer (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Systematic doxxing is not a
nice and dignified talk
. There are reliability concerns about all of the "no" points you listed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Exactly, HF is unreliable because doxing under these circumstances isn't nice and dignified enough, if I understand correctly Placeholderer (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there were reliability concerns about the "no" points then they'd apply to ANI Placeholderer (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Systematic doxxing is not a
- Where I've meant to be going with this is: if there's no reliability concern about being a hostile entity, nor about attacking Misplaced Pages, nor about successfully damaging Misplaced Pages, but rather about having a sufficiently nice and dignified talk about all that, then what's up with that? Placeholderer (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even get your point with that part. What difference does that make to how bad Heritage is for hiring systematic doxxing? Why isn't systematic doxxing always bad? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's also what I think. I'm glad we agree on this! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion is maybe starting to work! :D Placeholderer (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant to my point Placeholderer (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tell me: Why is a publication that hires Pinkerton Detective Agency for witch hunts be better than a publication that uses the courts for intimidation? The latter is discussion, while the former is pretty much violence. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- These arguments appear to be turning to morals and ethics for support instead of WP policies and guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I've said since the beginning of this chain, it's because of those anti-intellectual morals that I significantly doubt Heritage's intellectual reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- These arguments appear to be turning to morals and ethics for support instead of WP policies and guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the known psychos with a grudge that also happen to be paid? M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the same difference as that between a court case and a witch hunt: the presence of actually moderated discussion and true dignity.
- Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
- In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
- With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
- With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you honestly, genuinely believe that they would use their main website domain to do that? Do you have any idea how these types of schemes work? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't they? If they're aggregating data why would they not include their native data? That is exactly how this sort of legal watering hole attack works... Instead of poisioning the water with malware they just record who comes and goes (like most websites do). I would also contest the IP's use of "malicious links" as normally thats associated with links that go to malware (the illegal sort of watering hole attack) but the links in this context aren't malicious even if you could argue that *intent* behind them is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you honestly, genuinely believe that they would use their main website domain to do that? Do you have any idea how these types of schemes work? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not going as far as the IP (I don't think that this would constitute either identity theft or blackmail) but I would note that such a scheme targeting EU citizens would be illegal even if one targeting US citizens is not. There are an awfully large number of places where these would be criminal acts, we just allow a massive amount of leeway when it comes to data harvesting in the USA. This sort of thing is inherently barely this side of a criminal organization, sometimes the lengths that even legitimate organizations like Bellingcat will go to are just up to that legal line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They should not be - they are primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are used that way. They can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not by us. Think tanks are primary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where do you see that? Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the definition of what a primary source is. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Funny, because I see in the definition of a secondary source their function as a secondary source, almost as if they can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the role of a Think tank? M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good philosophical question, especially their place in a well-functioning democracy. Is this helpful to the discussion? Placeholderer (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the response that I was hoping to see. Their role determines what they publish, which in turn answers the question regarding whether they are a primary or a secondary source. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "A think tank, or public policy institute, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture."
- May I strikethrough this half of the reply chain now? Placeholderer (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there are times when they are primary and times when they are secondary (any think tank), and therefore it depends on the instance. WP policy and guidelines would support this as well unless anyone is able to quote something to the contrary. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- How can entity that performs "research and advocacy" not be considered a primary source? M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Research and advocacy are what we would expect from a primary source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review."
- Why is "research" a problem for a secondary source? Placeholderer (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not their so-called targetted "research" that is the issue, it's what they publish (their own thoughts, findings and recommendations) that make them a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying that all of their research is under this doxing agenda?
- Think tanks publish both primary and secondary sources. Own-thoughts and recommendations are primary sources, but "findings" includes secondary sources, which come from research.
- Thankfully, WP:DISCARD means we don't need to continue this part of the discussion because we both think we're obviously right and have nothing helpful to suggest to each other about primary/secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Analyses? Did somebody mention analyses? Here's another analysis: . Um, I guess that's a secondary source, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure how it connects to HF publishing primary and/or secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Analyses? Did somebody mention analyses? Here's another analysis: . Um, I guess that's a secondary source, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really hope that the 90%+ of comments here that are completely unrelated to anything on the topic of reliability are tossed right into the garbage where they belong. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every single !vote is related to the reliability of the garbage source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "...maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough" (Nope).
- "The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors." (Nope again)
- "...their own communications indicate that they are a security risk" (Nope, not about reliability)
- "Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors." (Nope, not about "reliability"...
- Literally almost every single !vote invokes reasoning which should be discarded as completely unrelated and not based in any policy or guidelines.
- Some !votes at least admit to their not being based in any policy or guideline such as this one, "Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures."
- Would be easy to go on and on... Iljhgtn (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every single !vote is related to the reliability of the garbage source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about doxing? M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I interpreted "so-called targetted 'research'" to be an oblique reference to doxing, but sorry if I misinterpreted Placeholderer (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the think tanks in general, the Heritage Foundation is a garbage source (I think we all agree on that). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Abort reply thread! Abort reply thread! Placeholderer (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the think tanks in general, the Heritage Foundation is a garbage source (I think we all agree on that). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I interpreted "so-called targetted 'research'" to be an oblique reference to doxing, but sorry if I misinterpreted Placeholderer (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not their so-called targetted "research" that is the issue, it's what they publish (their own thoughts, findings and recommendations) that make them a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would the concerns here also apply to something like the SLPC? The HF and SPLC are both widely cited by RSs and if a RS says "HF/SPLC said X" then we might find weight for the attributed fact since a RS gave it weight. I would presume we wouldn't directly cite a claim by either since both are effectively advocacy organizations. Springee (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Research and advocacy are what we would expect from a primary source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the response that I was hoping to see. Their role determines what they publish, which in turn answers the question regarding whether they are a primary or a secondary source. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good philosophical question, especially their place in a well-functioning democracy. Is this helpful to the discussion? Placeholderer (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the role of a Think tank? M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:SPLC, they have a much better factual reputation, and they should always be attributed anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they have a better factual reputation given some of their court losses. Regardless, there seems to be a concern that editors would cite the HF without a RS giving the HF weight on the topic. I agree with that concern. The question is why wouldn't we treat basically all think tanks/activist organizations in a similar fashion. Why should we accept a direct reference to something like Hate Watch but not the index published by HF (I personally think we should oppose both absent a RS pointing to the claim). Springee (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- All the cases against SPLC were dismissed. There's only 3 actual incidents mentioned in the SPLC article, all of which they apologized for and retracted, though one of them only after a $3 million settlement and 1.5 years—that's the longest time it ever took them to retract. Whereas Heritage's "expert"s still stand. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So they have been found guilty of defaming people. Has the HF been found to have defamed anyone? I'm not arguing that the HF is a good stand alone source. Rather I'm arguing that we are inconsistent if we treat SPLC like a relative secondary source but say the HF can't be given the SPLC's record is also quite sketchy. I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources. It would address concerns regarding potential misinformation as well as weight. Springee (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- All the cases against SPLC were dismissed. There's only 3 actual incidents mentioned in the SPLC article, all of which they apologized for and retracted, though one of them only after a $3 million settlement and 1.5 years—that's the longest time it ever took them to retract. Whereas Heritage's "expert"s still stand. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they have a better factual reputation given some of their court losses. Regardless, there seems to be a concern that editors would cite the HF without a RS giving the HF weight on the topic. I agree with that concern. The question is why wouldn't we treat basically all think tanks/activist organizations in a similar fashion. Why should we accept a direct reference to something like Hate Watch but not the index published by HF (I personally think we should oppose both absent a RS pointing to the claim). Springee (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The settlement did not ever proceed to a lawsuit, though it is slightly concerning, but which has already been extensively discussed here.
SPLC is treated like a primary source in that they're almost always used as RSOpinion. It's just that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)I personally think it would be best if we tested both like primary sources.
- They aren't treated like a primary source in that we often use their claims absent a RS establishing that the claim is DUE in an article. For example, if both SPLC and HF say something about a topic editors are likely to cite SPLC absent any 3rd party source (ie a RS article about our topic mentions SPLC) yet we, rightly, wouldn't do the same if HF said something about the same topic (say one of their indexes of X). That we treat these differently seems to be more about the views of editors vs the track record of the sources. Thus far the examples of misinformation etc seem relatively minor and at least to some extent in a gray area (ie we ultimately may not agree but the claim is not absolutely meritless). Of course, the easy way to fix this is just say activist organizations shouldn't be cited without a RS drawing the connection/establishing weight in context of the topic first. Springee (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the consensus summary for WP:SPLC already says.
Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
The problem is with those articles that don't observe Due. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- This is all moot anyway. This RFC is not about the SPLC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree. A simple solution is to say activist/think tank organization's reports/opinions should be assumed undue by default. That would also address much of the argument here about the HF. If a RS says HF said X about the proposed law then we have weight for inclusion regarding of the silly/problematic RSP numbering system. Springee (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no need for a novel policy construction here. WP:PRIMARY works just fine. And it seems like this proposal mostly exists to create a false balance whereby any and all leftist advocacy groups will be declared unreliable just because the Heritage Foundation is a far-right advocacy group that is patently unreliable. I would suggest we should focus on the Heritage Foundation and their clear unreliability issues rather than trying to explode the scope of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who raised the question about activate organizations. However, since the question came up it seems reasonable to look at the logic we are employing. Your argument certainly could support the impression that we should based policy on our feelings/agreement with a group's views rather than on principle. That would tend to move Misplaced Pages away from some type of neutral collection of knowledge (including conflicting views) and towards a collection of knowledge/views that align with the majority of active editors. This is why I think we should apply these rules more on principle vs forcibly based on if we 'like" the group in question. Springee (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. You are mistaken. I'm actually saying we should not be basing reliability decisions for advocacy groups on political alignment but rather on reliability on the basis of existing policy - specifically WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. I will note that there is a tendency of far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation to be less reliable than groups that are not far-right wing. As for why that's the case, I will refer to a preeminently reliable source, Jean Paul Sartre, who developed a core political theory for understanding this factual peculiarity. However, should a right-wing source demonstrate that it adheres properly to our reliability standards then it's reliable. Heritage Foundation is not. Simple as. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll mention that the goal of this discussion is to determine to what extent HF adheres to or violates our reliability standards Placeholderer (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. You are mistaken. I'm actually saying we should not be basing reliability decisions for advocacy groups on political alignment but rather on reliability on the basis of existing policy - specifically WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. I will note that there is a tendency of far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation to be less reliable than groups that are not far-right wing. As for why that's the case, I will refer to a preeminently reliable source, Jean Paul Sartre, who developed a core political theory for understanding this factual peculiarity. However, should a right-wing source demonstrate that it adheres properly to our reliability standards then it's reliable. Heritage Foundation is not. Simple as. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who raised the question about activate organizations. However, since the question came up it seems reasonable to look at the logic we are employing. Your argument certainly could support the impression that we should based policy on our feelings/agreement with a group's views rather than on principle. That would tend to move Misplaced Pages away from some type of neutral collection of knowledge (including conflicting views) and towards a collection of knowledge/views that align with the majority of active editors. This is why I think we should apply these rules more on principle vs forcibly based on if we 'like" the group in question. Springee (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no need for a novel policy construction here. WP:PRIMARY works just fine. And it seems like this proposal mostly exists to create a false balance whereby any and all leftist advocacy groups will be declared unreliable just because the Heritage Foundation is a far-right advocacy group that is patently unreliable. I would suggest we should focus on the Heritage Foundation and their clear unreliability issues rather than trying to explode the scope of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the consensus summary for WP:SPLC already says.
- They aren't treated like a primary source in that we often use their claims absent a RS establishing that the claim is DUE in an article. For example, if both SPLC and HF say something about a topic editors are likely to cite SPLC absent any 3rd party source (ie a RS article about our topic mentions SPLC) yet we, rightly, wouldn't do the same if HF said something about the same topic (say one of their indexes of X). That we treat these differently seems to be more about the views of editors vs the track record of the sources. Thus far the examples of misinformation etc seem relatively minor and at least to some extent in a gray area (ie we ultimately may not agree but the claim is not absolutely meritless). Of course, the easy way to fix this is just say activist organizations shouldn't be cited without a RS drawing the connection/establishing weight in context of the topic first. Springee (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Funny, because I see in the definition of a secondary source their function as a secondary source, almost as if they can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Aaron Liu (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP- Of course, but nothing about that quote, from what I can see there, says anything about think tanks or that think tanks are either always primary or always secondary sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their research is definitely primary. Only reviews, textbooks, etc. count as secondary research sources. And the analyses associated with such primary research is primary. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if so, cited primary sources have their place on Misplaced Pages. Reliability is another thing altogether. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This particular line from WP:SCHOLARSHIP isn't good for making a case against citing Heritage Foundation. The notion of a 'primary research paper' mostly holds in the sciences, especially the hard sciences, where journals publish what researchers call primary evidence or data. Other fields, like the humanities, consider the texts they study the raw primary data (archival documents, historical newspapers, literature, etc.) whereas the publications are secondary sources. If Misplaced Pages actually prohibited publications that do their own research, then we wouldn't cite journalism (like Vox) or book-length biographies (like Alexander Hamilton). The reason to not cite Heritage Foundation is much simpler than a technicality of how a sourcing guideline is phrased. It's simply that Heritage Foundation repeatedly publishes disinformation (about climate science, about political news, etc.) to the point that users cannot consistently depend on it for facts. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their research is definitely primary. Only reviews, textbooks, etc. count as secondary research sources. And the analyses associated with such primary research is primary. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, but nothing about that quote, from what I can see there, says anything about think tanks or that think tanks are either always primary or always secondary sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the definition of what a primary source is. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where do you see that? Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not by us. Think tanks are primary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are used that way. They can publish both primary and secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They should not be - they are primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The premise of this chain is a counterargument against "whatever actually reliable thing they say, other secondary sources would" by claiming that Heritage is widely used as a secondary source. That is false. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not false to these professionals Placeholderer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has different citation policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not false to these professionals Placeholderer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you point me to where you answered that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So misleading the public about electoral interference and climate change denial are "generally reliable" behaviours but it's generally unreliable if a left-wing source makes and subsequently corrects an error of fact. I think this line of reasoning is more guided by POV than policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please WP:FOC and keep the discussion on the sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would you like to respond to his point on the sources or the links about the sources here since the beginning, which I've excerpted below for your convenience? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where did you excerpt below? This thread is a total cluster "F". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would you like to respond to his point on the sources or the links about the sources here since the beginning, which I've excerpted below for your convenience? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please WP:FOC and keep the discussion on the sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So misleading the public about electoral interference and climate change denial are "generally reliable" behaviours but it's generally unreliable if a left-wing source makes and subsequently corrects an error of fact. I think this line of reasoning is more guided by POV than policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
- That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
- If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.
+1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
- The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kind of a side point but the Principia is certainly outmoded, maybe theres a better example but this one is just you shooting yourself in the foot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently I misunderstood what outmoded means! I thought it meant "obsolete" but I guess it's "old-fashioned", which I must confess is absolutely accurate for both books then (what I meant to communicate is that both books are timeless, foundational classics, which they can be while still being old fashioned). However, it's still irrelevant to being RS that a source is inspired by something old-fashioned Placeholderer (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think what they mean is more "outdated". Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently I misunderstood what outmoded means! I thought it meant "obsolete" but I guess it's "old-fashioned", which I must confess is absolutely accurate for both books then (what I meant to communicate is that both books are timeless, foundational classics, which they can be while still being old fashioned). However, it's still irrelevant to being RS that a source is inspired by something old-fashioned Placeholderer (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference
: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.
- To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page?Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ...
—Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
- I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is a reasonable statement to include in the article Index of Economic Freedom (in table format, for example), but not in the article Economy of Ireland, unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —Alalch E. 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- From Politics of Denmark: "The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Denmark as "full democracy" in 2016. According to the V-Dem Democracy indices Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index Placeholderer (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —Alalch E. 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —Alalch E. 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree Placeholderer (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Placeholderer is right. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, Alach E. is right. We should not be using think tank indices in article bodies like this. It's a failure of adherence to Misplaced Pages sourcing policy to treat pseudoscientific content like this - and I persist in asserting that a non-scientific economic index is pseudoscientific by appropriating the scientific language of economics without any rigor or scientific methodology - while the Heritage Foundation's hostility to our project has brought this index to attention, it's correct to remove many such indices. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Placeholderer is right. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree Placeholderer (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —Alalch E. 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —Alalch E. 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is a reasonable statement to include in the article Index of Economic Freedom (in table format, for example), but not in the article Economy of Ireland, unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —Alalch E. 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican
: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
- TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical WP:USEBYOTHERS), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the comments in the academy that are distinct from the Heritage Foundation are critical of its methodology. EX: An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index. By: Cabello, José Manuel, Ruiz, Francisco, Pérez-Gladish, Blanca, Social Indicators Research, 03038300, Jan2021, Vol. 153, Issue 2 Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note - it took me a while to find even that because very few scholars bother to talk about it at all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could also have cited The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters ( Studies in Economics and Finance 38 (3), 529-561, 2021), which is also critical, or Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom (Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing 3 (1), 1-14, 2023) or The relation between the index of economic freedom and good governance with efficiency of the European Structural Funds (Papers in Regional Science Volume 101, Issue 2, April 2022, Pages 327-350) which are not critical.
- That’s just from the first page of Google Scholar search results for “index of economic freedom” so I’m not sure why you found it difficult to find anyone talking about it.
- At any rate, a source receiving criticism has very little bearing on it being FRINGE when there is so much uncritical USEBYOTHERS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you seen the book cited that explores that use? I've quoted parts of it in the discussion section below. According to this academic book, Heritage is only used because of the cheap price and pure volume of what they circulate, despite great decrial from the NYT newsroom. You should borrow the book through the Internet Archive link I found and check out chapter 4, "The News Media and the Heritage Foundation: Promoting Education Advocacy at the Expense of Authority". It's quite harrowing. I think it's enough for an IAR argument in spite of UBO. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does the book specifically address the IEF — which is also done with the WSJ? Placeholderer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't remember, and I"m too tired at this point. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does the book specifically address the IEF — which is also done with the WSJ? Placeholderer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters but I had not read it yet and I try to avoid commenting on the contents of papers I haven't read. And even I have my limits with regard to the number of journal articles I can read in a day lol. But, yes, on the brief inspection I gave it (reading the abstract), your assessment of its contents seem accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you seen the book cited that explores that use? I've quoted parts of it in the discussion section below. According to this academic book, Heritage is only used because of the cheap price and pure volume of what they circulate, despite great decrial from the NYT newsroom. You should borrow the book through the Internet Archive link I found and check out chapter 4, "The News Media and the Heritage Foundation: Promoting Education Advocacy at the Expense of Authority". It's quite harrowing. I think it's enough for an IAR argument in spite of UBO. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note - it took me a while to find even that because very few scholars bother to talk about it at all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the comments in the academy that are distinct from the Heritage Foundation are critical of its methodology. EX: An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index. By: Cabello, José Manuel, Ruiz, Francisco, Pérez-Gladish, Blanca, Social Indicators Research, 03038300, Jan2021, Vol. 153, Issue 2 Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical WP:USEBYOTHERS), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
(which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.
" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?
" - This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4, and blacklist: clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it is here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 – All think-tanks should follow Option 2 at a minimum. However, Heritage Foundation is particularly unreliable in that they've devolved into a mouthpiece for disinformation and fringe garbage. Even if some of their older material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like restricting use to only archival websites, if direct links may lead to privacy issues for editors. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and 5 When it comes to reliability, Heritage was already in 3 territory even years ago and, in my opinion, breached 4 in the past few years when it began actively pushing misinformation and false claims across a variety of subjects, particularly scientific ones. So, deprecate on that alone. Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take. Silverseren 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "
Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take.
" seems not to be based in policy or guidelines, but rather in retaliation. Can you explain to me how if that is not the case, what am I missing? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (WP:IAR is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are at that point? We are citing WP:IAR? Are there really no guidelines or policy otherwise to invoke in this instance? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (WP:IAR is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "
- Option 4: Deprecate: My read on the original discussion was that this RFC was started to get opinions on the reliability outside of the security threat- if thats the case then Option 4 would stand given the rampant misinformation. Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4: Deprecate is the best. (However, if the decision is between Option 3 and Option 5, I definitely lean 5.) It is not inflammatory enough to purely block as clearly as an attack site, though it does seem to be a propaganda mill, because some of their links could be usable to refer to a limited range of criteria, mostly what would generally fall under ABOUTSELF. All usage of Heritage Foundation sourcing for claims should be highly qualified and narrow in scope. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4: Deprecate This source does not have a reputation for fact-checking and honesty that would make it a reliable source for inclusion in encyclopedia articles. In fact, it appears to do the opposite, lying to support its political agenda, so much so that it cannot not even be trusted to make truthful statements about itself. Blacklisting on the grounds that it is an actively hostile threat to editor privacy may be appropriate but is not the focus of this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist - Misinformation site by extremely partisan activist group. Not a news site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist - Heritage foundation is definitely unreliable getting close to if not over the deprecate line given their involvement in project 2025. Regardless, given their stated intentions, I'd support blacklisting them as a purely symbolic measure. I'd strongly oppose blacklisting them on security grounds. As others have remarked that's security theater and highly problematic as it risks giving editors the impression we've done jacksquat about stopping them when haven't. It also makes us look like we're idiots who don't understand the basics of the internet. As I remarked elsewhere it's ridiculous to think they'd come up with this complex plan, and then plan to use domains in any way associated with them as part of it. That's like the classic movie/TV trope where some villian has this highly complex plan with some blindly obvious easily resovable flaw they ignored. There are so many reasons they'd never want to do that, including that it would have revealed they were behind the campaign when there's no reason to think they expected it to be public so soon. The fact their plans are now partly public doesn't seem particularly likely to change things especially since fair chance they'd already set a bunch of stuff up to make it less suspicious (with newly registered domains). It's still incredibly unlikely they'd want to make it easier to track what they're doing not to mention they'd need to convince their targets to click on the link in the first place. Why on earth would they do that when they could (to make up a very simple example) set up archive.now to point to archive.today etc (which already has quite a number of different domains) and it's potentially months before anyone realises archive.now doesn't actually belong to whoever the heck owns archive.today? And we all know how often we use archive links to bypass paywalls etc, so who's going to think anything when editor A gets editor B to visit an archive.now link? This is incredibly simple and yet still carries some risk of early detection so I'm not sure if something like this would be part of their plans, still it must be at least a thousand fold more likely than using any domain associated with them. Note that we should whitelist them as needed when specific pages are suitable for citations e.g. if something written by Clarence Thomas needs to be cited or some part of the Index of Economic Freedom. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - Mainly due to the security risks that they have thrown against Misplaced Pages editors. If there was any sourcing from them that would pass the standard reliability policies, they can be sourced without links. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 post-2016; option 3 otherwise - as others have said, blacklisting is security theatre and not an effective response to an organization planning a covert spearfishing operation against Misplaced Pages editors; comments suggesting blacklisting the organization's URL to send a message are akin to disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. The only question for this board is whether or not the publication can be considered a reliable source. Per the initial comments in the thread above, the Heritage Foundation has actively and intentionally published and promoted misinformation since at least 2020 (others say 2016) and for that reason alone it is not reliable and should be deprecated. For any of the organization's publications or opinions that are worth mentioning on Misplaced Pages, independent third-party sources will be available. I'm not saying that Misplaced Pages should not respond to the threat, just that this is not a useful response. An effort to educate and provide resources to users to manage their digital security would be a much better use of our time. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can not support any of the options presented… except possibly option 2… because none of them consider context. The reliability of Heritage Foundation depends on the specifics of what we are trying to verify when we cite them. At minimum, they are reliable as a primary source for verifying statements (with in-text attribution) about the opinions of the Heritage Foundation itself. Whether it is appropriate to mention their opinion in the first place is a matter of DUE WEIGHT - and that depends on the specific WP article and topic. Certainly it is DUE to mention their opinion in the Heritage Foundation article itself… and probably DUE in other articles that discuss US conservative politics. The foundation is very influential in US conservative politics, and so their opinions do matter. It may be rare that it is appropriate to mention their views… but it is not zero. There are (and will be) rare situations where what they say is relevant and needs to be mentioned.
- And, when we mention their opinion we have to be able to cite them to verify that we are presenting their opinion accurately.
- Note: I would say this is how we should handle all think-tanks and advocacy organizations. We should always present what they say as opinion - with in-text attribution - and then assess whether their opinion is DUE to mention given the context of the specific article where we mention it. We should never present what they say as unattributed fact in WP’s voice.
As for Heritage’s threat to dox or otherwise hassle our editors… that is a legal issue and so should be left to the WMF’s legal team to deal with. We can take Heritage to court if they actually act on their threat. And as long as it is JUST a threat, we can ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this had been asked before they announced their intention to dox WP editors, I'd have said 2/3 depending on the issue. Anything else in reaction to that announcement feels retaliatory. Also never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. We play into their hands if we deprecate or blacklist. Valereee (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- How so? Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- 'Not citing the Heritage Foundation on Misplaced Pages will play into the Heritage Foundation's desire to control information on Misplaced Pages' (insofar as the reporting from The Forward indicates the plans to target Misplaced Pages editors are ostensibly about suppressing contributions that the Heritage Foundation deems anti-Zionist) is a take so mind-bending that I'm going to go lie down. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, let's see what she thinks, why she thinks it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- 'Not citing the Heritage Foundation on Misplaced Pages will play into the Heritage Foundation's desire to control information on Misplaced Pages' (insofar as the reporting from The Forward indicates the plans to target Misplaced Pages editors are ostensibly about suppressing contributions that the Heritage Foundation deems anti-Zionist) is a take so mind-bending that I'm going to go lie down. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- How so? Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All HeritageFoundation links should be blacklisted, Option 5. But if there is a way to source their content without using their URL, then I would prefer option 2 or option 3. Admittedly I am reluctant to do my research on their reliability because I don't even want to click into their website. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is this comment (in case you missed it). M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also posted some quotes near the bottom of the Discussion section. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is this comment (in case you missed it). M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 in general, Option 3 for global warming and related subjects. Heritage is a longstanding think tank, that, although biased and agenda-driven, produces a number of useful reports such as the Index of Economic Freedom, which is widely cited in journalism and academia. Heritage should not be considered reliable regarding global warming because they have repeatedly published uncorrected misinformation on the subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Generally unreliable. This puts the organization's publications in the same category as self-published. We would only be allowed to use articles if the writer was an established expert.The website itself could be blacklisted meaning that no links to it could be given. TFD (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 + Option 4: Blacklist and deprecate this fake news disinformation website which also have malicious activities in its online domains. An encyclopedia should not get littered with low quality conspiratorial websites. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 + Option 4 – If anything said there is even remotely notable, it will be discussed in reliable sources which we can then cite. This organization actively takes pride in being a firehose of disinformation, and there's no indication to me that they're even reliable enough to be used in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. Deprecate as a disinformation source; blacklist as a vector for doxxing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 - deprecate and blacklist. Deprecate because they are an active and deliberate source of misinformation - they are liars and they exist to be liars. Blacklist as an active and intentional danger to Misplaced Pages editors - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: Generally Unreliable - Based on the evidence of it's regular publishing of misinfo, the fact multiple reliable sources from news media to academic publishers, have highlighted this issue, means we should avoid using. I could be convinced of deprecation, but looking at the other sources we currently have deprecated, Heritage does not yet have seemed to cross that threshold. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: The Heritage Foundation
What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fact, a lot of the ignorant comments above will likely create a news story or something that Heritage will then use for more fundraising and even more damage. I just don't get how people are so naive to good intentions and the sometimes very negative consequences. Also, I've yet to see even one single argument grounded in policy and guidelines versus anger and fear. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, blacklisting one domain will not prevent them from carrying out their plan. As far as legal implications go, one assumes that suitable WMF people are aware, but the HF plan seems to stop short of committing any crimes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:DISCARD asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would discard maybe 95% of the comments or more. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How so? "A reliable source says Source X plans to target users with cyberattacks" sufficiently goes to reliability; resorting to cyberattack to enforce its POV is not symptomatic of a source that wants to legitimately engage the marketplace of ideas through facts and rigor. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would discard maybe 95% of the comments or more. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:DISCARD asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It takes away one of their attack vectors. The argument that "we shouldn't take away one attack vector because we can't take away all attack vectors" doesn't seem particularly strong to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes soibangla (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is it creates a false sense of security while providing little-if-any protection.
In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.
Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This has balloned in size. If it continues to grow as it has it will need to be moved to a subpage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we can't trust the link, how can we trust the cite, therefore how can they used as a source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be productive to talk further about mis/disinformation. Per @Alalch_E. Aquillion: "The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more." I guess I'll talk about this source by source. I can't be exhaustive with each, so please do go through and check if you think I've missed anything or cherrypicked.
First, on climate change. 1st source: "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand" is a book that I don't have right now, but I have access to a library that has it and can look at it in the next few days if I have time. 2nd, DeSmog. They do give two examples I see of HF individuals saying objectively bogus things about climate change, but they were both taken from personal op-eds on The Daily Signal and shouldn't disqualify HF. Other things DeSmog brings up definitely indicate POV and COI but I don't think can be said to rise to misinformation. DeSmog mentions that HF called attention to a study in 2009 saying the economic consequences of climate change would be felt in poor countries but not the US, but that study was from MIT and Northwestern, not HF. They link to some other reporting including an investigation of Project 2025 (which I watched) but the content didn't seem relevant to dis/misinformation. 3rd, "The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America". It's another book I don't have now, but my library has "Climate Change Counter Movement: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Sought to Delay Climate Action" by the same author, which might be a different edition of the same book. Again, I'll have a look if I can (sorry that's not helpful now).
Second, on the FDA. Source being: "News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education", another book, but with a quote saying HF is complicit in a campaign of "misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record", without further details, and on Google Books an available quote mentions HF donations (possibly showing a COI but can't see full paragraph). My library doesn't have this one, so I can't say much more. (I might want not to further specify exactly what my library has so as to not dox my library)
Third, on elections and politics. 1st source: "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register ‘illegal aliens’ to vote" from Washington Post. This mostly deals with "Heritage Action for America, a conservative group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation", but mentions part of a report by HF that claimed a certain federal bill “would register large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens.” WP says that the bill in fact included safeguards to prevent that from happening, but acknowledges that a very similar California bill did lead to "thousands of erroneous registrations, including at least one involving a noncitizen" — but also that those were quickly fixed. For HF I think this means a bit of a gray area. 2nd source: "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters" from NYT. Starts directly with "The right-wing think tank has been pushing misinformation about voting into social media feeds", and describes an example of negligent lack of due diligence from HF people (reporters?) to claim that noncitizens are registered/voting at a significant scale. I actually have a longstanding problem with loading NYT on my computer, so that's about all I can get to in 5 minutes of loading, but this absolutely seems like a red flag. 3rd source: "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force", from AP. The main event in this article is some bogus scaremongering report by HF "suggesting that President Joe Biden might try to hold the White House 'by force' if he loses the November election", based on "a role-playing exercise gaming out potential scenarios before and after the 2024 election". Tbf, it's unclear from the AP article if the report gives an above-minimal chance of that (I'd look for the report myself but this comment has taken too long already), but it does make me queasy that HF would put their name on that. The article also, however, says "The Heritage Foundation and other pro-Trump groups have continued to promote the same false claims of election fraud that fueled Trump’s attempts to stay in office despite his 2020 loss to Biden" (though for that they link to an article that doesn't mention HF), and "'As things stand right now, there is a zero percent chance of a free and fair election in the United States of America,' Mike Howell, executive director of the foundation’s Oversight Project, said ." Those are also red flags.
It's clear to me from this that HF should be restricted to some degree for use on US elections. What do you all think? Placeholderer (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Pardon the ping, but as an involved editor who's helpfully called me out on something already, do you think this (sub?)section is an appropriate place for such a wall of text or should I put it under the RfC section as "Comment", or does it not make a difference? Placeholderer (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Further pardon requested for the ping, as it turns out the question was probably unnecessary Placeholderer (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If that's what you need, a search reveals that they have tons of funding from cigarette and oil lobbies. I checked the first book, and it throws Heritage into the "greenscamming" bin of organizations funded by Exxon and Koch, though without individual elaboration as to Heritage's false claims. I agree with you on Desmog. Source 3 says similar things, addingpossibly showing a COI
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change and aligning regulatory action with an additional tax and harming the welfare of the American population. The organization cited several individuals in the organizations during the 1990s (e.g., Antoneilli, 2000; Feulner, 1998; Schaefer et al., 1997a, 1997b)
, where "organizations" refers to previously-discussed organizations that publish false information the book details. And yes, the book your library has appears to be the same thing.For the FDA book, the occurrences of "Heritage" when searched in Google Books seem to show that the book expounds on specific misinformation from Heritage. I don't have that book either, though. @Alalch E. Could you provide some more quotes on this one?I hope we can agree here that Heritage is within deprecated territory or at least generally unreliable (GUnRel) for politics. Since pretty much everything Heritage does is about politics, can we agree that Heritage should be deprecated or GUnRel? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what deprecated (to a stronger degree) and GUnRel designation mean. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I should ping @Aquillion, since they's the one above who initially proposed the opening statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Holy heck, it's uploaded on archive.org! Will be a bit harder to search within, though, since it's a photo scan without any embedded text. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for causing so many notifications, but it looks like the Archive's search function OCRs the scan. It looks like Chapter 4 is a case study based on Heritage. I'll take a look. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
general consensus that they are an advocacy think tank rather than an academic research think tank (Weaver & McGann, 2000)
Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received at least $3.5 million dollars in contributions from the industries with the most to gain from the anti-E.D.A. campaign—pharmaceutical, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco manufacturers. (para. 1)
— Ralph Nader op-ed quoted within the book as representative of "the majority view"Davis and Owen (1998) conclude that new media outlets present the "research" or "facts" disseminated by conservative think tanks knowing that it is thinly veiled ideology because such materials provide inexpensive entertainment which means greater profits than producing their own
(p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation. Berliner and Biddle describe}}I'll stop here, since I've dived into too many sources already, but the book goes on to talk about how Heritage's marketing funds made it cheap for newrooms to pander. This FAIR article mentioned goes into a lot of detail on Heritage's funding COIs. The book also mentioned some pretty interesting stuff from Soley's book The News Shapers, which I also checked out:Berliner and Biddle (1995) argue that the public perception that education is in crisis is manufactured by conservative think tanks and others who deliberately misuse and misrepresent research and who use the "compliant" press (p. 54) to disseminate that misinformation.
- It is biased, yes. Just like many sources are, and if there is any clear COI, then those topics should be avoided or used with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that deprecation or GUnRel though is justified other than as an act of retribution related to alleged doxxing. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
| Quotes on explicated mislabeling of Republican politicians as "scholar"s and other dressings-up |
|---|
|
- There's an entire subchapter on Heritage. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I see I definitely think at least GUNREL for specifically (US) elections (maybe post-2016), but that seems to be the focus of these problems. I think more variety of political topics would be helpful to say for politics in general Placeholderer (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- After reading Aaron Liu's recent-er comments I see I'll have to update my opinion — there clearly is more political stuff to look into. I'll be a bit busier/quieter in the next few days but shall try to get my hands on those books unless someone else summarizes them first Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion is now up to three quarters of the size of the last Telegraph RFC, which was greatly bloated. I've already preemptively archived four over sections to try and keep the size of the board down. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- it's decision time soibangla (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it feels like the useful part just started! Placeholderer (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't meant to stop any discussion, just a heads up that it might be moved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it feels like the useful part just started! Placeholderer (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- it's decision time soibangla (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Special:GoToComment/c-Aquillion-2021-03-24T12:54:00.000Z-Springee-2021-03-24T03:58:00.000Z is a very interesting comment from 2021 that says there's consensus that think tanks are presumed GUn and also discusses the SPLC point raised above. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Daily Signal
The Daily Signal is a link aggregator and reprinter with some original content. It was part of the Heritage Foundation up to June 2024 but has supposedly been spun out now. I would personally be inclined to treat DS as GU at absolute best, but we might want to think about its status too, both before and after the spinoff - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
References
References
- ^ Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
- ^ Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
- Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
- Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
- "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.
- If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we need to potentially modify WP:RSSELF so that it better delineates between USEBYOTHER and "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The two prior discussions about Catholic-Hierarchy.org generally featured the following logic: "Work found in Catholic-Hierarchy.org has been published by reliable publications. As such, if the work found in Catholic-Hierarchy.org is the product of the author of CH, then we can say that the author of CH has had their work published by reliable publications."
- I think the problem is the way "work" and "works" can be interpreted, especially given the dozens of formal definitions for the word "work." I would argue that the bolded section from WP:RSSELF is improved by saying: "whose scholarly or journalistic works in the relevant field have previously been published by reliable, independent publications." However, we also might want to entirely abandon the word "work" for some alternative.
- What do you think? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a completely different standard which would expand the pool 10,000x. I would also note that you're the only editor I've ever seen get seriously confused by this... If its just a you problem and not an us problem why would we need to rewrite? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- My proposed bolded section tries to incorporate your earlier comment about "journalists and academics." If such individuals are the (general) standard, then shouldn't we say that? I want to be clear that I am not advocating for the adoption of the logic flow used on the prior CH discussions.
- Are you saying that using the word "works" is less restrictive than the word "work"? "Works" is probably generally interpreted as multiple discrete intellectual labors such as articles and books. "Work" could be interpreted as any effort expended in a field, well beyond just articles and books. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that nothing is broken here, our existing policies and guidelines are adequate even if you don't like the result of their application. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a completely different standard which would expand the pool 10,000x. I would also note that you're the only editor I've ever seen get seriously confused by this... If its just a you problem and not an us problem why would we need to rewrite? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and updated the entry. Given the author's status as a "Random Catholic Dude", they cannot be a subject matter expert as defined by Misplaced Pages. And as a self-published source, it cannot be used to support claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "Random Catholic Dude" description is probably a form of self-deprecation that should not alone be used to exclude someone from "expert" status. If an MD-PhD medical school professor referred to themselves as "Some Random Hospital Dude," then we probably should not immediately exclude them from "expert" status over this form of self-depreciation.
- Also, thank you for updating WP:RSPSOURCES. I saw that you added "limited USEBYOTHER". As Red-tailed hawk has shown elsewhere in this conversation, Catholic-Hierarchy.org has 1000+ hits on Google Scholar. Would you still consider this as limited USEBYOTHER"? We could probably justifiably update it to "significant USEBYOTHER", although this would not be enough to change the overall status of the source. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- A SPS remains a SPS regardless of USEDBYOTHERS... It doesn't change the core status. The difference is that an MD-PhD medical school professor likely meets our standards, it has nothing to do with the self-deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and updated the entry. Given the author's status as a "Random Catholic Dude", they cannot be a subject matter expert as defined by Misplaced Pages. And as a self-published source, it cannot be used to support claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I came into this thinking that this was akin to those military/tank/airplane fan websites inasmuch as it was mostly compiled by one person and it's of the quality of hobbyist work. But I am seeing it get a metric ton of hits on Google Scholar, where it looks like it is cited in a ton of scholarly literature as a source for facts. And, in that weird way, WP:UBO considerations come into play.I tried to find sources that specifically analyzed this database or evaluated it in a comparative fashion to other commonly cited databases. It's a bit hard to find specific studies, since the majority of citations are just using this plainly as a source for facts (which itself says something, albeit subtly). But I did manage to find a working paper by economic historian Jonathan F. Schulz that compared the website against other databases of Catholic hierarchies in the section describing his research methods. What it found was quite simple, and went against my initial impression. Schulz found that, among various Catholic heirarchy databases he had assessed, there was
a high level of consistency. In case of disagreements between sources they were most often in the range of less than one or two decades – a rather small inaccuracy in relation to the duration of Church exposure up to the year 1500
. In other words, this database is more or less as accurate as the other ones he had assessed (though, as he notes in his paper, none of the databases are quite complete).It might just be a weird edge case where we've got a decently reliable database that's also self-published. And that's fine, WP:SPS notes that self-published sourcesare largely not acceptable as sources
, but it doesn't say are always not acceptable as sources—as WP:REPUTABLE notes,common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process
when assessing issues of source reliability.We should follow common sense here. And, in light of the scholarly literature, the common sense thing to do is to treat it in the same way that we treat other sorts of curated databases regarding Catholic Church hierarchies. That is to say: it's okay; it'll do fine for ordinary historical dates of bishop reigns etc., but when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that
when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead
. But, alas, the data aren't public (or, if they are, I can't quite find them). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - The core BLP problem isn't going to go away though... At best we can say that the source is usable for dead figures but I don't see a policy or guideline path to genuine reliability (even if just on technical grounds). Theres also the general problems that come with online databases (don't count towards notability, almost never due, etc). If it isn't covered in other sources then its almost by definition a level of detail that isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-CH) sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. But also this isn't just a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has explicitly been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless it comes back with the result that its not self published it doesn't matter... Self published is self published regardless of underlying reliability. There is no way in which self published works become non-self published by being accurate, its still treated as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. But also this isn't just a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has explicitly been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-CH) sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that
Does this source even exists?
I saw this ড. মুহম্মদ আব্দুল করিম. বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাস. মগ বিতাড়ন ও চট্টগ্রাম জয়. cited on an article (here Bengal Sultanate–Kingdom of Mrauk U War of 1512–1516) but I couldn't find any source with this name anywhere on the internet, can anyone confirm if it is real or not? Koshuri Sultan (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it is a hard copy book (or similar), it may not be on the internet. That said, a lot of library databases are in English, so have you tried searching for an English language translation? Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried google translating it from Hindi to English… not completely successful, but I suspect the author may be Abdul Karim (historian)… something for you to look into. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just tried it too and searched it in English but I still couldn't find anything, The only person I could find who has the same name as the author of that source is Md. Abdul Karim who is not a Historian. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Blueboar Google scholar does not mentions any book of Abdul Karim (historian) with that name. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The following website is using the same source but is referencing different pages in the source than the wiki article: https://www.teachers.gov.bd/blog/details/686411?page=2546&cttlbasee-smrn-rakheni-cttgramer-itihas-bujurg-umed-khann-cttgram-punruddharer-mhanayk
- It may be a physical source that is only available as a printed book.
- The following website also uses this source and is also mentioning the name "জাতীয় গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ" (Jatiya Grantha Prakash / Jatio Grantho Prokashon) for the publishing house that published the book: https://www.sachalayatan.com/shashtha_pandava/56984. And it looks like this publisher actually exists: https://www.rokomari.com/book/publisher/498/jatio-grantho-prokashon?ref=apb_pg96_p34. Nakonana (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The author appears to be this guy: bn:আবদুল করিম সাহিত্যবিশারদ. That wiki article references the following website: https://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528. This website is talking about Abdul Karim and the history of Chittagong, and given that the source Koshuri Sultan is asking about is also about Chittagong (translated by Google as "Dr. Muhammad Abdul Karim. History of Bangladesh. Expulsion of the Mughals and Conquest of Chittagong."), I think that this the Abdul Karim who authored the source in question. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or it's this other Abdul Karim who is said to have written a two volume book by the title of "History of Bangladesh": . Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.
This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion (under WP:A11) but the author of that article without discussing it properly . Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- I think we have enough info to verify that the source exits. That last website I linked clearly mentions a book by a historian named Dr. Abdul Karim with the title "History of Bangladesh". He wrote (according to the Google translation) "about forty books and about two hundred original research articles in Bengali and English" and "taught at Dhaka University from 1951 to 1966. In 1966, he joined the newly established History Department of Chittagong University." Regarding the author of that article, the website states "Author: Teacher, Department of History, Chittagong University zahidhistory¦gmail.com". The article is not from a blog, but from a Bengali newspaper: on which we have a wiki article, see The Daily Ittefaq. This website pretty much states the same but in English and calls Karim "an authority of the field of medieval Bengal could recognise from a distance if a mosque was from the Sultani or from the Mughal period". The publication list of the Chittagong website lists several works by Dr. Abdul Karim (though it only goes back until 2005): . Doing some further digging, I even found volume 1 of the book on Amazon. The book might be available at some universities in the US: . Google Scholar does have an entry for a book on Bengal 16th-century history by the historian Abdul Karim (even if not for the particular one you are looking for), see (and the internet archive appears to have a scan of that book). The University of Asia Pacific lists even more of his books. Banglapedia (which is written by scholars) might also help in verifying the content, see for example these entries: . Nakonana (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, this appears to be the Google Scholar entry on (the 1st volume of) the book in question. The title is just not "History of Bangladesh" but "History of Bengal". Google translation probably messed up. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we have enough info to verify that the source exits. That last website I linked clearly mentions a book by a historian named Dr. Abdul Karim with the title "History of Bangladesh". He wrote (according to the Google translation) "about forty books and about two hundred original research articles in Bengali and English" and "taught at Dhaka University from 1951 to 1966. In 1966, he joined the newly established History Department of Chittagong University." Regarding the author of that article, the website states "Author: Teacher, Department of History, Chittagong University zahidhistory¦gmail.com". The article is not from a blog, but from a Bengali newspaper: on which we have a wiki article, see The Daily Ittefaq. This website pretty much states the same but in English and calls Karim "an authority of the field of medieval Bengal could recognise from a distance if a mosque was from the Sultani or from the Mughal period". The publication list of the Chittagong website lists several works by Dr. Abdul Karim (though it only goes back until 2005): . Doing some further digging, I even found volume 1 of the book on Amazon. The book might be available at some universities in the US: . Google Scholar does have an entry for a book on Bengal 16th-century history by the historian Abdul Karim (even if not for the particular one you are looking for), see (and the internet archive appears to have a scan of that book). The University of Asia Pacific lists even more of his books. Banglapedia (which is written by scholars) might also help in verifying the content, see for example these entries: . Nakonana (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.
- Or it's this other Abdul Karim who is said to have written a two volume book by the title of "History of Bangladesh": . Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The author appears to be this guy: bn:আবদুল করিম সাহিত্যবিশারদ. That wiki article references the following website: https://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528. This website is talking about Abdul Karim and the history of Chittagong, and given that the source Koshuri Sultan is asking about is also about Chittagong (translated by Google as "Dr. Muhammad Abdul Karim. History of Bangladesh. Expulsion of the Mughals and Conquest of Chittagong."), I think that this the Abdul Karim who authored the source in question. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Sources for Chapel Hart
Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for Chapel Hart. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.
- https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
- https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
- https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847
Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.
Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.
The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. Lazman321 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- My assessment:
- The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality free newspaper that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
- The DRG News source is labeled as being from The Country Daily, which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They might be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
- Southern Living is a reliable source.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- My assessment:
AllMovie
AllMovie is an online movie database, currently listed under WP:ALLMUSIC with other RhythmOne sites as "no consensus". The site has changed significantly over the past few years, and it's my opinion that we should either separate AllMovie and mark it as unreliable or expand the description to explain why it shouldn't be used.
AllMovie used to be a resource with professional reviews, as a sibling site to AllMusic and AllGame. At some point, the site was acquired by Netaktion (Justia has a record of the trademark history). Since then, nearly all of the previous content has been removed. The current version is basically a noncompliant mirror of Misplaced Pages and Wikidata. They include a simple "Description by Misplaced Pages" label that doesn't meet the terms of our license, and they've republished on their site several articles that I myself have written, without proper attribution. Here's an example of what Citizen Kane looked like before, after, and now. The ratings on the site also appear unreliable, and somehow they manage to include star ratings for many lost films. Recent discussions about AllMovie have happened at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Template:AllMovie title and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 442#allmovie.com now using film descriptions and actor biographies from Misplaced Pages.
Because the content and editorial practices of AllMovie are now extremely different from AllMusic, I think we should create a separate entry for it and split off any discussions of the post-acquisition version of the site. The current AllMovie site should be considered unreliable, and any archived URLs from previous iterations of AllMovie would be still evaluated under WP:ALLMUSIC. hinnk (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch, and I agree with your proposal. AllMovie's blog post "An Evolving AllMovie", dated March 24, 2024, suggests that AllMovie's transition from independent content to Misplaced Pages mirror occurred around the beginning of 2024. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd still be careful using Allmovie as a source for things such as WP:DOB. Even if they're archived links from pre 2024 as not only did they have the wrong DOB for some actors, but they've never provided any information on how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Prior to 2024, the actor bios had a fact sheet at the bottom. Now if you can find some archived pages of actor bios from TVguide.com, it had the same stuff listed under "fast facts". Which makes it look like Allmovie was web scraping that information from other sites even back then. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a site is pulling its content from Misplaced Pages, then it is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. Or in fewer words: WP:CIRCULAR. With sites like this we're obligated to check the sources that they provide for their content, and if we're going that far then we might as well just cite their sources and cut out the middleman. I would say generally unreliable, but if they're also copying Misplaced Pages content and not properly attributing, then links to the site are contributory copyright infringement, and that puts them into blacklist territory.
- Also, never use a site like this to cite a living person's date of birth. I've come across far too many examples of incorrect DOBs being added to Misplaced Pages bios, then subsequently repeated by an ostensibly reliable source, then later when someone tries to correct the info here other editors keep changing it back to the wrong date with a citation to the incorrect source. Things like this have real consequences for real people in the real world. We need to do better, and it's fine not to have a date when we don't know what the correct date is. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
MintPress News
MintPress News was given rather short thrift at an RFC in 2019, sending it straight to deprecation. The RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked (and contributed 2 of the deprecation votes at the time), including Icewhiz. MPN is definitely strongly left-leaning and, as one media tracker would put it, "hyper-partisan", and this often leads to quite sensationalist headlines, but that is not strictly a reliability matter. The same tracker came out with a mixed reliability assessment of MPN. The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources, which it does frequently. At the same time, it generally heavily attributes other sources, while not necessarily affirming them in its own voice. As the last commenter in the RFC noted, while they might not themselves use MPN, it was unclear if it reached the high bar sufficient to merit deprecation. I raise this largely because deprecation shouldn't be used casually, but only on those sources where the demonstration of the purveyance of misinformation is ironclad. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As one of the participants in the July 2019 RfC, my assessment that MintPress News should be deprecated has not changed. I believe the evidence I listed is more than sufficient to justify deprecation. I have analyzed MintPress News's response to being deprecated, and due to its length, I will place my analysis in a separate subsection. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a non-participant in the 2019 discussion I would like to say that deprecation was the right choice and reliability issues only seem to have gotten worse since. Note that just republishing Zero Hedge would be enough to get them over the deprecation line even if all of their native work was beyond reproach (which it is not). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- You drew on Ad Fontes Media's analyses in your comment, and AFM is itself considered generally unreliable on the RSP. It's also not accurate to say "The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources," as can be seen if one clicks though to read all of the RfC comments. I have no direct experience with MintPress, but a bit of searching pulls up info like "According to experts, MintPress news is a disinformation site with opaque funding streams run out of Minneapolis that aligns with the Kremlin’s view of a “multipolar world” and often promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. MintPress News has been reprinting copy from Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik since 2016" (source from the Network Contagion Research Institute in 2021), and the MintPress article cites a number of other sources with similar claims. What's your evidence that they've become reliable? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reprinting copy from other websites doesn't automatically or implicitly make any of the content that MPN produces inherently unreliable. It might seem distasteful to republish material from insalubrious sites, but as long as it is clearly labelled, reprinting is all it is. Anything from other sites that we wouldn't use we still don't use if it's syndicated elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they regularly reprint news from unreliable sources, yes, that does contribute to their being GUNREL, as it tells us that they have no commitment to accuracy. You've also ignored the rest of the quote and the info in the references on the MintPress article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the NCRI is an RS or a source worth taking cues from. There are journal pieces on the MPN page that are more reliable and insightful. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to spend time convincing you that it's reliable. If you find the other sources' critiques to be reliable, then use those. The bottom line is: you question whether it should have been deprecated, but you haven't presented any convincing evidence that it should instead be assessed as generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the NCRI is an RS or a source worth taking cues from. There are journal pieces on the MPN page that are more reliable and insightful. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they regularly reprint news from unreliable sources, yes, that does contribute to their being GUNREL, as it tells us that they have no commitment to accuracy. You've also ignored the rest of the quote and the info in the references on the MintPress article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I don't believe that I've actually claimed anywhere that they've become reliable. I have merely raised questions about their deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't that obvious from the fact that you opened this? You are currently contesting the consensus on reliability for MintPress News. The alternative would be that you are engaging in a form of "I'm just asking questions" Tucker Carlson-esque trolling and I think everyone is trying to AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @Bobfrombrockley's comments below. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the objection to deprecating the source then. Sources are not deprecated because they're more unreliable than GUNREL, the "high bar" for deprecation after something is found generally unreliable is "people think it might be a problem". Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't that obvious from the fact that you opened this? You are currently contesting the consensus on reliability for MintPress News. The alternative would be that you are engaging in a form of "I'm just asking questions" Tucker Carlson-esque trolling and I think everyone is trying to AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reprinting copy from other websites doesn't automatically or implicitly make any of the content that MPN produces inherently unreliable. It might seem distasteful to republish material from insalubrious sites, but as long as it is clearly labelled, reprinting is all it is. Anything from other sites that we wouldn't use we still don't use if it's syndicated elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Also not part of the original RFC) Looking at what was brought up in the RFC and at the site itself, I think the RFC had the right result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in last RFC, but I will vote to deprecate if you start another one. The front page is nothing but conspiracy theories, and reading through some articles it has a really strange tendency to cite Russian thinktanks and commentators who are never mentioned by any other English-language outlet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The central motivation seems for revisiting to be that
the RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked
. People become blocked or banned all the time down the line for transgressions unrelated to particular discussions—when that happens, it does not void their prior contributions. If these users were in good standing at the time of the RfC, and weren't evading a block/ban at the time of the discussion, I don't really see why this motivates a change. And, the close seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion. - Has the general reputation of the source improved since 2019? If so, there could be some evidence of this that would be useful here. I haven't searched for any, but I also haven't seen it brought up in this discussion. And unless there's good evidence that the source has improved its editorial processes/fact-checking reputation in some way since the prior discussion, I don't really see a need to reassess at this time—we'd probably wind up with the same result.
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.
The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for .”
While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online... These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.
Its bestknown article—falsely claiming a chemical weapons attack in Syria had actually been perpetrated by rebel groups rather than the Assad regime—was cited as evidence by Syria, Iran, and Russia, though it turned out to have been reported by a man in Syria who at times appears to have been based in St. Petersburg and Tehran.493 When staff asked who funded their paychecks, they were told it was “retired business people.”494 The hidden nature of the funding caused some staff enough discomfort that former employees cited it as their reason for leaving Mint Press.495 Local journalists have tried and failed to figure out where Mint Press’s money comes from.49
}The next five domains (rt.com, mintpressnews.com, sputniknews.com, globalresearch.ca, southfront.org) are alternative media domains that spread master narratives in the Russia’s disinformation campaign.
Mintpress has been accused of promoting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and also regularly pushes pro-Russian propaganda, most notably the unfounded claim that a 2013 chemical weapon attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people was perpetrated not by the Syrian regime but by rebel groups with weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia. Mintpress News, alongside The Grayzone, which Maté writes for, has continued to publish Russian-backed narratives that the Syrian regime has been framed for further chemical weapon attacks during the years-long war in the country. The sources of both websites’ funding are unknown.
Some of the American Herald Tribune’s articles did survive in other parts of the echo system. Seventeen of them had been cross-posted on the website of Mint Press News, which had similar sharing arrangements with several other “partner” websites including Project Censored, Free Speech TV, Media Roots, Shadow Proof, The Grayzone, Truthout, Common Dreams and Antiwar.com... The only time Mint Press made much impact (though for the wrong reasons) was in 2013 appeared to be based on rumors circulating in Damascus at the time, and there was no real evidence to support it... Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cited the story as evidence that the U.N.’s investigators in Ghouta had not done a thorough job.
Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency.
The thirteen fake accounts identified by Facebook were promoting the Peace Data website. To build a reputation as an alternative media (progressive and anti-Western) and attract contributors, Peace Data, created at the end of 2019, initially relayed articles from other existing protest media, such as MintPress News or World Socialist Website, or openly pro-Kremlin, Strategic Culture Foundation, The GrayZone or Russia Today.
On five occasions, Peace Data published articles that it listed as “partners.” Between August 11 and August 19, the website published two articles each from Citizen Truth and MintPressNews.
- So, no, it's reputation hasn't improved. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.
- Also not a participant in the original RfC, but concur with those above that it ended with the correct result. Not seeing any conclusive evidence to the contrary, especially given Ad Fontes is itself not considered reliable per WP:RSP. The Kip 16:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't a participant in the original RfC. I think the RfC should be relisted, as I don't think MPN deprecation was warranted, if anything, I'd support an "Additional considerations apply" designation. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
MintPress News's response to being deprecated
In July 2019, MintPress News published an aggrieved reaction (archive) after discovering that they were deprecated. The response falsely claimed that all of my comments in the July 2019 RfC were written by another editor (Jamez42 – misspelled as "Jamesz42"), and then attacked that editor for writing "several English-language Misplaced Pages articles on the wives of Popular Will politicians as well as on protest leaders and journalists who are aligned with Popular Will" in a misguided attempt to discredit the author of the RfC comments. However, since those RfC comments were written by me and not by Jamez42, all MintPress News did was demonstrate their own lack of accuracy and poor fact-checking in their response.
One of the pieces of evidence I cited in the RfC was MintPress News's most recent "inside story" at the time, "Microsoft's ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections" (June 2019 archive), an article that used false information to promote a conspiracy theory about Microsoft. The original MintPress News piece claimed:
Similarly, Microsoft’s claim that it “will not charge for using ElectionGuard and will not profit from partnering with election technology suppliers that incorporate it into their products” should also raise eyebrows. Considering that Microsoft has a long history of predatory practices, including price gouging for its OneCare security software, its offering of ElectionGuard software free of charge is tellingly out of step for the tech giant and suggests an ulterior motive behind Microsoft’s recent philanthropic interest in "defending democracy."
Above, MintPress News linked the term price gouging ("increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some") to an article from The Guardian that described Microsoft engaging in predatory pricing ("the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition") with its OneCare software. MintPress News then used that incorrect reading to push their conspiracy theory about Microsoft's ElectionGuard software. A reliable source would retract this article after discovering such a prominent flaw in the logic of their argument, but as they mentioned in their reaction piece, MintPress News doubled down by removing the reference to OneCare altogether and pretending that evidence against its conspiracy theory did not exist. In the current version of the article (archive), MintPress News replaced "including price gouging for its OneCare security software" with "including price gouging", with the term price gouging now linking to another article about a different piece of software (Microsoft Office).
In my RfC comments, I also noted that MintPress News republished 340 articles from 
Zero Hedge (RSP entry), a source deprecated for frequently publishing conspiracy theories and false information. Despite acknowledging this in their reaction piece, MintPress News did not take down the Zero Hedge articles from their website. Instead, MintPress News has since changed their site design to remove the counter for the Zero Hedge articles. The articles are still published on their site, and can be found in a web search using the following query: site:mintpressnews.com "zerohedge.com".
Everything I have mentioned here only concerns my comments in the previous RfC and how MintPress News responded to them. Additional evidence against this publication's reliability can be found in the article MintPress News. Altogether, I see no reason to change MintPress News's status as a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 17:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Corrected username — Newslinger talk 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how MPN issuing a correction admitting their error on that article you mention particularly stands against them. The article also links to a piece by the Verge (an RSP) that does discuss price gouging. You may feel that their error undermines the entire premise of the article, but whether or not that is true, the actual necessary correction was published. That is not the usual behaviour of a deprecated source, or even many GUNREL sources. Also, one article does not a good GUNREL argument make. Even the best GREL sources put out the occasional truly atrocious piece. The bar for GUNREL, let alone deprecation, is to show that the issues are systematic and unrectified. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: Zero Hedge, they do not masquerade any of that content as their own. On the contrary, each article has a disclaimer stating:
"Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy."
And as far as I can tell they have republished or syndicated nothing from ZH since 2019. The editorial detachment is key. I could name several GREL news sites that frequently publish truly psychotic opinion pieces, but which have no bearing on their reliability because of statements just like or similar to this. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of predatory pricing to allege an "ulterior motive" based on Microsoft's situational use of price gouging is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, MintPress News's rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the WP:QS policy states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion", which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. — Newslinger talk 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reprinting external content isn't MPN
"expressing views"
. And I'm sure you've looked into the Microsoft story properly, but do you have a source labelling the MPN story as a conspiracy theory? We normally judge sources based on what other sources say about them, not purely on what we think about them. And that's still just one story. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).As a fringe website with a Similarweb rank of #320,219 globally (#153,471 in the US), MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in the 2019 RfC also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of Mick West's book that debunks MPN's promotion of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding your first link , the article is relating/quoting this report from the OPCW: https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2018/07/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-chemical-weapons-use-allegations
- Similarly, the rest of your links are articles about others' reporting. You say they directly cite Zero Hedge articles, but Zero Hedge seems to be just one of the sites they quote, in addition to Politico, Salon, New Yorker, Washington Post, and so on. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:
- Article #1: MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote.
- Article #2: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities.
- Article #3: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending.
- Article #4: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter.
- Article #5: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians.
- Because Zero Hedge (RSP entry) is a source that was deprecated for repeatedly publishing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN's use Zero Hedge for factual claims on numerous occasions and MPN's republication of hundreds of Zero Hedge articles both contribute to MPN being a questionable source. MPN using sources other than Zero Hedge does not excuse MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Fixed link to article #2 again — Newslinger talk 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article #1 It also links and quotes from the original report/primary source that anyone can check, it doesn't rely on Zero Hedge alone.
- Article #2 It is the same link as Article #3
- Article #3 It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public.
- Article #4 But it does say "estimate", rather than treating it as an absolute and factual value, it is simply relating what ZeroHedge has estimated. The article does not rely on Zero Hedge reporting, but includes
- Article #5 It also links to the Washington Post article that Zero Hedge is using, not relying on Zero Hedge alone for the claim.
- I don't think MPN is an unreliable source, it doesn't satisfy:
"have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."
Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the other part of the policy:"websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."
- Citing Zero Hedge once per article, for claims that can be idependently verified, among many other sources that are WP:RS isn't enough to deprecate MPN. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing
Infowars (RSP entry); a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the guideline against the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories.My comments in the the 2019 RfC do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following:
"ZeroHedge estimated that the ensuing gerrymandering lawsuits will net Covington millions in legal fees, especially considering that Holder will be directing the filing of all such lawsuits on behalf of Democrats."
How is that a relationship between two political parties? The article states "ZeroHedge estimated" rather than saying anything with certainty. - Does MPN rely heavily on Zero Hedge in its original content? I don't think so, because it uses it as one of many sources.
- That is why I don't think deprecation is appropriate, rather "additional restrictions apply" as in MPN shouldn't be relied on claims that come only from ZeroHedge. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it were just the Zero Hedge thing I might see where you're coming from but @Bobfrombrockley demonstrated above that the outlet has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy all on their own. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The correct link to article #2 has been copied over to the comment. MPN published: "However, an anonymous writer on ZeroHedge, an economic news website, noted on Nov. 30 that while Bilal Erdoğan does seem to be moving Kurdish oil in his tankers, 'we’ve yet to come across conclusive evidence of Bilal’s connection to .'" Here, MPN uses an assertion posted by "an anonymous writer" from conspiracy theory website Zero Hedge to make a claim about two political entities (a son of a president and Daesh). Doing this is like publishing "According to Alex Jones of Infowars..." for a claim unrelated to Jones or Infowars, which immediately throws the claim into question due to the poor reputation of the source. A source degrades its own reliability by repeatedly using another questionable source in this way for multiple topics on numerous occasions; the five linked articles are only a small sample.Your comment seems to be ignoring how MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims is only one of many reasons that MPN was deprecated; reliable sources have shown that MPN also publishes a cornucopia of conspiracy theories that MPN created by themselves, a common characteristic of questionable sources that become deprecated on Misplaced Pages. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following:
- I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing
- Mint has a poor reputation for checking the facts so that first one is satisfied (notice how is an "or" not an and so fulfilling any of the conditions satisfies it). They also express view widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion besides the bits that were convenient for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:
- When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).As a fringe website with a Similarweb rank of #320,219 globally (#153,471 in the US), MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in the 2019 RfC also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of Mick West's book that debunks MPN's promotion of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reprinting external content isn't MPN
- MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of predatory pricing to allege an "ulterior motive" based on Microsoft's situational use of price gouging is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, MintPress News's rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the WP:QS policy states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion", which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. — Newslinger talk 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see the MPN response included a couple of paragraphs about me, in which almost all the things they say are demonstrably inaccurate even from the links they provide (they attribute a quote to me which is obviously not me, and seem to claim I call al-Nusra "moderate" by linking to a sandbox page here which says pretty much the opposite). I voted 3/4 in the RfC, but on the basis of this response I'd have no problem coming down in favour of 4. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think I was involved in the 2019 discussion - at least I don't remember being involved in it - but based on the information above it seems like Mint Press is being appropriately deprecated as a source of misinformation. I'd love to see a Misplaced Pages with a broader range of reliable left-wing sources but the key word there is reliable and this... this is clearly not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies)
a couple of months ago i had added a source to a driver which sthe said driver had specifically states something i had added to his wikipedia at it got removed by a user due to the fact that to him it was not reliable and i was just wondering if they are reliable. i was told by other wiki users that was acceptable to use as it was the driver himself who said it in the video making it a direct source and if not i would like an explanation as the user when asked did not respond when asked and probably will not respond Motorsportfan100 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- In general YouTube video's are not reliable, as they are self-published sources and few of them are by
"an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
, see WP:SPS.
However there is an exception if the self-published work is by the subject themselves and is part of a limited set of conditions, see WP:ABOUTSELF. You haven't included any details so I can't say for certain if it would be reliable in your specific situation, as it may or may not be allowed by ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- Ah i see thank you
- Even though the subject was part of the interview I believe myself it would not be reliable as it's a motorsport related podcast and even though the youtube channel also has a website which has been referenced in other articles I believe the youtube channel would not be reliable unless otherwise notified Motorsportfan100 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- It depends what the statement is. If the driver says something like 'I'm 23 years old" that's a good enough source. If the driver says "Castrol Oil is superior to every other oils out there" while also being sponsored by Castrol, then no.
- For Youtube channel, they are as reliable as their owners/parent company. A NASA video hosted on NASA's youtube channel is as reliable as anything else produced by NASA. A rocketry video hosted by BobLovesRockets, not so much for anything but uncontroversial statements about Bob. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts
A senior "editor" recently reverted some of my posts. I posted sources from https://mma.bg/ - It is a Bulgarian MMA news site. The website began in 2008 - https://mma.bg/pages/mission. The previous website was www.mmabg.com as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210601000000*/www.mmabg.com. There is a lot of dicussion on Ultimate Fighting Championship sources when it comes to reports of UFC fights. The general rule is if the bout is listed on the official page, for example: https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-february-01-2025, then, we can put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/UFC_Fight_Night:_Adesanya_vs._Imavov. But if it is not on the UFC page, we put the bouts on "Announced bouts" based on independent reports. The UFC Events page takes time to update.
The thing is an editor only accepts reports from websites other than UFC/ESPN (ESPN is the channel that broadcasts UFC), but if the UFC posts a column saying there is a new bout, I feel the report is sufficient to be put on the Misplaced Pages page, since it is merely reporting the company's scheduled bout. Only within hours, other independent news sites would use the official post from the UFC in their reports.
Also, although social media posts are not reliable, there is one journalist, Marcel Dorff, https://x.com/BigMarcel24 - who posts on his social media account reports of bouts. He has never been wrong in the past sixteen years and is a reliable source. But because he posts from his account, it is not considered reliable. It takes a day or two for another site to take his social media post to "report" it on their website.
For example, https://www.mmanews.com/features/matchmaking-bulletin/ufc-fight-bulletin/ - MMANews is considered reliable, but it links to reports of X posts that the site deemed reliable before posting it on MMANews. What are your thoughts on this?
Basically, I would like you to review the following:
1) MMA.BG - can it be put on https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources - it is a reliable MMA website in the language Bulgarian that has been reporting accurate news for 17 years
2) The allowance of UFC/ESPN reports of bouts or injuries to be considered reliable. For example: https://x.com/ESPNKnockOut/status/1878132515854000543 - this X post is by a verified ESPN Knockout account that posted "Jake Matthews vs Francisco Prado", but I cannot use that as a source because it is from a social media post, and it is from ESPN (who is not independent from UFC because they broadcast UFC telecasts). It does not quite make sense and the senior editor's English is too poor to explain this after repeated requests for explanation, so I hope someone can explain it here for me. The editor reverted my post when it was reported here: https://wip.mma.bg/novini/mma-novini/dzheyk-matyus-sreshtu-fransisko-prado-na-ufc-312
3) Are exceptions for X posts allowed for reputable journalists and official verified company accounts to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages?
I hope someone can help me answer this, someone with sufficient enough English like most editors on Misplaced Pages. Thank you, because it has been extremely frustrating having edits reverted with poor explanation or logic that makes no sense. Thanks! Marty2Hotty (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it's just a matter of one or two days, just wait for the official announcement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: TheGamer
TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not
neutrally worded and brief
as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation
Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.
For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters
I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/
Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.
There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.
I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, I'd argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.
I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. NotQualified (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. NotQualified (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. signed, Rosguill 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error NotQualified (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- > Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for wikipedia standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.
- Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
- If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. NotQualified (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
- > the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
- Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. NotQualified (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. NotQualified (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. NotQualified (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
- "If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
- Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
- I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
- In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. NotQualified (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
- If we can agree that at least nearly all the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? NotQualified (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. NotQualified (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.
That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) - If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
- I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. The New York Times report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as The Telegraph and The Spectator. Deadline profile him here—it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in high regard. In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because other news outlets have not dispatched their own reporters to cover trials and sentencing, so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. NotQualified (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (WP:WEIGHT / WP:BALASP). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New York Times says
No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.
which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort ofunduly represent contentious or minority claims
we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Surely that's a WP:WEIGHT issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a WP:RS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
- > If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
- And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
And what if it isn't.
- WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m just here to say that a source being generally unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on WP:RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). CNC (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. NotQualified (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nah. If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per CommunityNotesContributor, that it isn't showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer
Is this sigcov , reliable for Draft:BRYTER? HelixUnwinding (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK?
Hogo-2020 and I have bit of a dispute here: can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran? Sources:
- A telephone interview with Ben Smith (journalist) that was published on a newsblog on Politico. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
- An editorial by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian.
- The editorial links to a Christian Science Monitor article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
- An article in Salon which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."
VR (Please ping on reply) 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vice regent I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. The Kip 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are two issues here, neither of which is really a WP:RS issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be attributed if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said
In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton
. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / WP:RSOPINION venues, is the WP:DUE issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that this is solid advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for Bering Strait
See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 @Doug Weller My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. The Kip 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page
Hi everybody. D Gershon Lewental has an article in Encyclopedia Iranica with subject of "QĀDESIYA, BATTLE OF" ... and academic essay. He had a personal DGLnotes. Does this link text also reliable source for wikipedia ? Hulu2024 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a WP:EXPERTSPS case. I mean obviously his page is self-published but he does appear to be an expert in the field of Middle Eastern history. So - per the guidance at EXPERTSPS - it's likely reliable with the caveat (probably not needed for a history article) that it absolutely cannot be used for information about living people other than the author. And, of course, WP:DUE is still relevant and will likely assign greater due weight to traditionally published material. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there are secondary sources for what he says in his page, it would help. Those can be cited. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Pirate Wires?
Pirate Wires describes itself as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, as was done here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
- Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor
? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
- Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Words of the founder Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Need context before coming to RSN
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per
Slaterstevenits founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
CEIC data
I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by Caixin, as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". Wizmut (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Fantasy Literature
I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the terms its staff work under:
- Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
NASASpaceFlight.com
Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on NASASpaceFlight.com's use as a reliable source in articles related to SpaceX, specifically in its use in Starship flight test 8 and Starship flight test 9.
At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.
Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source
"should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."
which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:RS calls for
"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
. A Google books search appears to show WP:USEBYOTHERS, and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per WP:USERGENERATED.
Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.
Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. RachelTensions (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.
no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for WP:GNG. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. RachelTensions (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.
well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? RachelTensions (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)