View source for Testwiki:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 467

{{talk archive navigation}}

== Reliability of 3 sources for the history of law of cosines ==

Hi, I would like to know if these 3 sources are reliable for the history of the law of cosines, and, specifically for the inclusion of a sentence about the contribution of al-Kashi as the mathematician who dealed with the law in a general case and with the introduction of trigonometry. Thanks.

Source 1 :

* {{cite book |last1=Pickover |first1=Clifford A. |author1-link=Clifford A. Pickover |title=The Math Book: From Pythagoras to the 57th Dimension, 250 Milestones in the History of Mathematics |date=2009 |publisher=Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. |isbn=978-1-4027-5796-9 |url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=JrslMKTgSZwC&q=al+kashi+law+of+cosines&pg=PA106&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=al%20kashi%20law%20of%20cosines&f=false |language=en}}

Source 2 :

Strick, Heinz Klaus (2009) JAMSHID AL-KASHI Mac Tutor via University St Andrews

Source 3 :

* {{cite journal |last=Guergour |first=Youcef  |title=Le roi de Saragosse Al-Mu'taman Ibn Hud (m. 1085) et le théorème de Pythagore: ses sources et ses prolongements |date=2005 |journal=LLULL: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Historia de las Ciencias y de las Técnicas |volume=28 |pages=415–434 |URL=https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/2470591.pdf}}

Thanks.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 08:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:The first reference is likely the strongest. The author is well published and it's from a respectable publisher. The third reference is slightly weaker, as far as I can tell the journal is linked to the university and I can't find to many details about the author. The weakest reference is the second one, I'm unsure of the reliability of MacTutor and  Heinz Klaus Strick is a retired school principal and former maths teacher. Ultimately it would depend on the exact wording used ([[WP:RSCONTEXT]]), but in general the first and third look to be ok. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:{{small|I hope you don't mind I formatted the bare urls so it's easier on anyone else who wants to comment.}} -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the formatting, it's better now, indeed. The wording would be what the sources say, something like "in the fifteenth century, the mathematician al-Kashi studied for the first time the case of a random triangle with the introduction of trigonometry" (3rd source) Thoughts ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think 'studied for ten first time' is quite right, I'm sure others had studied the issue before. al-Kashi was the first to show a generalised theorem. Maybe "in the fifteenth century, the mathematician al-Kashi was the first to give a general proof for any triangle with the introduction of trigonometry". That's not perfect but better reflects the sources. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed, thanks for your insight. Best.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 14:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:Participants here should engage at [[talk:Law of cosines]] where this is already under active discussion and they can read the context, rather than fragmenting the conversation into multiple different pages. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:Aside: Klaus (2021) [2009] is a poor source for this particular claim, because he doesn't explain what his sources/reasoning are in this one-sentence throwaway line, and his sentence is a paraphrase of the [[special:permalink/297686955|then-current version]] (2009) of English Wikipedia's article about al-Kashi. Cf. [[WP:CITOGENESIS]]. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 18:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::I don't find that surprising, it isn't something I would use. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:Regarding Pickover: a pop math book, even by a reputable author and from a reputable publisher, is still a pop math book. It's going to be superficial when compared against actual histories of mathematics, and the genre has a tendency to repeat lore as fact. I wouldn't rely on it too much. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 17:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::I find all 3 sources as useable in wikipedia. The last 2 are quite good.[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 21:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:::All of these sources are "usable" in Wikipedia, and could be cited where appropriate, that's not the question. But the context and details matter. The question at issue here is whether the specific sentence which Wikaviani wanted to add is accurate, appropriate, and/or helpful to add to the article, with these as the supporting sources. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 00:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I believe it is as long as the sources state it. If there is an issue, attribution may be a good idea.[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 06:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

== TheJournal.ie ==

Which of the following best describes the reliability of ''[[TheJournal.ie]]''?
* Option 1: [[Wikipedia:GREL|Generally reliable]]
* Option 2: [[Wikipedia:MREL|Additional considerations]]
* Option 3: [[Wikipedia:GUNREL|Generally unreliable]]
* Option 4: [[Wikipedia:DEPREC|Deprecate?]]
[[User:Autarch|Autarch]] ([[User talk:Autarch|talk]]) 00:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:not how you do one of these. present some article samples or RS on their reporting, then do this again.
:'''Procedural close''' <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#1D2570;">'''B'''arnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">'''T'''oust</span>]]</span> 00:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:Unless there has been some prior discussion I'm unaware of this close just be closed as a  "'''Bad RFC'''". Per the header and edit notice you shouldn't open a RFC without first discussing the matter. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== RfC: Forbes articles written by David Axe ==
{{atop|result=Closed as the initiator doesn't have [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] rights, as required by community [[WP:RUSUKR|restrictions]]. Any extend confirmed editor can start a new one if they believe it is required. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)}}
Forbes articlea written by staff are usually considered reliable while those made by contributor and senior contributor are unreliable. However one Forbes staff is known for his low quality and poorly researched articles with his own unsubstantiated opinions was widely used as source in many Ukraine war related articles. Because Forbes articles including those made staff are generally considered reliable so editor often used David Axe low quality slop as source. Not just that he even write some articles for The Telegraph. So how would we treat Forbes (and possibly The Telegraph) articles written by this guy?
* Option 1: [[Wikipedia:GREL|Generally reliable]]
* Option 2: [[Wikipedia:MREL|Additional considerations]]
* Option 3: [[Wikipedia:GUNREL|Generally unreliable]]
* Option 4: [[Wikipedia:DEPREC|Deprecate?]]
[[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 01:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{small|It's not clear if you mean a specific 'article', or all 'article''s''' by Axe, as you use the singular 'article' in the header and text.}} -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::Edited, I mean all articles [[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 14:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It would be helpful if you could link to evidence that Axe is {{tq|known for his low quality and poorly researched article with his own unsubstantiated opinions}}, whether that's secondary  sources analyzing Axe's work or examples of how his work fits that description. 
:::Also, this thread clearly falls under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Remedies contentious topic restrictions of the Russo-Ukrainian War] which requires [[WP:ECP|extended confirmed status]] to participate in, which you are not. So unless a editor with EC status has the same concerns, this should probably be closed. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 14:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Pulse 2 ==

I searched but couldn't find a previous discussion on this site: [https://pulse2.com Pulse 2]. I think unrelated to LinkedIn Pulse. It appears to mostly publish startup and tech content. Can I get a second opinion on its reliability? Hope I am not in the wrong place, thanks! [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 18:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:This is the right place, but I've removed "RFC" from the section title as [[WP:RFC]]'s are a particular type of formalised discussion. If you ever need advice or guidance on the reliability of a source this is the right place to ask. Pulse 2.0 is definitely unrelated to LinkedIn Pulse.<br>Sources are only ever generally reliable, as proper determination of reliability is dependent on [[WP:RSCONTEXT|context]]. In general though Pulse 2.0 should be reliable for general uncontroversial tech news, but I would suggest finding a better source if it relates to a living person. There are separate guidelines for [[WP:BLP|content related to living people]], which include stricter requirements in the quality of sources. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::This makes sense, thanks for the reply and clarification! [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 23:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

== Doctor Who News Page ==

Is https://www.doctorwhonews.net/ reliable? It's another source that's used in [[WP:WikiProject Doctor Who]], especially for the appreciation index, as it lists all of them at one page, and lists even those for which the BBC or any official sources has not released said info. They seem to be a blog according to their [https://www.doctorwhonews.net/p/about-us.html about us] page, and their editorial is quite opaque- most/all of their "writers" either have generic names, or seem to be fans without any journalistic credibility. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 09:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:This looks less reliable than the prior Doctor Who source. Especially as it appears to also be an agregator but it isn't always clear about where it is agregating from. I would avoid use. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

: Discussed in 2023 at [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Doctor_Who_News]] where I made the same point; that discussion appeared to peter out.  Some have said that it has been decided that it is reliable but I certainly don't see that discussion at any of the major noticeboards; so where is it? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::I know there was a discussion, and that some have said that it is reliable, that's why I have come here for DWN, and for CultBox. ANI seems more focused on doing nothing rather than try to protect the integrity of this site, so I came here to double check their reliability or lack thereof. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 11:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:Per [https://www.doctorwhonews.net/p/about-us.html], appears [[WP:BLOG]]-ish. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::I saw that on the "about us" page, but didn't get time to reply. Blogish or group blogish. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:Per others, this is definitely a Blog (And even won awards for doing so). It doesn't seem to have clear editorial guidelines, and there's no indication of what criteria it judges volunteers on. Definitely strong unreliable from me.  Magneton Considerer: '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 18:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::Looks like a blog.[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 08:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== ''CDM (Create Digital Music)'' ==

	
Is ''CDM (Create Digital Music)'' a reliable source?

This source seems be on many pages involving music gear. This source is also cited in many [[Wikipedia:BLP|living persons]] such as [[Kate NV]] and [[Pixelh8]]. However, many of the articles are written by one person (who is also the editor-in-chief, and therefore may be a [[WP:BLOG| self published source]]); and as of 2017, [https://cdm.link/category/meeblip/ collaborates with another synth company] and [https://cdm.link/category/establishment/page/ has their own music label], both of which may violate [[WP:NPOV]].

See also the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Create+Digital+Music&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 list of articles where ''CDM'' is used].

[[Special:Contributions/2620:8D:8000:10E6:398C:F505:7E6A:497C|2620:8D:8000:10E6:398C:F505:7E6A:497C]] ([[User talk:2620:8D:8000:10E6:398C:F505:7E6A:497C|talk]]) 02:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Anything in relation to the MeeBlip products would be [[WP:Primary]], that's still reliable but of limited use. Your link "has their own music label" is 404 and I can't find anything relevant.<br>The site does appear to be self-published, see [[WP:Self published]] for guidance, but I'm unsure if it would considered reliable. I was going to leave a notification on project music for help, but I see you've already done so. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, the link for the music label is: https://cdm.link/category/establishment/ ("Establishment" on the right side of the menubar). It says "Establishment is the music label from CDM and a home for independent music crossing genres and media." How would this effect the reliability of the source?
::On a related note, how can one get more users to discuss the reliability of the source? This topic was opened because no one [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_466#Reliability_of_several_sources_relating_to_music.|responded to the last one that was made]].  
::[[Special:Contributions/2620:8D:8000:10E6:87B:CBBA:F03B:27D2|2620:8D:8000:10E6:87B:CBBA:F03B:27D2]] ([[User talk:2620:8D:8000:10E6:87B:CBBA:F03B:27D2|talk]]) 04:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Everyone there is a volunteer, and unfortunately that means that for many of the questions asked here there are few replies. I try to offer at least general guidance to most of the overlooked questions, but music sources are a thorny issue and not an area I know well. Music questions in particular don't seem to get much interest.
:::Being a music label would put them in the same situation as with the MeeBlip products, anything the reported about the music they help create would be considered primary. So they would be reliable for it, but only in certain situations. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

== the-sports.org ==
(I posted this elsewhere and was encouraged to post it over here.)
This is one of those "I'm not sure where to ask so I'll try here" sort of things.
I ran across an article with a link in "External links" to a listing on the-sports.org. (Here's a link to the old version of the article with the link: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuki_Yokosawa&oldid=1275139988 link]]) So, this "the-sports.org" has advertising and the info on the particular athlete was incomplete. Taking a closer look at the site as a whole, it looks like it was once a partner of Wikipedia, but that may have been a long time ago - there was a page with a message from perhaps the creator, with a copyright on it of 2002-2016. I also think that because the link wasn't a URL, it was a template (if that's the correct terminology.) I'm wondering if the site has been sold and is now a commercial site, selling ads on pages that, in part, get traffic from us. In which case, we may want to bulk remove any remaining links to the site on old articles.[[User:Brianyoumans|Brianyoumans]] ([[User talk:Brianyoumans|talk]]) 15:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:This noticeboard is meant to be for the reliability of sources, while external links have their own noticeboard ([[WP:ELN]]). But I will say the-sports.org partnership with Wikipedia appears to have been an endowment from the WMF. The "Thanks, Wikipedia" comment on their contact page[https://www.the-sports.org/contact.html] links to the 2019–2020 WMF endowment page[https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/endowment/]. I pretty certain that external sites, whether linked to the WMF or not, are allowed to use advertising. I don't think the site has been sold, it's just one of many such links that gets added to sports articles. They wouldn't be reliable for referencing, but external links have their own policy seperate from the ones for reliability (see [[WP:EL]]). -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

== Is a Ph.D. thesis reliable for Genetic history of Egypt? ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Egypt&curid=38420298&diff=1275021949&oldid=1274881526] 
I don’t want to keep reverting.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?Greattitle=Genetic_history_of_Egypt&curid=38420298&diff=1275021949&oldid=1274881526] After I and [[User:Austronesier]] reverted [[User talk:PerrytheGreat]]  they went on a tear revering masses of sourced material. Thanks [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:It probably is reliable since it was reviewed by experts. The question and concern for Wikipedia is it notable enough for inclusion ie. we need to be careful of COI and promotional. This can easily be resolved by discussion about the study in other secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines that demonstrate this is a notable study. But "  they went on a tear revering masses of sourced material" is definitely [[WP:POINTY]] behavior, and suggests there is a problem that they would become so seemingly emotional and vindictive over the removal of some random PhD study that Perrythegreat claims they have no vested interest in. Why can't they just let it go. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. Reviewed by experts isn't enough. Every peer-reviewed primary research paper has undergone expert scrutiny during its publication process, yet we wouldn't necessary include its results in WP before any other scholarly source has taken notice of it. It's really simple, considering that WP is a ''tertiary'' source: if no other RS has cited a work yet, why should we? –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 18:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:Perhaps I'm biased by my own background but I expect that most research that shows up in a thesis should also have been published in journal articles first.  While a thesis is reviewed, it's reviewed by people typically associated with the same institution or otherwise involved with the author.  If the material can only be found in a thesis I would use with caution. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Springee|Springee]] The other 3 parts of this thesis ''were'' published in journals first; see [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adeline-Morez-3 here]. Only the Egyptian research wasn't. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk:GordonGlottal|talk]]) 21:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:isnt genetic research and lineage covered by MEDRS?
:generally published systematic reviews are best, and thesis papers are more on the primary source side [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size:85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 18:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:[[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] says they can be used with caution due to them being (at least in part) primary sources. I would think that if they conatin novel results that are at odds with more mainstream sources then [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] would apply. Also the link provided fails the "being published" test as it's behind a staff logon, sources should have been made available to the public (it's not apparent that you can even pay to get access at this point). -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:[[Genetic history of Egypt]] is an interesting sort of article, but I approve. I don't think there's anything wrong with including Morez's thesis. However, this type of research is often repurposed for nationalistic arguments, so if the editor who added it is suspect then we shouldn't trust that their summary is accurate, and someone who knows a bit about genetic history should read the original carefully to confirm that it isn't being mangled. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk:GordonGlottal|talk]]) 21:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::I think that a thesis is usuable with attribution since these do get published in universities generally, but finding extra sources would be good to inlcude, if possible. If it is a stand alone staement, probably good to get a secondary source before posting into the article.[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 09:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

== RfC: The Business Standard, The Daily Star and Prothom Alo ==
{{closed rfc top|1= The consensus is that this is a bad RfC. RfCs on general reliability should not be created as a pre-emptive measure. If these are used as sources and subsequently challenged as unreliable and if a sufficient [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] process is undertaken then an RfC could be started. Neither of these happened in this case.}}

These are some of the most read newspaper of the country and I wanted to preemtively ask about the general reliability of the sources.on cases of economical, national and political reporting. This does not cover press releases, syndicated news or editorials. Usage for general information regarding local news is to be gauged here. The sources to rate for are:

# [[The Business Standard]]: [https://www.tbsnews.net/ tbsnews.net/]
# [[The Daily Star (Bangladesh)|The Daily Star]]: [http://thedailystar.net/ thedailystar.net/]
# [[Prothom Alo]]: [http://www.prothomalo.com/ prothomalo.com/] ([https://en.prothomalo.com/ English version], online only)

* '''Option A: [[Wikipedia:GREL|Generally reliable]]'''
* '''Option B: [[Wikipedia:MREL|Additional considerations]]'''
* '''Option C: [[Wikipedia:GUNREL|Generally unreliable]]'''
* '''Option D: [[Wikipedia:DEPREC|Deprecate]]'''

[[User:Greatder|Greatder]] ([[User talk:Greatder|talk]]) 16:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:'''Option A''': As RfC initiator, I would say these 3 sources are the newspaper of record of the country. 2, 3 for all general reporting and 1. for business and financial news. [[User:Greatder|Greatder]] ([[User talk:Greatder|talk]]) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Bad RFC''' As per the message in the noticeboard header and the one in the edit notice RFCs shouldn't be opened without prior discussions. Also the idea of preemptively rating a source doesn't work, as anyone who may object to the source can't know to do so before the source has even been used. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]] The 3 sources have been exhaustively used in thousands of articles. TBS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Atbsnews.net&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 2,127 times], Prothom Alo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource:prothomalo&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 3,063 times], The Daily Star [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource:thedailystar.net&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 10,416 times]. 
*:How would you suggest a RfC on these widely cited sources be called upon? [[User:Greatder|Greatder]] ([[User talk:Greatder|talk]]) 17:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The first place to start is to discuss it with other editors, only if there is still disagreement should an RFC be opened. Also if noone is contesting that the sources are reliable, why is there any need to discuss them at all? Again preemptively declaring a source as being generally reliable doesn't work, anyone disagreeing in the future can't come back in time and object now. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]] if someone disagrees, they can always open a new RfC. I opened this one because I saw these don't have an entry in the perennial sources list despite being highly cited, and I had seen many RfC for general notability of news articles without a general disagreement. [[User:Greatder|Greatder]] ([[User talk:Greatder|talk]]) 17:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::RFCs are a method of dispute resolution. Where is the dispute? Most reliable sources do not have (and should not have) an entry in the perennial sources list because they are not perennially disputed. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::The perennial source list for for source that have been regularly discussed, it is not a list of all sources (see [[WP:RSPNOT]]). Opening an RFC just to get a source listed on the perennial source list misses the point of the list. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*Even ignoring the fact there hasn't been previous discussion as per requirements, grouping multiple things into one RFC just makes things [[WP:TRAINWRECK|harder than it needs to be]]. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 12:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Agreed. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 08:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option B and do not enter to RSP''' I’d evaluate depending on what the edit in question is, per [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]], and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except to say that ‘it depends’.   I don't see a RFC reason stated or need shown to have any general rating.  I would say reasonable to look at using cites to these if they turn up in a google.  But it should not be in RSP per RSP criteria, and I don’t see why any ratings are even needed.    Cheers  [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC'''. We should be considering sources ''on their own'', not lumping them into one clump except for very good reason. The reason provided here (that they are in the same country) is not a good reason to have them all considered as one group. There are plenty of countries (I'd wager more or less all of them) with both good sources and bad ones. As such, the RfC question is more or less asking us all to give a single rating that would apply to each of the sources, when a reasonable actor would see these as three separate questions to answer. This RfC should be closed as improperly filed and as lacking an answerable RfC query. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 19:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RFC''' - please consider removing the RFC tag on this and closing this {{Ping|Greatder}}. we need context, we need [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], and we need good reason for lumping these together. [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size:85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 19:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}

== Newsbreak ==

Their has been a discussion about this source  [https://www.newsbreak.com/ Newsbreak]  and it should be reevaluated cause if this source is deprecated I guess [[Google News|Google news]] should also be. After all the news site already has 40 million monthly visits and Is also the the third most visited news sites in the [[United States]], I have looked over the articles on it and the looked liked the were written by established news outlets. [[User:Sign them in|Sign them in]] ([[User talk:Sign them in|talk]]) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:Did you read why Newsbreak is deprecated? Please see [[WP:NEWSBREAK]]. You are still free to cite the ''underlying reliable sources'' - i.e. the actual news outlets that wrote the sources on Newsbreak. Which is exactly how you would cite something from Google News too. For articles on Newsbreak that are actually from reliable sources, you are free to cite that underlying source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 23:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:You shouldn't use Google news to reference anything either, use the actual source of the reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

== citing Palantir for Tolkien scholarship article ==

In [[Tolkien's round world dilemma]] I would like to cite "Palantir", the journal of the [https://www.tolkien.spb.ru/english.php St. Petersburg Tolkien Society], for some scholarly discussion: that's because a recent article in it (2024) argues for a rather different opinion than the ones already given in the page. Haven't edited the article yet. So, before I do that, I'd like to ask: is this an [[WP:RS]]?

Pinging also {{u|Chiswick Chap}}, who I asked first on the article talk page. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 05:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:Cam you provide the source in specific you want to cite? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 07:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Simonm223}} It's this one:
::* {{cite journal |last1=Stepanov |first1=Vyacheslav |last2= |first2= |date=September 2024 |title=«Он всегда был огромным шаром…» |trans-title="It Always Had Been a Vast Globe..." |lang=ru |url= |journal=Палантир [Palantir] |volume=90 |issue= |publisher=Толкиновское Общество СПб [St Petersburg Tolkien Society] |pages=13–18 |doi= |access-date=}}
::A pdf copy of the entire issue can be accessed from the society's [https://www.tolkien.spb.ru/pal90.php website]. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 07:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I'm on the fence here. I can't really find anything on their website about their editorial standards and that's what really matters here. I would not put too much weight on a minority opinion sourced just to the magazine but I am not sure if it is entirely unreliable. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Simonm223}} Thanks! I was intending to leave the article mostly intact, and simply add a short two-sentence paragraph about Stepanov's opinion: {{tq|"Vyacheslav Stepanov expressed a contrary view in 2024. Noting that Tolkien's Round World revisions and the associated transmission framework date over an extended period from the late 1950s to his death, Stepanov argued that Tolkien had in fact solved the problem to his satisfaction and decided in favour of the Round World. [citation]"}} That way it would be treated as a minority opinion, but most of the article would continue to reflect what everyone else thought. If you think this is fine, I could add it. Otherwise, no big deal. :) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 14:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::That would be the most I would include. Unfortunately I can't confirm that Stepanov has any specific expertise because [[Vyacheslav Stepanov|he's not the most notable person with that name]]. It is cited in the Tolkien gateway but that's [[WP:UGC]] so it doesn't mean much. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Simonm223}} Okay, thanks. I added these two sentences and left the rest of the article intact. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 16:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:How scholarly is the source? From their about us it seems to have started off as an almost entirely amateur society which "became more and more scholarly in character" but still appears to fall short of an actual scholarly society... Not least of all because their about self ends with "January 28, 2012 was the Seventh Seminar. The materials will be published shortly." so it hasn't been updated in over a decade. Generally the way we approach these sort of fan societies which publish both amateur and scholarly work is to go by the expertise of the author, essentially tossing the question over to EXPERTSPS. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::That was kind of my feeling too though you expressed it better. And I couldn't find much about the author. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm pretty sure we've had discussions about a few of these before, there are somewhere north of 50 Tolkien societies of mixed amateur/scholarly character around the world and they all publish some sort of semi-reliable house organ. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::FWIW Stepanov is cited for some entries in the Tolkien computational linguist Paul Strack's Eldamo, e.g. [https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-1105959911.html these] [https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-2090293737.html pages] analysing the phonological development of Tolkien's Sindarin. Apparently that source is reliable enough to be cited in the GA [[Quenya]]. Do you think this is a good enough argument for his expertise? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 04:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I just don't know... On its own thats definitely not enough. My general feeling at this point is that Vyacheslav Stepanov may be a [[pen name]]. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 05:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== Reliability of certain sources for a subject on dentistry in India ==

This is in regards to the author of [[Draft:Whistle]], {{u|Amitunbind}}. Since they're determined to submit their draft to article space and also seemingly wanting to get over past issues of adding promotion-like content, they asked me (as the submission reviewer) about the reliability of five different sources: [https://www.wkindia.com/work/whistle-invisible-aligners], [https://www.afaqs.com/news/advertising/whistle-launches-mute-films], [https://www.campaignindia.in/article/campaign-india-film-crest-awards-2024-shortlists-and-jury-announced/495804], [https://www.medianews4u.com/whistle-quirkily-plays-up-confidence-that-comes-with-perfect-teeth-pitches-invisible-aligners/], and [https://www.financialexpress.com/business/healthcare-we-will-continue-to-scale-our-clinic-network-and-raise-awareness-among-consumers-amarinder-singh-founder-ceo-clove-dental-3446282]. I already discounted the third one due to being a passing mention, but since none of the other sources have known discussions logged at [[WP:RSPS|RSPS]], I'd like to know what other users' opinions are. [[User:ToThAc|ToThAc]] ([[User talk:ToThAc|talk]]) 20:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:* 103 is self published.
:* 104 looks a lot like paid promotional content.
:* 105 - the Campaign India page - looks OKish. Better than the first two anyway. But it doesn't say much beyond that an advert was put up for an award.
:* 106 doesn't look as explicitly like paid promotional content as 104 does but it doesn't NOT look like paid promotional content
:* 107 - the Financial Express piece - looks like it ''might'' be a reliable source. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:**For the Financial Express, it might be useful to read here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/financial-express/. [[User:JacktheBrown|JacktheBrown]] ([[User talk:JacktheBrown|talk]]) 22:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:**:I'm not sure why. Mediabiasfactcheck is not, itself, a reliable source. And, I know I say this a lot, but we don't do ideological tests for reliability so their center-right designation is not a mark against reliability even if accurate. [[WP:NEWSORGINDIA]] may be relevant but that's kind of what I meant with 104 and 106 looking like paid promotional content. We all know that's out there with Indian media but our only options are either to blanket-block Indian news media (which I don't think there's appetite for) or use our best judgment about those sources. Of the bunch they look the most likely to be reliable. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:**::That's not the "only other option" and not an option at all. Sources need to be assessed individually by seeing what the practices are at a particular news publication. There is a wide variation of sources and to club them together is extremely poor form. There are commercial news publications which do engage in undisclosed paid news and commercial news publications which do not, there even is a set of non-profit news outlets which have emerged partly because of such practices, etc etc. Clubbed queries are also never entertained on the noticeboard for this very reason, at most one could club some sources if there is a clear organisational link between them but even in such cases there can be large variations.
:**::[[WP:NEWSORGINDIA]] exists as a generic disclaimer, not as a reliability assessment and asks to bring sources to the noticeboard if in doubt which is the actual option. It also seems to be somewhat poorly worded and is potentially confusing people about disclosed advertisements with undisclosed paid news. It does make me question its appropriateness with respect to how it may be used as a generalised assessment. Although this may stem from unfamiliarity with Indian news media, even preconceived notions and consequent inability to distinguish poor and good sources, an example of [[WP:SYSTEMIC|systemic bias]].
:**::As far as ''[[Financial Express]]'' is concerned, it is the financial news imprint of ''[[Indian Express]]'' {{rspe|Indian Express}} neither of which have been documented to contain undisclosed paid news. ''Financial Express'' does contain churnalism at times but in this instance it's just an interview which is [[WP:INDEPENDENT|non-independent content]]. The MBFC assessment of both of them on the other hand only speaks to its own unreliability, it has picked up a couple government press release based churnalistic pieces to call it "center-right" while ''Indian Express'' is being called "center-left" even though the latter's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinions section]], where they don't apply any fact-checking (as a matter of policy) unlike their general news, is very often frequented by op-eds from right-wing personalities, party spokespersons, ministers and the like, including misinformation from them. ''Financial Express'' is less likely to do this though the editorial quality control of its general news is not nearly as good, especially in recent times. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">[[User:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Tayi Arajakate'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sub></span> 12:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:**:::You're misinterpreting what I said but I don't think we actually disagree. I think we should assess any given source on its own merits. That's what I meant by using our best judgment. And I did say that the Financial Express piece looked reliable. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:**:::Just to note that NEWSORGINDIA came about to stop editors from asking to have most Indian news sources marked as unreliable, as undisclosed advertorials would usually have that effect. The same is true of [[WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA]], they are exceptions to more stringent judgements not a reason to exclude a source. I have seen it being misused, mostly in AfD discussions. The general advice is that promotional language in any source should be handled with caution. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== Freedom House ==

I am raising my concern with this source specific to [[Transnational repression by China]] which heavily depends on Freedom House to sole-source claims about supposed transnational repression that China is alleged to have carried out.

Our recent discussion of Heritage Foundation included a lot of discussion of political advocacy groups in general. I interpreted the rough consensus coming out of that discussion being that we should generally treat political advocacy groups as [[WP:GUNREL]] except for as sources of their own opinion. However [[Freedom House]] is regularly cited to claims about the actions of states that are rivals of the American regime. Freedom House is an arms-length armature of the US State department which I personally think would be enough to make it generally unreliable for wiki-voice claims regarding rival states on its own. This is something that [[Freedom House#Criticism]] suggests to be a rather common critique. Freedom House has been subject to critiques of partiality to US political interests as far back as the 1980s at least. This has carried on across multiple venues with Freedom House being criticized both for being too negative in its interrogation of Cuba and for overlooking human rights abuses in Uzbekistan that might be contrary to US state concerns. Freedom House has also faced less splashy criticism for its methodology from academics. 

All this is to say that, not only is Freedom House a political advocacy group, it is one with a reputation particularly fraught with regard to American rivals. This makes it an inappropriate source for discussing, especially in wiki voice, the human rights record of rivals of the American regime. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't suggest taking a general position from a consensus unless it's specifically mentioned in the close. I didn't really take much notice of the discussion other doin some clerking, but that seems an issue that would be best served by its own discussion. It's so broad that it's likely a policy question for [[WT:RS]]/[[WT:V]] or maybe the village pump.<br>As to Freedom House it's probably best that it's use is attributed intext. From looking at [[Transnational repression by China]] there are only two instances where they're the only source, both of which use wikivoice. Rephrasing those two might be appropriate. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::My concern is that, if something is sole-sourced to Freedom House, I'm not certain we should consider that due inclusion due to the... accuracy problems... Freedom House has. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Remember that just because they be the only source ''in the article'' might not mean they are the only source that supports a certain piece of content. But if they are the only source for a specific detail or fact then I would think it undue, but that's not a reliability issue as [[WP:DUE]] / [[WP:BALASP]] are part of [[WP:NPOV]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::If there are accuracy issues you should elaborate on that, your entire focus above is on bias... You don't make any comment on accuracy. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:[https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2024 freedom house also criticizes United states governance regularly, and has it ranked lower than many countries]. apparently, national review considers it anti-conservative.
:maybe we do  wikivoice, but if we do use it, we attribute it, i argue its very much due when discussing any regime's human rights vios [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size:85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 17:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not really overly concerned with where Freedom House falls in the American Overton window. My concern is that we have more than 30 years of criticism of it that points out that Freedom House regularly targets enemies of the American regime and regularly goes easy on allies of the American regime. Right now China is probably America's most significant rival. In light of that I don't know how we can exclude China from the critique that is pretty clear regarding Cuba, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, etc. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340903453716 Here] is a highly-cited paper outlining their biases. [[WP:BIASED]] sources can be used, but should always be attributed in a way that makes their bias clear when cited for things that intersect with their bias (which in Freedom House's case is almost everything we'd want to cite it for.) And when citing biased sources it's important to be cautious about giving one perspective undue weight. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 21:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*:That's the thing: if Freedom House says "China did a bad thing" and no other sources support that is it not undue weight to write about how China did (that) bad thing? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*::And thank you for that paper. {{tq|FH data do not offer an unbroken and politically neutral time series, such that their use for cross-time analyses both for research and policy is questionable.}} kind of says it all. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*::It would still be due, it should just be attributed. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with u:Aquillion and u:ActivelyDisinterested that it should be cited with attribution. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:Its generally reliable but due to its bias should generally be attributed (IMO advocacy organizations should generally always be attributed as a matter of course) [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this point. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 03:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
If Freedom House is critical of certain US rivals, then it's often because these state socialist regimes are genuinely corrupt and engaging in widespread human rights abuses.  That these findings align with and inform US foreign policy doesn't detract from their authenticity. Freedom House is a trusted, well-established and highly-respected outlet (GREL).  Its reports are frequently cited in academic journals, books, and research papers on political science, human rights, and international relations and used as a reference source by academics, policymakers, international organizations, diplomats, journalists etc.  Its findings are corroborated by similar findings by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.  They use a rigorous, transparent methodology based on a well-defined set of criteria. Cuba, on the other hand, is widely regarded as a repressive, authoritarian regime, and Freedom House correctly describes the Cuban government as "Not Free" ([https://freedomhouse.org/country/cuba Freedom House]). It's well-documented that the Cuban ruling regime exploits a bogus state socialist ideology to eliminate civilian political activity, suppress dissent, arbitrarily detain and murder people and maintain tight control over the economy, contributing to severe corruption and mismanagement, which has led to widespread poverty, shortages, and frequent blackouts ([https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/cuba Human Rights Watch]). Citizens who criticize the system are often trapped in this dystopian environment, unable to travel abroad, with exit visas frequently denied ([https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/amr250102009en.pdf Amnesty International]). Nevertheless, many escape without authorization in large numbers, making their way to freedom in the United States ([https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/CUB BTI Transformation Index]). They risk their lives on makeshift rafts to cross the 90 mile strait of Florida under the most dire conditions.  I think that speaks for itself. The Cuban government exploits its citizens by forcing medical professionals and soldiers to work abroad under state-controlled programs, where it retains a substantial portion of their earnings ([https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/08/cuba-secret-deal-to-monetise-medics-working-in-qatar The Guardian]).  It's truly misguided to hold up Cuba as an instance of Freedom House getting it wrong.[[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 06:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is more of a question for the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]]. And it should be regarding specific claims that Freedom House is being cited for. What's being questioned here is whether this source is being used in a neutral or due way. That's an NPOV question, not a RS question.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 13:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:No I brought it here because my understanding is that think tanks are not seen as reliable for statements of fact. I long since lost hope of Wikipedia actually being properly neutral toward China. The articles about pretty much every element of the PRC as a state are pretty much "as told by the BBC" which is a very poor neutrality standard. It's also not something I'm going to ever change on any noticeboard at en.wp. I mean Wikipedia even insists on using the wrong name for the Communist Party of China on the basis of a [[WP:COMMONNAME]] argument derived from Google ngrams - which basically don't count any search activity ''in'' China. The POV of people within China is largely absent from most of our articles on China unless those people are labeled as "dissidents." So I mostly just live with it. Apologies for the off-topic digression. I accept that the opinion here is that this armature of the US State Department is considered reliable with attribution. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
::As a source for statements of fact, I would agree that this is the correct noticeboard. However, nearly everything so far that I've seen discussed above is more of an issue of perspective and bias, which is a neutrality question. The issue of think tanks being reliable for statements of fact has been part of MASSIVE discussions in multiple locations. There was a huge RfC about precisely this issue. I'm not sure what the result was, if there was a consensus.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
::Okay, I went to that RfC page ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature]]), and the result was that there is no consensus. Granted, it was a more specific question, are advocacy groups self-published sources and thus should not be used for claims of fact about living persons other than themselves? But, even that more narrow question didn't have a consensus. Thus your more sweeping claim, that {{tq|think tanks are not seen as reliable for statements of fact}}, does not have consensus. There are editors who agree with you. But there also are others who do not.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[Mariel Molino]]'s [[Heterochomia]] ==

I want to include a sentence in the BLP of [[Mariel Molino]] stating that she has [[Heterochromia iridum|heterochomia]] that can currently only be sourced based on [[WP:SELF]] from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6gGFKA6p4s this YouTube interview]. In her current NCIS Origins role [https://ncis.fandom.com/wiki/Incognito_(NCIS:_Origins_episode) a fan site] says that episode 6 is the first to show a closeup of her face, which can be verified [https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/Dl7WC_zmpMLCv9kVcpawx31xJ0_eDsCm/ 1:40 into this episode]. Her non-RS [https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6568724/ IMDB.com bio] mentions this.  There are many PD pictures that make this claim clear: such as [https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/516300/ncis-origins-meet-the-cast-austin-stowell-mariel-molino-mark-harmon-and-more/ this], [https://tvovermind.com/mariel-molino/ this] and [https://thedirect.com/article/mariel-molino-ncis-origins-actress-wiki-bio-details this].-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 03:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:The video interview would be fine to state she has heterochomia per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. The rest wouldn't be ok. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

== Walker's Research ==

*{{link summary|walkersresearch.com}}
I came across Walker's Research at [[James Clifford (designer)]] which links this as a source (one of just three). The [http://www.walkersresearch.com/Profilepages/Show_Executive_Title/Executiveprofile/J/James_Clifford_Hjelm_400133698.html entry] begins by saying Clifford is {{tq|A truly prestigious designer }}, and ends applauding his {{tq|legendary vision, talent and unmistakable style}} referring to him as "Jim". I didn't find this in the RSN archives and wonder if anyone knows more about it. Without more info I assume this has to be some kind of Who's Who with entries supplied by subjects' publicists. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 04:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Just came back to add that the same source is found at [[Ghislaine Maxwell]], describing her as {{tq|a venture capitalist with a record of successful investment}} and {{tq|diverse philanthropic activities}}. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 04:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:They describe themselves as a business directory, and appear to have previously been a published work. I would expect they are reliable but the entries are not independent of the subject. I would treat it as if it was from the subject themselves, usable but only in certain circumstances ([[WP:ABOUTSELF]]). -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:Both it's use in [[James Clifford (designer)]] and [[Ghislaine Maxwell]] seem ok, as it's only used for non-contentious details. It adds nothing to notability obviously. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

== What is this source? ==

Is [https://isheiisrael.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F/ this] a Wordpress blog or? I don't understand isheiisrael.wordpress.com. The English translation of the about and involvement sections doesn't make clear who controls it, etc so I can't find evidence it is a reliable source. It's being used at [[Edah HaChareidis]] where the editor who added it also managed to break another citation. Thanks. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 12:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:Well the about ain't clear, but it has a blogY feel to it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::Yup. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:Appears to be a self-published source who's authorship is unclear, and I can't find any use by others outside of Wikipedia. Nothing to show it has any reputation as a reliable source. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::The editor who added this, [[User:Esotericmadman]], says he can't see this discussion due to a filter. Maybe pinging him will help. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== Can i use [[Youtube]] as a source for this draft? [[Draft:Talking Tom Cat (2010 video game)]] ==

I want to source a video on [[YouTube]] about the model of the 2004 Talking Tom [[TurboSquid|Turbosquid]] for this draft shown →[[Draft:Talking Tom Cat (2010 video game)]], it's about The 1st Gamer Talking about the original Talking Tom model and Talking Carl, can i use it please? Thank you for seeing this. [[Special:Contributions/14.192.214.181|14.192.214.181]] ([[User talk:14.192.214.181|talk]]) 09:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Can you link the video? Or see [[WP:RSPYT]]. Also, your draft needs [[WP:GNG]]-good sources. If you can't find any, the article will not be accepted. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::YouTube is a platform not a source so we need to know what the video is to see know what the actual source is.--[[Special:Contributions/65.93.194.126|65.93.194.126]] ([[User talk:65.93.194.126|talk]]) 16:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Most material on YouTube is [[WP:SPS]]. I would suggest if a YT video is essential to an article the article won't suit. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] and @[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]], here's the link! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phhbum1gfyA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkYlf8VPMuo, thank you. [[Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D5:E3E1:FDB6:DF2D:6C0C:631C|2001:D08:D5:E3E1:FDB6:DF2D:6C0C:631C]] ([[User talk:2001:D08:D5:E3E1:FDB6:DF2D:6C0C:631C|talk]]) 09:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, around here that is standard [[WP:BLOG]], though he has a lot of subscribers, good for him. I see [[Talking Tom & Friends]] exists.
:::::Here are some sources that might be of use:[https://www.google.se/books/edition/Application_of_Intelligent_Systems_in_Mu/wxB1EAAAQBAJ?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=%22Talking+Tom+Cat%22+2010&pg=PA429&printsec=frontcover][https://venturebeat.com/games/talking-tom-cat-returns-with-an-upgraded-look-and-more-silliness/][https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/weekly-international-iphone-apps-zombie-duck-hunt-talking-tom-cat-2025815.html][https://archive.org/details/givingvoicemobil0000alpe/page/48/mode/2up?q=%22Talking+Tom+Cat%22]. Btw, consider [[WP:REGISTER]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah those are definitely [[WP:SPS]] if this YouTube presenter is an expert who has work published in reliable sources then [[WP:EXPERTSPS]] might apply but it seems unlikely. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== Forbes contributor David Axe ==

Forbes are generally a reliable source except for its Ukraine war reporting. Its usual Russia Ukraine war topic contributor David Axe often post unsourced or unverified reports, as well as sensationalist title. And wiki editors often cite his article at face value despite various inconsistency and absurdity and become source in many Wikipedia articles. It has nothing to do with bias or anything his article are literal disinformation or misinformation. For example, a recent news about purported oreshnik launches were reported and David Axe made an entire reports based on blatant lies only for him to update the article clarifying that oreshnik launches wasn't confirmed yet at the very bottom of the article, here how he write it: 

"But now that fully half of the Oreshniks may have crashed before reaching their targets, the terror missiles are surely becoming less scary by the day.

Update, 8:34 P.M. EST: Twelve hours after the air raid warning in Ukraine, there has been no official confirmation of the purported Oreshnik launch—nor of the purported crash. By now, satellites should have registered the fire that would likely result from such an impact." 

If not outright deprecate his article, at least discourage the usage of forbes article written by David Axe

The link to the article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/02/06/russia-may-have-launched-a-second-oreshnik-ballistic-missile-at-ukraine-but-this-one-reportedly-exploded-on-russian-soil/

This just one of his nonsensical article, not counting other article from the past written by him.

[[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 13:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's already well established that [[WP:FORBESCON|Forbes contributor]] sites are not generally reliable period. I don't see why there's need to discuss this particular one. Do some of David Axe's articles fall as one of the exceptions which would make them an exception and possibly reliable? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think this is a Forbes Contributor site. I checked because that was my initial reaction too. David Axe is staff. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes sorry I noticed that myself and was updating to clarify but got an edit conflict. I wasn't aware that Forbes had moved staff content into the sites section and the OP called them a Forbes contributor so I just assumed they weren't staff but David Axe is indeed listed as Forbes staff. In that case it's more complicated. Sources getting caught up in hype and rumour is unfortunately a bit too common nowadays so I don't think this singular example is really enough to demonstrate a problem. You say there are multiple, can you provide other examples?  [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::::He was a contributor at one point, the switch to staff is recent and I think says more about how desperate Forbes is for cheap coverage of Ukraine than anything else (the quality hasn't gone up, hes still their worst contributor in the space... There are good ones, HI Sutton for example, but Axe is pathetically bad) The only good thing about Axe is that he is prolific, Forbes seems to have him writing more than an article a day... From a reliability standpoint thats just absurd though... Quality authors in this space are more like an article a week or even less. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:Axe is complete dogshit, it doesn't matter what low tier source he is writing for he's bad. His pieces are full of errors, lies, and half truths in a way that literally nobody else writing in the defense space is... He isn't even consistently wrong like you'd get with ideological bias, he's just an incompetent journalist who remains employed because he will put out inches for less money than anyone else in the game. His best articles are the churnalism where he just restates what someone more competent than him has said. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::He also publish his article daily, which can explain why many of his article were low quality and were quickly sourced from some random Twitter account or even pro Ukraine twitter translated Russian telegram post instead of taking times asking opinions from reputable experts or analyst. Most mainstream media such as Reuter, the guardian, Al Jazeera, WSJ and other example at least actually made some effort to gather source from experts and carefully quoting Ukrainian government claims instead taking their claims as fact and even putting a paragraph clarifying that Ukrainian statement are not verified yet. Even if I'm not agree with mainstream media, at least they were a miles better than whatever trash David Axe has written. [[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 04:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:Remember that it's not "reliable" it's "''generally'' reliable". Just because a source is usually reliable doesn't mean that every article it's publishes is reliable. Apart from that I'm not seeing the issue here, there is a clear comment at the top of the article stating that {{tq|"The headline and article have been updated to clarify that a report of the missile launch was false"}}. Sources making corrections is a sign of reliability, it is uncorrected mistakes that show a problem. The basic issue appears to be the tendency to write minute by minute updates about such events, which inevitably results in situations such as this. All media is chasing viewership and so sensational reporting of breaking events is painfully common. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::Based on Horse Eye's Back's comments above I'd say this is a case where in a specific domain (articles about the UKR/RUS war written by David Axe) a generally reliable source is not reliable. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Not just UKR/RUS, all defense/IR... All of his writing that I've seen is that bad. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::I have never seen a reliable article from David Axe and I've seen hundreds. If someone can present high quality content he's written (maybe there is a publication that pays him better I've never read) I would be willing to reconsider my position but until then the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to argue that his articles are better than dogshit. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I 100% agree with Horse Eye's Back on this. Beyond the general poor track record of some of the outlets Axe writes for, his work is sloppy, poorly researched and fact-checked, and highly opinionated in ways that he lacks the capacity to substantiate. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately, because he was a staff of Forbes no longer just a contributor, making his article become official part of Forbes itself, many Wikipedia pages were sourced on David Axe article because Forbes article including those written by staff were considered generally reliable and that logic applied to David Axe dogshit articles. [[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 04:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to bat for him LOL - if you say he's routinely bad your word plus the sample article are good enough for me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Thats a response to ActivelyDisinterested, but I will be surprised if there is anyone in the world willing to go to bat for Axe... [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::My point was that although Forbes is considered generally reliable that doesn't mean everything they publish is reliable, and that such issues are best handled on a case by case basis. David Axe will get some credibility having been employed by Forbes, but that doesn't mean his reporting is beyond criticism. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Ugh. As HEB notes Axe was a former contributor (Forbes' self-publishing platform with explicit disclaimers and editorial oversight that is zero or light). If you look at [https://web.archive.org/web/20200622014343/https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/21/china-can-sink-american-ships-faster-than-america-can-replace-them/ this article] from when he was a contributor, the disclaimer is there. Now that he's "staff", they've retroactively removed the disclaimers ([https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/21/china-can-sink-american-ships-faster-than-america-can-replace-them/ see current]). That's not good and makes evaluating older additions difficult. ''[[User:Kuru|Sam '''Kuru''']] [[User_talk:Kuru|(talk)]]'' 22:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Not just that, he even write some few articles for Telegraph, also a reliable news website. Despite his low quality articles, he has the "credibility" because the news agency he wrote for is considered reliable. For example in telegraph he wrote about how the purported north Korean soldiers (if they actually existed) picking up "Russian habit" being used as cannon fodder or as human wave and die en masse, and his source for north Korean death is from random obscure telegram channel that only shows some infantry walking. Such statement isn't just racist asiatic horde tropes but also without evidence. Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. Here's the article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/18/north-korea-troops-kursk-human-wave-deaths-ukraine/ [[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 03:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::If you read many his article, most of them are unsourced bullshit with his own "research". At one point he have the audacity for example claiming the Russian has "40k deaths in just several days" while not providing evidence, not even Ukrainian source. I'm not saying Forbes should be disregard as unreliable source, Forbes in general are reliable when it's not about Ukraine war, but at least make an exception for article made by David Axe. A lot of editor using his article as source or citation despite various error and misinformation he made. [[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 03:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|1=I have never seen a reliable article from David Axe and I've seen hundreds}}<br>Here is one [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/11/21/the-mysterious-ballistic-missile-russia-fired-at-ukraine-was-created-by-sneaky-treaty-dodgers/ The New Missile Russia Fired At Ukraine Was Made By Treaty-Dodgers] [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 14:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Thats a hard no... Did you even read the article? For example he says "Depending on the angle at which it’s fired, the RS-26 could travel slightly more than 3,400 miles. That would make it an ICBM. But it’s more comfortably an IRBM that ranges fewer than 3,400 miles." when the firing angle is going to be the same in every case... He means trajectory but he said something completely different. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::The sentence is correct. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 19:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ok, then what are the different firing angles? As far as I know the RS-26 launches vertically, meaning that all launches would have the same firing angle, but I'm open to being wrong. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It just states that RS-26, given its range up to 3400, is an IRBM, thats all. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 19:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It says that the range varies "Depending on the angle at which it’s fired" which is not correct, it varies depending on trajectory and/or payload weight but not the angle at which it’s fired. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|1=the range varies "Depending on the angle at which it’s fired" which is not correct}}<br>It's correct, just the simplification. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It isn't... Even if you want to argue that its a "simplification" of trajectory (which doesn't make sense as there are rocket artillery systems where range is largely determined by the angle at which it is fired) the actual reliable sources seem to all say that its much more about payload weight (the early tests to ICBM ranges being done with minimal or no payload). [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::''Depending on the angle at which it’s fired, the RS-26 could travel slightly more than 3,400 miles'' is correct, if simplified. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 22:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're repeating yourself... I just explained why that isn't correct. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq|1=I just explained}}<br>... by criticizing something that source doesn't say. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 11:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This is getting absurd, "Depending on the angle at which it’s fired" is a direct quote... That is literally what the source says. You're the one saying "Well actually it says one thing, but it really means two totally different things" [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|12}} {{tq|1="Depending on the angle at which it’s fired" is a direct quote}}<br>and it's correct. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, maybe I'm missing something... Can you explain how it is correct? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm no expert but if the angle is close to 45deg the missile goes further, if the angle is 50-80deg the missile falls shorter. that's how ''Depending on the angle at which it’s fired'' it can reach different distances. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 21:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes you are clearly no expert... This system is fired at a 90 degree angle every time. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::To clarify a bit further as to what HEB is saying here -- large IRBM and ICBMs, even when road-mobile, are too heavy to safely launch at anything other than vertical angles. They're always launched at near-vertical angles, as they can maneuver during the powered flight/boost phase portion of their launch, during which they orient to their programmed attitude for their specified flight profile. In the case of the RS-26 and many other MIRV-capable ballistic missiles, they may continue to maneuver throughout the mid-course phase as well. TL;DR ballistic missiles aren't truly "ballistic" in the first 30-90 seconds or so of their flight, thus firing angle, trajectory, and point of impact are three different and independent factors that can't be assumed from or conflated with each other. What Axe is attempting to get at (but mangling the terminology) in his quote is the degree of loft to the trajectory of the flight -- however regardless of whether it's a lofted, minimum-energy, or depressed trajectory, on a missile the size of an RS-26 the firing angle is not going to differ. What's unclear is whether Axe simply misused the terminology or actually doesn't know how the missiles he's reporting on are launched. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 20:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::"This system is fired at a 90 degree angle every time"
::::::And then veers, at an angle, to get to somewhere that isn't straight up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 09:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No they normally go pretty much straight up until they've cleared the thickest of the atmosphere and then they maneuver. None of this addresses the fact that the reliable sources say that the key with this system isn't trajectory its payload weight which Axe doesn't mention. Here is what an actual reliable source says: "In a second test in May 2012, Russia demonstrated that the RS-26 could reach an intercontinental range, although it was widely assumed that this was only achieved with a light payload or no payload at all. Subsequent tests strongly indicated the missile couldn’t fly beyond intermediate ranges with an actual warhead, which would have put it in contravention of the INF had it been fielded operationally prior to 2019."[https://www.twz.com/land/the-story-of-russias-secretive-rs-26-intermediate-range-ballistic-missile] [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:Is there critique of Axe outside of Wikipedia? [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 02:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::Most of his criticism came from the readers themselves. [[User:Dauzlee|Dauzlee]] ([[User talk:Dauzlee|talk]]) 03:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::Axe did not have a good look in the 2012 controversy where he falsely reported (based on a misinterpreted quote where Axe claims he failed to hear his source specify "hypothetical scenario") that the U.S. was conducting military action in North Korea. He ultimately gave a half-hearted apology, but it cost his source their career. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-denies-n-korea-commando-operation/2012/05/29/gJQA4viVyU_story.html Washington Post coverage of the denial.] That's a pretty consequential oopsie not to seek independent confirmation on. As an aside, due to what presumably is the result of a merge of War is Boring, the [[David Axe]] article contains a "Notable articles" section in which none of the entries were written by David Axe.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 03:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah I think thats the result of a not so great merge... Axe wasn't even at War is Boring when some of those stories were published, he was run out of there in 2019 (which doesn't suggest that hes good at his job). [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:*All I could find is [https://www.kyivpost.com/post/46739 this]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 17:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
'''GREL'''. Axe has an extensive and highly respected footprint in well-established media outlets and his reporting is relied on by countless consequential organizations and individuals.  Anyways, the fact that he is a staff writer at Forbes, a highly prestigious outlet, speaks for itself.  The errors in question were corrected almost simultaneously with this RSN topic being posted (which I'd note has ''not'' yet been corrected by OP to reflect that the article has got a whole new headline and an explanation at the top[https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/02/06/russia-may-have-launched-a-second-oreshnik-ballistic-missile-at-ukraine-but-this-one-reportedly-exploded-on-russian-soil/]).  Every journalist publishes errors--the reliable ones correct their errors in a timely fashion.  Axe has been widely cited by academics and policy analysts[https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/isec_a_00257.pdf][https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/HJS-Military-Lessons-for-NATO-from-the-Russia-Ukraine-War-Report-web-002.pdf][https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=eilr] at least one Democratic-run congressional committee[https://democrats-armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/2/b/2bfb0934-1745-4c80-8e21-205915e97cfb/772F199ECD13FDE175B0AF7877E6AA92.challenge-of-isf-06-25-07-vf.pdf], and featured as a speaker in academic panel discussions[https://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/events/army-of-god-joseph-konys-war-in-central-africa-book-discussion-with-authors-david-axe-and-tim-hamilton/]. He is well-respected for his "hard-hitting"[https://www.amazon.com/War-Boring-Bored-Scared-Worlds/dp/0451230116] journalism,[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je-VYrGpFdc] has written for numerous highly regarded outlets including ''The Telegraph'', ''The Daily Beast'', ''Wired'', ''The Atlantic'', and ''NBC News''[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/05/trump-military-purge-woke-generals-us-armed-forces/][https://www.thedailybeast.com/author/david-axe][https://www.usni.org/people/david-axe][https://www.wired.com/author/david-axe/][https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/what-trump-doesn-t-get-nukes-size-really-doesn-t-ncna801621], was a guest speaker on NBC News' ''The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell''[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42956993] and was the subject of a feature documentary about his career,[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4312706/?ref_=tt_mv_close] which is a testament to his impact and the quality of his work, which I may add, is commendable for his willingness to report under such dangerous conditions. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manuductive|contribs]]) </small>
::Forbes is not a highly prestigious outlet. The majority of the errors in question have not been corrected. You have failed to demonstrate that Axe has been widely cited by academics and policy analysts. "Hard hitting" is from a [[Publishers Weekly]] review of his 2010 book and you have no demonstrated that he is well respected, you've demonstrated that he gets some passing mentions. Thats not an academic panel discussion, its a book discussion and the other person is a cartoonist not an academic... You're misrepresenting it. You don't appear to have checked your own links, what he wrote for the Daily Beast was all [[churnalism]]... Thats the opposite of hard hitting journalism. He hasn't written for Wired since 2013, that can't support a contention that he is currently reliable. Likewise he hasn't written for USNI since 2009. That NBC piece is an opinion piece. Being a guest speaker on an opinion program means nothing. The documentary doesn't appear notable, or successful and doesn't appear to objectively analyze any of his work so not sure how you're able to spin it as "a testament to his impact and the quality of his work." [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::He does get cited a lot.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8852855913028436517&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2259251679123634136&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3028699402440202690&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15368018578756638688&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11304464928116331677&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8014468535765424075&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en]  Can you cite some of the articles you referred to with factual errors going uncorrected for a long time?  There hasn't been anything tangible linked in this whole discussion except maybe somebody splitting hairs about the "angle" of a missile system better being described as its "trajectory".  Somebody mentioned that his reference to the Russian military's well-documented tactic of [[Human wave attack|mass infantry assaults]] is a "racist trope", which is your typical woke BS argumentation against common sense and common knowledge.  The Russian military has suffered immense casualties in the wars they've fought with large numbers of poorly trained and equipped soldiers being shunted out on the front lines in meat waves.[https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/01/19/avdiivka-ukraine-drone-russian-troops-pleitgen-vpx.cnn#:~:text=MUST%20WATCH-,Video%20captures%20Ukrainian%20'meat%20assaults'%20on%20Russian%20troops,despite%20being%20outgunned%20and%20outmanned][https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/12/14/north-korean-forces-may-have-launched-mass-infantry-assaults-in-kursk/][https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-troops-inch-forward-ukraines-east-with-waves-bombs-infantry-2024-08-02/] [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::No, its not only that he confused angle and trajectory its that reliable sources reported that the defining difference was likely payload weight, not trajectory... Its wrong on two levels. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Is that your only example that you're hanging your hat on?  I thought you said he is "total dogshit" and full of errors that never go corrected.  In such a vast body of work in prominent outlets, you'd think you could find at least a handful of examples.  Sounds like you're really nit-picking about this, and the other editor already contended with you a great deal about your interpretation on that weapon info.  As we know, reliable sources can sometimes disagree, and it's up to us to portray the dispute, not take sides. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::No, that was in an article which was presented by another editor as an example of Axe's best work. Its not nit-picking, its a very important point and Axe gets it really wrong. If put into [[RS-26]] it could cause problem, it isn't a difference of opinion... Axe isn't an expert in ballistic missiles, he isn't [[Jeffrey Lewis (academic)]]... Axe isn't taking a side in a dispute, he's describing the views of others poorly. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You have not cited a single document to verify your claim that {{tq|Depending on the angle at which it’s fired, the RS-26 could travel slightly more than 3,400 miles. That would make it an ICBM. But it’s more comfortably an IRBM that ranges fewer than 3,400 miles.}} is false.<br><br>You have not cited a single document to verify your contention that {{tq|the firing angle is going to be the same in every case... He means trajectory but he said something completely different ... As far as I know the RS-26 launches vertically, meaning that all launches would have the same firing angle, '''but I'm open to being wrong'''.}} (emphasis added)<br><br>Sorry if your unverified allegations don't inspire confidence.<br><br>It seems like common sense that the word "angle" could be a simplification for his readers of the word "trajectory", which would ''obviously'' affect the range, as would the mass of the payload.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, and that's hardly a compelling example of a factual error.  It seems like you're grasping at straws.<br><br>And, again, I'm sorry but--let's say it is actually an error--a single factual error that seems pretty marginal does not demonstrate what you're saying.  I've already asked you for more examples, which should be easy to come up with if, as you say, David Axe's writing is all complete dogshit.  But since you still haven't provided any, my best AGF assumption is that you looked and couldn't find anything. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 21:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I already provided one source which emphasises payload and not trajectory being the key element but here is another "The RS-26 Rubezh is a Russian solid-fueled, road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) currently in development. Although classified as an ICBM under the New START Treaty, the RS-26 has been tested with heavier payloads at ranges below 5,500 km, potentially putting Russia in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty."[https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ss-x-31-rs-26-rubezh/] [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The sources you provided verify that the missile can go further with a light payload.  What it ''doesn't'' do is falsify that firing it at a different angle can affect the range. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 21:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Thats only part of the claim... The other is that its angle/trajectory that makes the difference with the RS-26 in terms of whether its an IRBM or an ICBM... The reliable sources solely make that distinction based on payload weight. It doesn't make any sense either, from a trajectory perspective a weapon like this is very comfortable at more or less max range (suppressed and lofted trajectories can hit targets closer in but it isn't "more comfortable" its less) but that "comfortable" range varies based on payload weight... The key point is that with a reasonable payload weight these missiles are not capable of hitting ICBM ranges no matter what trajectory they're on. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I see your argument about the sources emphasizing that the Russians used a light payload to game the treaty.  But you did just admit that {{tq|suppressed and lofted trajectories can hit targets closer in}}, which technically goes along with what Axe wrote.  Please, can you cite that stuff about comfort. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 22:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::: You missed the key part, which is that with a reasonable payload weight these missiles are not capable of hitting ICBM ranges no matter what trajectory they're on. It does not technically go along with what Axe wrote. If you mean verification that the RS-26 launches vertically I suggest you see the sources already provided. I would also note that in general Russian/Soviet missiles of this size ([[RT-2PM Topol], [[RT-2PM2 Topol-M]], [[RS-24 Yars]], ] etc) are all vertically launched. All comparable systems in other countries are also vertical launch, [[Agni-V]], [[DF-41]], [[Hwasong-18]] etc. I have no idea why you would even question that, that seems like common knowledge. We have literally verified that  "Depending on the angle at which it’s fired, the RS-26 could travel slightly more than 3,400 miles. That would make it an ICBM. But it’s more comfortably an IRBM that ranges fewer than 3,400 miles." is false. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Articles are written with necessary word depth. Here, {{tq|1=Depending on the angle at which it’s fired}} means the missile's programming puts it at the programmed trajectory, but the author's goal wasn't to be that precise. Still reliable enough. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 22:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::And how do you get from there to weight? Because it needs to be weight to match the actual reliable sources... [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{outdent|0}} So, we attended your complaint about vertical launch inconsistencies and found it to be not proven.{{pb}}Now we are ready to move to a new complaint.<br>{{tq|1=it needs to be weight to match the actual reliable sources}}<br>No "match" required, the article is correct within its scope. Nowhere it says weight has no effect. It is not required the article to elaborate on every aspect of the problem, it's not a technical launch guide or a study book. It's ok to not to be comprehensive on some details. If it would be mentioning weight, there would still be a space for a criticism for it not mentioning weather and earth rotation and so on. No we aren't going in these details. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 21:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Axe emphasized angle, while these other reference sources emphasize weight.  Does that mean angle wasn't a factor in how they manipulated the test launch to pass IRBM muster?  No.  Does it mean payload was more important than angle and therefore Axe emphasis was misleading?  Possibly, but that is your own interpretation as a Wikipedia editor, and it's not directly verified by any of the sources, and this minutia on its own definitely doesn't show that Axe's whole body of reporting is unreliable. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 22:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::<s>No, you haven't verified it.  You've verified that other sources mention payload mass as a determining factor. But can you find me a source that says {{tq|with a reasonable payload weight these missiles are not capable of hitting ICBM ranges no matter what trajectory they're on}}?</s>  Anyways, Axe's claim isn't even about the missile being incapable of going that far.  You are doing quite a bit of [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] here.  He said that when they tested it they angled it to hit the max range, which makes sense. Your argument that "he is the only one who talks about angle" is not compelling, and it doesn't prove that it's false.  In fact, such claims about range and angle are corroborated[https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRAINE-CRISIS/RUSSIA-MISSILE/gdpzknajgvw/] {{tq|The warheads descended on Dnipro at a steep angle, he noted, which implied the missile had been launched on a "lofted" trajectory: fired to an unusually high apogee, or maximum altitude, to reduce range.}} And [https://www.twz.com/news-features/russias-unprecedented-ballistic-missile-attack-on-ukraine-what-we-know].  Anyways, unless you come forth with some quality sources to verify what you're saying, I am going to drop the stick with this missile nonsense.  If this is the only example you have of David Axe ever committing an uncorrected factual error in all the stuff he's put out (and it is your only example) then that's a pretty amazing record. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 22:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This is a noticeboard, synthesis is allowed. I have provided quality sources and you haven't dropped the stick, you've stalked me to my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1275939323][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1275939562][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1275939714] and another article page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musk_family&diff=prev&oldid=1275940514]. The linked quote is literally from Jeffrey Lewis, the expert who you have dismissed in favor of Axe. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::You are totally mistaken.  <s>Original research is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.</s>  But I'm glad you're acknowledging that all of this has been your OR.  Yes, I cited the Jeffrey Lewis quote because it supports David Axe's claim and undermines your opposition to the concept that the Russians used angle to alter the missile's range.  A user talk page post is the appropriate place to discuss your ongoing issue with conducting original research, and it just so happens that you are conducting OR on that other page as well, and a BLP violation at that, which we are instructed to immediately take down if we come across it.  You don't own any of these pages. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 00:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::[[WP:OR]]: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." The Lewis quote does not support Axe's claim and Lewis would probably call you a very uncivil name for suggesting that, or maybe just laugh at the absurdity of it all. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

=== Forbes.com authors who change roles ===
This discussion raises the question of how to treat Forbes.com authors who change roles. For example, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#c-Kuru-20250207224600-ActivelyDisinterested-20250207205800|as Kuru mentioned above]], David Axe was a Forbes.com contributor who was later hired as a ''Forbes'' staff writer. Upon becoming a staff writer, ''Forbes'' changed the byline of all of Axe's articles that he wrote as a contributor to "Forbes Staff" (e.g. [https://web.archive.org/web/20200622014343/https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/21/china-can-sink-american-ships-faster-than-america-can-replace-them/#502092e6b45c June 2020 version] vs. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/21/china-can-sink-american-ships-faster-than-america-can-replace-them/ current version]). A review of [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/archive/ Axe's article archive] shows that Axe became a Forbes.com contributor [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/archive/2020/05/ in May 2020] and, according to the [[Wayback Machine]], his byline changed from "Contributor" to "Forbes Staff" between [https://web.archive.org/web/20201201095025/https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/11/30/its-no-surprise-the-us-navy-will-scrap-the-scorched-uss-bonhomme-richard-the-fleet-is-terrible-at-repairing-ships/?sh=7985e5c02a9d 1 December 2020] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20201202032949/https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/11/30/its-no-surprise-the-us-navy-will-scrap-the-scorched-uss-bonhomme-richard-the-fleet-is-terrible-at-repairing-ships/?sh=712fc9f02a9d 2 December 2020] UTC.
{{pb}}Did ''Forbes'' review all 169 articles that Axe published between May and November 2020 with the thoroughness that they would review a newly published article by an existing staff writer, prior to changing Axe's byline? If so, were any corrections published as a result of these reviews? Are there any other examples of contributors-turned-staffers that provide additional data points? In the case that ''Forbes'' does not adequately review articles of contributors-turned-staffers upon changing their bylines, these articles should be considered [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]] due to the lack of editorial oversight associated with other [[WP:FORBESCON|Forbes.com contributor articles]].
{{pb}}On the other hand, any ''Forbes'' staff writer who leaves the publication has their byline adjusted to [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2024/10/28/the-industrial-giant-dialing-back-remote-work-for-managers/ "Former Staff"]. Because staff-written articles were reviewed by editors during publication, they should still be considered [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]] even after the author's departure. However, it is unclear whether former staff members are able to continue to write articles for Forbes.com as contributors and retain the "Former Staff" byline, without the editorial oversight that staff-written articles are subject to. If a Forbes.com article is originally published by an author with the "Former Staff" byline, should that article be treated as staff-written or contributor-written?
{{pb}}One solution to cover both cases would be to judge the provenance of Forbes.com articles based on the author's byline at the time of publication. A [[web archiving]] service such as the Wayback Machine or [[archive.today]] would be the best way to confirm this. Such a solution would still need clarification on how new articles from former ''Forbes'' staff writers should be treated.
{{pb}}(I understand that a ''Forbes'' staff writer can be considered less than generally reliable based on the writer's own track record. This question focuses on Forbes.com authors who change roles as a general case, and not solely Axe.) —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 08:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
* If Forbes is changing the designation of contributors who become staff writers retroactively, the amount of effort necessary to confirm that a staff writer was actually a staff writer at the time when the work was written becomes so high that I feel it impacts Forbes' reliability as a whole - if Forbes isn't making it clear what has and hasn't gone through their editorial controls (something that was already a problem with [[WP:FORBESCON]] stuff but which this pushes front and center), can it really be considered an RS at all? I think we should consider just declaring all of Forbes to be yellow / unclear, highlighting the fact that editors need to be extremely cautious with it. A yellow entry on RSP would encourage editors to double-check (I think most people rely on RSP for an at-a-glance sniff test, and are not likely to look deeper once they see Forbes is green, especially since it's big-name enough that most people's gut reactions are likely to be to ''assume'' that anything there is reliable - especially given how FORBESCON stuff is very clearly intended to look like ordinary reporting.) Right now things aren't great - just at a quick glance over things we're currently citing to forbes.com/sites, it took me only three links to find [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeseq/2023/08/18/playing-to-win-in-the-us-market/ this extremely unusable source] (it's not only FORBESCON but sponsored, meaning it's basically an ad) being used in [[United States]].) And there's a bunch more cites to contributors. Honestly I feel like we might want to do an in-depth survey of forbes.com/sites in particular - it's used in 30,000+ pages and if outright ads like the above are slipping in as sources, that's a problem. I wonder if we could run a bot to find and tag (or otherwise note down) cites to Forbes contributor or especially Brandvoice things; part of the issue is that it can't be determined from the URL, making it a pain to push back against. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 21:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
*:If Forbes is actually such a suspect source, it should be easy to find a handful of articles with regular bylines that contain uncorrected factual errors--but nobody here has done so, except for one very bogged down and ambiguous case that leans heavily on a wikipedia editor's own inferences.  That paid article is prominently labeled as "Brand Contributor BRANDVOICE| Paid Program".  The Guardian, New York Times, HuffPost, and CNN all publish content like that.  Are you going to marginalize those sources too? That is not a problem with Forbes' editorial integrity that needs to be fixed by downgrading Forbes.  It's a problem with the Wikipedia editor who actually knew it was unreliable, or should have known, and they just chose to use it anyway.  As for the question of Forbes bylines being changed after a long period of time due to personnel changes, it's not a huge amount of work to pop it into the wayback machine and read the byline.  Anyways, until ''any'' tangible evidence of erroneous reporting can be furnished, it's safe to assume that Forbes editors are doing a good job. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 22:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
*::Forbes deliberately mixes unvetted blogging content in with its own staff material to make it seem authoritative in a way that {{tq|The Guardian, New York Times, HuffPost, and CNN}} absolutely do not, and this has been highlighted by journalism outlets such as the Columbia Journalism Review [https://www.cjr.org/innovations/newsrooms_boost_traffic.php]/ and Nieman Lab [https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism] [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::Those are the contributor pieces that we already know about with the distinct bylines.  The CJR piece discusses how other WP:RS outlets do the same thing {{tq|The concept of stuffing a website with free content started with new-media outlets like The Huffington Post.}} [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 23:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
*::Keep in mind that a yellow RSP entry does not mean "always unreliable, remove on sight" (technically even the red GUNREL doesn't mean that!) A yellow RSP entry means "use with caution", which is the case here due to Forbes' blasé attitude towards attribution. If I thought they were generally unreliable I would be arguing that they're generally unreliable; the point is that we all agree that contributor pieces are GUNREL, and if Forbes is mixing them into their other pieces in a way that makes it impossible to easily distinguish them by bylines, then that renders all of Forbes' reporting "use with caution" by default. Above, you said that {{tq|those are the contributor pieces that we already know about with the distinct bylines}} - but they ''don't'' always have distinct bylines anymore, that's the entire problem! If a contributor later becomes staff (which seems to happen reasonably often), Forbes goes back and updates all their previous work to say that it was by Forbes staff, even though the earlier stuff never went through Forbes' editorial controls. It seems ''extremely'' unlikely that they are going back and vetting all that, so that means we can no longer rely on bylines to determine which pieces lack reliability - and that, in turn, renders all of Forbes a "use with caution" source, because you have to take seriously in-depth steps that most people wouldn't know about (using eg. archive.org) to determine if anything there is actually reliable. A green entry is usually taken to mean "you don't have to worry too much, stuff from here can be presumed usable by default" and that's no longer the case with Forbes in general, ''even under the Forbes staff byline''. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 13:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
*I broadly agree with Aquillion. If Forbes routinely changes ''all'' of an author's content to reflect their ''current'' position, rather than their position at the time of publication, then this should be clearly stated on RSP. I agree that most people (myself included, as much as I'd try to avoid it) are going to look at Forbes on RSP, see "green", read what it says... but then when they're actually thinking about it hours/days/weeks later to use Forbes as a source... they're going to remember "oh, Forbes was green meaning I can use it". This is what yellow on RSP ''should'' be used for - anything that is not universally reliable but requires some extra form of investigation/consideration. Yellow does ''not'' mean people should remove Forbes (or any yellow source) by default, nor does it mean it should be "de-prioritized" (i.e. less preferred) than a green source. It simply means that additional considerations may apply. I will follow this with a recommended addition to the entry (regardless if it's turned to yellow or not), with the addition after the green talk quote.{{pb}}{{tq|Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. Per below, this excludes articles written by Forbes.com contributors (or "Senior Contributors") and Forbes Advisor.}} Note that some individuals may have written articles as contributors but later be hired as staff who are subject to editorial oversight (or be written by staff who are no longer staff), and the byline on the article on the date of access may not reflect the editorial oversight (if any) that was applied on the date of publication. As such, editors wishing to use a Forbes article as a source should confirm the author's status as of publication to confirm that it was subject to editorial oversight, rather than written as a contributor without editorial oversight who later became staff.{{pb}}I'm of the opinion that making such a change to add this information should not really require a full RfC - but it's possible that changing it to yellow (solely to ensure people read these considerations and take them into account) would require such an RfC. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 23:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

== Statista (again) ==

[[WP:RSP]]'s current summary of [[Statista]] at [[WP:STATISTA]] is "Statista aggregates statistical information from a number of sources, many of which are reliable. It is not the source of the statistics it displays, so should not be cited directly. It may be useful as a research tool to find sources of statistical information."

This is false. While it does aggregate statistics, it is also the source of some statistics it displays [https://www.statista.com/outlook/methodology]. It "creates approximately half of its content internally in Hamburg, Germany. This internal data focuses mainly on trends and forecasts for markets, industries, companies, and economies."[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08963568.2022.2087018] The paper that is quoting from says "According to their website, all content on Statista undergoes a tested multi-stage peer-review process prior to publication. This content covers 22 main industries, over 170 sub-industries, and more than 160 countries."

Whether the data Statista produces is appropriate for use in wikivoice, attributed, or not at all is the next question.  
*The above quoted paper rules favorably.
*A paper in [[Nature Communications]], after reviewing the above paper, describes Statista as "a reliable secondary source for firm revenues." [the paper was using it for statistics on firm revenues][https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49141-z]

This is positive evidence, albeit weak. It appears to be possibly appropriate for attributed use. The [[WP:USEBYOTHERS]] is extensive ([https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/our-expert-sources/ This Wirecutter piece] describing Statista as an "authoritative published work", Googling site:washingtonpost.com "Statista" etc) but it is unclear if distinctions are being drawn between in-house and aggregated data. There is the obvious issue of the paywall system making it hard to distinguish internal vs aggregated research, but [[WP:PAYWALL]] should apply. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 07:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:Context: I am looking at attributing Statista data made in-house re; white chocolate market trends. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 08:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know about the specific instance you're discussing, but Stastica also at times uses Wikipedia as a source. So in general it shouldn't be used. Remember that "Generally unreliable" doesn't mean it can never be used, reliability ultimately depends on the [[WP:RSCONTEXT|context]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this. I'm fine with tweaking the wording if it's less than accurate, but it's still generally unusable either way. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm more interested in help on data Statista is generating rather than aggregating for the purposes I'm dealing with. {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}, when you say they use Wikipedia as a source, I'm presuming you are referring to Wikipedia being a source of aggregated data? [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 16:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen it listed as a source, unfortunately in many cases it's not clear what or how data has been used. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== D.C. Douglas ==

Hello. Can any entry on [https://dcdouglas.com/voiceover-actor-blog/ D.C. Douglas's blog] (most of which are currently written by TSG Management) be used as a reliable source (even for [https://dcdouglas.com/voiceover-resources/ biographies on other voice actors])? [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 14:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:It should be reliable for D.C. Douglas, but as a self published source it probably shouldn't be used for other living people. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Of course, we can use the personal blog when the owner is an otherwise recognized published expert. For news-type blogs, however, there has to be an editorial staff that selects writers (in this case, it's most likely TSG Management, but I could be wrong) as opposed to open contributions. That said, I wonder if there's an editorial policy on this particular blog. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 16:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[UDiscoverMusic]] ==

Can this source be a reliable source? [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 14:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:About basic details I would think so, but it's not independent of Universal Music Group and also serves as a store for their artists. So I would be more cautious with anything that seems overly promotional. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for the information! [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 16:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== Greek fishing boat fire ==

we did not tow that boat to port  it was turned over to a German liner   I was there !! [[Special:Contributions/68.194.252.133|68.194.252.133]] ([[User talk:68.194.252.133|talk]]) 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think you might be lost, this is the page to discuss the reliability of sources. I think you're looking for the talk page of a particular article. If you give me some details maybe I can point you to the right place.<br>In general though, editors are never considered reliable sources, as they say "[[On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog]]". Instead you need to find something that has been published so anyone reading the article can check the details for themselves. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== curicopedia.org ==

Would this website be considered a reliable source? Appears to be a Chilean-wiki and user generated content? Someone is arguing for its use in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Aravena]]. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 02:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Their about page[http://curicopedia.org/acerca-de/] makes it they are user generated, per [[WP:UGC]] it's not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes and doesn't add anything for notability assessments. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::It's not user-generated, I have read that page before and it used to be a wiki but it seems now to be mantained by a person or a group only, it's not open for editing, and converted from MediaWiki to WordPress. [[User:Bedivere|Bedivere]] ([[User talk:Bedivere|talk]]) 22:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::So it was user generated and is now maintained by a smaller group? -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::It appears you have to email them to get an account to edit the encyclopedia, but that appears to be open to anyone with local knowledge and there doesn't appear to be any sign of editorial control. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It's very clearly user-generated. Be it a collaborative blog or an open wiki. "''Generated daily by volunteers''", "''Everyone can participate''" - and an invitation to contact them if you want to edit the material. Would you mind linking to the portion of the site that notes they removed all of the user-generated material and are now under editorial control? ''[[User:Kuru|Sam '''Kuru''']] [[User_talk:Kuru|(talk)]]'' 23:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== Mathworld revisited ==

I have recently been working on adding references to articles primarily related to Greek letters. I'm concerned about some shortcomings in these articles, mainly related to the inconsistent general structure as well as the paucity of references. Addressing this is beyond my personal capacity so I tried eliciting support with a post on the talk page of wiki project science. [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science#Concerns about articles covering Greek letters|post]]

While waiting to see if other editors might be willing to get involved, I decided to pick away at adding some references. I have references to a variety of papers and textbooks but there are three sources of used multiple times:

* [https://dlmf.nist.gov/NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions]
* The manual of scientific style : a guide for authors, editors, and researchers Harold Rabinowitz, Suzanne Vogel 978-0123739803
* [https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ Mathworld]

The third of these prompted an editor to point me to two discussions, one an earlier discussion on this page now archived, and another on the talk page of wiki project mathematics, also archived: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Mar#Is Wolfram Mathworld reliable?|WikiProject_Mathematics]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 432#MathWorld|Reliable_sources/Noticeboard]]

I'm totally on board with the general comment expressed by {{ping|Trovatore}}: {{tq|We should really strain to avoid using tertiary sources when good secondary sources are available.}} I will add that this was in the discussion of its use in mathematical articles generally, while my usage in articles about Greek letters as "standard" usage is something more generally expected to be found in tertiary sources such as textbooks. Secondary sources obviously use Greek letters commonly and while the authors may take care to choose a particular letter reflecting its most common meaning, it is quite rare for them to explicitly state the reasoning behind the choice of symbol. That's much more common in a textbook where it's not unusual to say that a particular letter is commonly used for a particular phenomenon.

I'll also agree with the observation of {{ping|Tito Omburo}} who said: {{tq|...no one should balk at having MathWorld replaced by a much better source in many cases.}} I'm totally supportive of anyone who wishes to provide better sources, but when I started this there were literally hundreds of statements almost all of which were unsourced. While truly bad sources are worse than nothing, I think sources that may be less than gold standard are far better than the sea of unsourced claims. My present activities are adding sources when I find them but sometimes I will struggle to find a source and I hope to address those later with the possibility that some claims are incorrect and should be removed. One troubling observation is I have occasionally found what appears to be a source, but upon investigation it's a site that has scraped from Wikipedia, so there's a possibility that incorrect claims are being repeated. Arguably, removing those as more important than adding sources to correct claims but I hope to get to the removals, where warranted, eventually.

It's my view that the prior discussions stop short of a definitive consensus. I'm bringing this up again because while this discussion has pushed me to emphasize sources other than math world wherever possible, I still plan on adding additional sources and its very possible that math world will be one of the options. [[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 16:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not totally opposed to using MathWorld when nothing better can be found -- for the actual ''math''.  I have never found an actual ''mathematical'' error in MathWorld, and while it's clearly not a great source, as you say, it can be better than nothing, at least marginally.
:Where it is worse than nothing is ''terminology''.  MathWorld just flat makes stuff up.  Please don't ever use it for terminology, or for the definition of a term not found in a better source.  --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
::Yes. It certainly is better than nothing. And it is good for math related issues, but for your specific question about Greek letters, I am sure there are good sources out there. For example dcitonaries of matehmatics.[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 02:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::My main point is that it is absolutely ''worse'' than nothing about terminology.  I would include the meanings of Greek letters in that category.  Please do not source anything about the meanings of Greek letters to MathWorld.  As I say they flat make things up and are not trustworthy. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 06:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:If there's not an explicit statement (e.g., "angles are often denoted with the Greek letter <math>\theta</math>") in a solid source like a textbook, a history of mathematics, a standard work on mathematical typesetting, etc., then we just shouldn't say anything. Maybe some random undergraduate thought that a notation was standard in 2004 and wrote it into Wikipedia. I think the secondary/tertiary distinction is a red herring here. The problem is not that MathWorld is tertiary instead of secondary. The problem is that it's not very good. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 20:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::The bigger problem is that it's not very good.  It's still true that we should try to avoid tertiary sources.  If tertiary sources copy one another it's too easy for stuff to slip in without being able to track down where it really came from. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd like to discuss the secondary/tertiary issue just a bit. I'm totally on board with the notion that, as a general statement, secondary sources are the gold standard. However, picking up on the point made by {{ping|XOR'easter}} who noted that if we are talking about usage the ideal source says something like  "angles are often denoted with the Greek letter θ ". However, it is my experience that this type of statement is rarely encountered in secondary sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles. Such a source is very likely to say something like "consider the angle θ". They are very unlikely to add " we use θ  because that's the usual convention for angles". In contrast, a statement about the general usage of a symbol is much more likely to be found in an introductory textbook, a review article, an encyclopedia and similar sources. For example, [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions] doesn't contain any original research so it's not a typical secondary source, it's a compendium of usages from secondary sources and so is a tertiary source. I see it is one of the best options for usage but it stop far short of covering everything. [[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 21:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I am confused about what the problem is here. If there aren't sources saying that "angles are often denoted with the Greek letter <math>\theta</math>", then we can't say that angles are often denoted with the Greek letter <math>\theta</math>. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Textbooks and review articles are fine sources for notation conventions. MathWorld isn't. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Tertiary sources can copy each other without checking. Secondary sources can copy from primary sources without checking. The problem is ''carelessness,'' not whether we sort a reference into the "secondary" or "tertiary" box. (Really, Wikipedia editors get far too hung up on that distinction, and on interpreting it in ways peculiar to Wikipedia, and making judgments dependent upon it despite it being intrinsically fuzzy. For example, I have on my desk right now [[Geometry of Quantum States|one textbook]] that is a ''secondary'' source for many claims, because parts of it build directly on the original journal articles, and [[Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik|another]] that is a ''primary'' source for some topics, because [[Hermann Weyl|the guy writing it]] was helping to develop [[quantum mechanics|the subject]] at the time.) [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure, it's a bit fuzzy.  As for textbooks specifically, I tend to think of them as being somewhere on the secondary/tertiary boundary.  It's mainly encyclopedias and dictionaries I think we should mostly avoid as sources.
::::As an example, let's take a ''good'' encyclopedia, like ''Brittanica''.  They're pretty good about giving their sources, I think.  So why would we ever cite ''Brittanica''?  Cite their secondary source instead (after actually verifying it).  Same as you would do in a university assignment. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I have encountered actual mistakes in MathWorld; one of them is documented in a footnote in [[Jessen's icosahedron]]. Wikipedia itself also has contained and presumably still does contain plenty of mistakes, of course. I think the mathematical content of MathWorld should be considered roughly as reliable as another Wikipedia article, noting that we do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a reliable source. I agree with the above comments that the reliability of MathWorld on terminology and notation is significantly worse than the reliability of their mathematics. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== ''Sonic State'' ==

Is ''Sonic State'' a reliable source?

This source seems be on many pages involving music gear such as the [[Arturia MiniBrute]], but I could not find an editorial team, so I am not sure if this source is reliable. 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22sonic+state%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 (List of articles where ''Sonic State'' is used)].

[[Special:Contributions/2620:8D:8000:10E6:69B7:AD3D:2263:EB24|2620:8D:8000:10E6:69B7:AD3D:2263:EB24]] ([[User talk:2620:8D:8000:10E6:69B7:AD3D:2263:EB24|talk]]) 02:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:{{small|1=Just as an aside you can use 'insource' to search for "sonicstate.com", that way you avoid use of "sonic state" in text that doesn't relate to the site ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22sonicstate.com%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 example]). -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)}}
:I've left a notification on the Project Music talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250218123900-Discussion_about_sonicstate.com_on_RSN] to see if anyone there has anythinh to add. Otherwise it's probably reliable for it's subject but I wouldn't use it for anything controversial. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

== Sada El-Balad (صدى_البلد) -- an Egyptian media outlet ==

Per [[Talk:List_of_tallest_people#Edit_warring]], I'm trying to verify how ''tall ''is Mohamed Shehata, an Egyptian man who holds various Guinness world records for the size of his hands, etc., but Guinness doesn't say how tall he is.[https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/6/egyptian-siblings-claim-five-records-including-largest-feet-and-hands-663739]  ''Sada El-Balad (صدى_البلد)'' says that he is 248 cm[https://www.elbalad.news/4857445] but I can't tell how reliable they are.  There is a bit of discrepancy between the figures presented there versus the figure published in Guinness (oddly, Guinness does publish the ''aggregate '' height of him and his sister), but maybe they grew.  I am inclined to cast my vote for using the source with attribution, but thought I'd ask here for comments.

=== Research about Sada El-Balad ===

There is a profile for them at Ground.news but it says their factuality score is "Unknown" [https://ground.news/interest/sada-el-balad] but there might be more info behind a paywall.  There's a story on ''Egypt Today'' that says a reporter for their satellite TV arm aired some "baseless" footage[https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/28913/Egyptian-anchorman-in-hot-water-over-inaccurate-recordings] but I have no idea if that's verified, and it relate to a contentious political topic and not something as mundane and fact-driven as a man's height. The outlet has an entry on Media Ownership Monitor Egypt[https://egypt.mom-rsf.org/en/media/detail/outlet/sada-el-balad-channel/][https://egypt.mom-rsf.org/en/owners/companies/detail/company/company/show/cleopatra-media-company/] which doesn't specify whether they're reliable, but says they are close to the Egyptian government.  They claim to have an editor, طه جبريل (Google Translates to Gabriel Taha), but I couldn't find anything about him.  A description for a Google Play app says their editor is a different person, Ahmed Sabry--so that is sort of a red flag. From what I can tell (I can't read Arabic), Sada El-Balad is an established media outlet, with 1.4 million Instagram followers[https://www.instagram.com/elbaladofficial/?hl=en] and 4 million on Youtube, and they have a satellite TV station, and they're owned by Cleopatra Media Group, which does have a nice website.[https://www.groupcleopatra.com/en/sectors/media-and-tv/]  They have articles on English Wikipedia[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sada_El-Balad] and Arabic Wikipedia [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D8%AF%D9%89_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF], but both are stubs and the English one has only two references, one to the outlet itself and another that's a dead link.  There's no record at Media Bias Fact Check or Poynter. The TV station is included in a somewhat legitimate looking directory.[https://elcinema.com/en/tvguide/1226/]  There is an English outlet with the same name that seems to be affiliated with them.[https://see.news/] [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 12:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:They've been around for 14yrs now, so [[WP:NEWSORG]] seems appropriate. However I would handle them with some caution, they are overtly pro-goverment (in relation to the current president Sisi) and were the channel that broadcast video game footage thinking it was a Russian airstrike[https://archive.is/u1zeS].<br>That's only about general reliability though, as whether a source is actually reliable is dependent on context ([[WP:RSCONTEXT]]). Gulf News ran a very similar story a couple of days earlier than El-Balad[https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/meet-the-titans-egyptian-siblings-claim-5-guinness-world-records-between-them-1.79958516], but even though they include the same picture of Mohamed Shehata's height being measured they don't include any details of his height nor have Guinness stated his height. This makes me wonder if El-Balad used Shehata's own measurement per the YouTube videos that were also linked in the entry that was edit warred over. Also Guinness says that the combined height of both Mohamed Shehata and his sister is 414cm[https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/6/egyptian-siblings-claim-five-records-including-largest-feet-and-hands-663739]. If he is 248cm that would make her only 166cm (414-248=166) or 5'4" which just isn't credible given the picture of the two of them. So in context I don't believe it's a reliable source for his height. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, WP:NEWSORG is good!  It's a human interest story for sure, and there is a vibe that the number could have just been self-reported, not like they sent a journalist out to his house to measure him. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 14:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
==RfC: Jacobin==
{{closed rfc top
| result = This RfC arose from a specific, corrected mistake. Some proponents of downgrading argued that the error is egregious enough to question ''Jacobin''’s systematic oversight, while those in favor of Option 1 argued that the error and ensuing correction adds to ''Jacobin''’s reliability like that of other newsrooms and that the error was made under an unrelated context. I find rough consensus that this incident does not affect ''Jacobin''’s reliability, especially that of their "straight news" content; <ins>in other words, ''Jacobin''’s '''non-[[WP:RSEDITORIAL]] content is generally reliable'''</ins>. Many participants argued against the RfC itself, saying that the incident clouded the mood of this debate. Evidence of repeated patterns of failures in fact and reliability was not presented, save for, like, 4 references to using conspiracy theorists and reliability among specific subjects, murmurs among the deluge of over 200 responses.

Instead, the core dispute here is over whether a source that predominantly publishes opinions and analyses should be labeled as “Generally reliable” (GRel) or “Additional considerations apply” (MRel). Most participants agreed that ''Jacobin'' predominantly publishes opinions and analyses, which should not be cited without the standard considerations of Due Weight and Attribution. Proponents for GRel emphasized these considerations, while proponents for downgrading argued that GRel confuses editors into thinking ''Jacobin''’s publications are usually citable. As participants were about evenly split on this core contention, I find '''no consensus for the reliability of ''Jacobin'' <ins>as a whole</ins>'''<ins> on [[WP:RSP]]</ins>.

Some participants compared ''Jacobin'' as a left-wing analogue to the libertarian ''Reason'', which was designated GRel following similar processes ''Jacobin'' was designated GRel under. As such, we may need broader discussion on what category to put all such sources under, generally and without reference to the reliability of specific sources. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
}}
Which of the following best describes the reliability of ''[[Jacobin (magazine)]]''?
* Option 1: [[Wikipedia:GREL|Generally reliable]]
* Option 2: [[Wikipedia:MREL|Additional considerations]]
* Option 3: [[Wikipedia:GUNREL|Generally unreliable]]
* Option 4: [[Wikipedia:DEPREC|Deprecate?]]
— [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 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 Wikipedia'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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including [[User:Iljhgtn]] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we [[WP:FOC]]. I believe @[[User:Horse Eye's Back|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. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</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;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/pageoneplus/corrections-jan-16-2025.html], your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</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? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for [[The Heritage Foundation]] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ([https://forward.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Heritage-Wikipedia-1.png and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Wikipedia editors])? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''  A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gamaliel|contribs]]) </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. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin]] and at [[Wikipedia: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.  [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</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 [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin]] and at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine)]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk: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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jacobin/ 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. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</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'' [https://jacobin.com/2025/01/biden-cuba-terrorism-trump-embargo] 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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk: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—[[user:blindlynx|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.  [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;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. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk: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. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. [[User:Astaire|Astaire]] ([[User talk: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 {{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. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;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 (magazine)|Reason]]'' {{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. [[WP:NEWSORG]] and [[WP:BIASED]] are quite clear.&nbsp;
:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has [[WP:DUE|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 Wikipedia or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine)|previous RfC]] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant [[WP:USEBYOTHERS|use by others]] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "[[WP:REPUTABLE|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed.&nbsp;<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">[[User:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Tayi Arajakate'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated [[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 [and left-wing, see e.g. [[Occupy Democrats]] and [[Daily Kos]]] 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 [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|we spend a paragraph attributing it]] to falsely luring Americans into supporting [[Iraq War|an illegal invasion]] based on lies, yet Wikipedia (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 (magazine)|New York]]'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>[[User:TheTechnician27|<span style="color: #00a9ff"><i>TheTechnician27</i></span>]]</b> [[User talk:TheTechnician27|<span style="color: blue">(Talk page)</span>]] 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]] {{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. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. [[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]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories [https://jacobin.com/2023/05/cia-fbi-911-hijackers-cover-up-bush-media], as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan [https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea] which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1156632911#Erasure_of_Jacobin_Reporting], [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea]] [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You should probably read farther than the headline. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk: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''. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as [[WP:RSOPINION]]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal.  It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Correcting  a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 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. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 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. [[User:Lf8u2|Lf8u2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</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, [https://jabberwocking.com/how-a-fake-biodiversity-statistic-took-over-the-world/ here we've got] ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the [egregiously bogus and [[Not even wrong|not-even-wrong]] '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 [[BioScience]], [[The Lancet|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. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (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. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;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.

:::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. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. [[User:Smallangryplanet|Smallangryplanet]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk: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 {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident.  Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source?  Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!  
::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with [[WP:WEIGHT]]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} [https://www.niemanlab.org/2014/09/jacobin-a-marxist-rag-run-on-a-lot-of-petty-bourgeois-hustle/]. 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 [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem]. It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/100-years-after-the-revolution-communism-hasnt-changed.html], the USSR/Communism [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/a-risk-that-democratic-socialism-poses-to-all-minorities/566528/][https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/24/iba2-d24.html], and anti-semitism [http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Blair-Taylor-and-Sina_Arnold.pdf], [https://www.adl.org/blog/prominent-voices-demonize-israel-regarding-the-conflict]. 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. [[User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|Dr. Swag Lord]] ([[User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|talk]]) 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}} [https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/new-republic-bluexit-blue-states-red-states-secession-conservatives-liberals-clinton][https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/12/richard-spencer-alt-right-dallas-texas/][https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/04/mccarthyism-canary-mission-bds-palestine-blacklist], Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/11/election-2020-biden-trump-down-ballot-senate], Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/scandinavia-prison-welfare-state-swedish-police/], The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} [https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/anti-corbyn-blair-censorship-google-labour-uk], and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/martin-luther-king-israel-palestine-occupation].[[User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|Dr. Swag Lord]] ([[User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|talk]]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here.  I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk: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 {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Wikipedia away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in: 
::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169 
::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the [[Claremont Institute]] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The list of texts are available via Wikipedia 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? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their [https://jacobin.com/about About Us] 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">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of [[Jacobin (magazine)]] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where [[Legal status of same-sex marriage|barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage]]? Where [[Islamic veiling practices by country|sixteen countries have banned the burqa]]? Is it Japan, where the conservative [[Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)|Liberal Democratic Party]] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] as Jacobin is of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. [[User:Feminist|feminist🩸]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Spain]], [[Socialist Party (Portugal)|Portugal]], [[Socialist Party (France)|France]], [[Socialist Party of Albania|Albania]], etc).
::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: [[Bernie Sanders]] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:11, 18 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">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Jacobin's [[raison d'etre]] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. [[Special:Contributions/2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8|2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8]] ([[User talk:2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8|talk]]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
*::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, [https://jacobin.com/2019/08/archie-carter-quillette-dsa? here's some solid reporting by ''Jacobin''] on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Quillette|this past RSN discussion.]]) [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the [[#Jacobin|discussion above]] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that [[Blackstone Inc.]] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. [[User:Feminist|feminist🩸]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Our [[WP:RSBIAS|guideline on reliable sources]] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|context matters]], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the [[WP:BESTSOURCES|best sources]]. For a topic like [[Mark Fisher]], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00420980211026466 an article] from the journal ''[[Urban Studies]]''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, [[WP:RSEDITORIAL|per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources]]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the [[Reign of Terror]] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For the record, the [http://revueperiode.net/jacobin-magazine-entretien-avec-bhaskar-sunkara/ founder has said] that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of ''[[The Black Jacobins]]'', a book about the [[Haitian Revolution]], not the French. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing [[semantics]]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying.  Don't twist my statement into something it's not. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That is arguing semantics. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, [[WP:GOI|get over it]]. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

*'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good  summary. [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

*'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. [[User:BSMRD|BSMRD]] ([[User talk:BSMRD|talk]]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC''' As on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1035408540 25 July 2021]. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on [[WP:BIASED|our guideline for use of biased sources]]. In particular I found [https://www.cjr.org/special_report/the-abcs-of-jacobin-socialist-magazine.php this 2019 assessment by the ''Columbia Journalism Review''] persuasive. Most recently [https://www.cjr.org/analysis/covering-economy-ground-bottom-up-journalists-explain-complicated-unitedhealthcare-thompson.php this January 4, 2025 article from the ''Columbia Journalism Review''] cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat[ing] convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to [[WP:BIASED]]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like ''[[The New Criterion]]'' or ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. [[User:Doctorstrange617|Doctorstrange617]] ([[User talk:Doctorstrange617|talk]]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. This is not a [[WP:NEWSORG]]. Its stated purpose is [https://jacobin.com/2016/11/why-we-publish "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital"]. Compare to the missions of the NYT: [https://www.nytco.com/company/ "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."]; or the BBC: [https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain"]. The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Wikipedia where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Wikipedia. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]]</span> ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --[[User:Pinchme123|Pinchme123]] ([[User talk:Pinchme123|talk]]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Your caveat is doing all the work here. Literally (not hyperbolic) every source of every kind has a bias. Just having a bias means nothing in relation to reliability. Unless of course what you mean is that a source claims to ''not'' have a bias, which would then be a significant ding to its reliability (but that isn't true for this source). --[[User:Pinchme123|Pinchme123]] ([[User talk:Pinchme123|talk]]) 04:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3/4:''' An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with ''heavy'' political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
:# '''Bias and lack of objectivity:''' Sources with extreme political leanings present information ''very selectively'' and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].
:# '''Erosion of credibility:''' Wikipedia is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
:# '''Misinformation and inaccuracy:''' Sources like ''Jacobin'' often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
:# '''Cherry-picking evidence:''' Extreme political sources may ''omit contrary evidence'' or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
;# '''Harm to reputation of the field:''' Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Wikipedia policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by ''multiple'' reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing ''Jacobin'' with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.
:Further, ''Jacobin'' is mostly an ''opinion'' source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly [https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink ranks] among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the '''Hyper-Partisan Left''' category of bias and as '''Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues''' in terms of reliability."
:The goal of Wikipedia, which prioritizes reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]], is to present information with a sense of [[Journalistic objectivity|detachment]]. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --[[User:Precision123|Precision123]] ([[User talk:Precision123|talk]]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well said. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Thank you, {{Reply|Iljhgtn}}. I'd also like to add that {{Reply|Herostratus}} put it nicely above: "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." --[[User:Precision123|Precision123]] ([[User talk:Precision123|talk]]) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The OP @[[User:Feminist|Feminist]] also spoke to this. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::# All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by [[WP:RSBIAS]], if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
::# People's opinions of Wikipedia are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
::# Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
::# This is again covered by [[WP:RSBIAS]].
::# This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:BALASP]], and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.
::-- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS {{tq|"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."}} -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Precision123}} did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence {{tq|Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation}} is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim that {{tq|sources like ''Jacobin''}} may use {{tq|conspiracy theories}} which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]]</span> ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I was going to comment on their lack of examples given for claims, but correctly assessed that someone else would probably do so. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 03:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It is an unfortunate aspect of LLMs that they generate nice sounding wording that has no understanding of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I referenced specific Wikipedia policies and also cited a credible evaluation of the source. [https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink Here] it is again: "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the '''Hyper-Partisan Left''' category of bias and as '''Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues''' in terms of reliability." That does not sound like an option-1-level source. I also disagree with the "well everything is biased" statement, which opens the door to including sources that are not worthy of encyclopedic entry. Several newsrooms maintain a commitment to objectivity—and even if there are problems in one given piece—the point we have made is that a fact should be able to be covered by multiple reliable sources anyway. In addition, news sources have been evaluated for their reliability. For example, ''The Guardian'' is a left-leaning news source that is very reliable by credible observers. Each source should be evaluated on its own. This one does not make the cut for option 1 inclusion. --[[User:Precision123|Precision123]] ([[User talk:Precision123|talk]]) 17:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ad Fontes Media* is not a reliable source, see the archives, and the only policy you mentioned was [[WP:NOT]] that is about article content and has nothing to do with reliable sources (see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]).<br>*Specifically the general issue with Ad Fontes Media and similar sites is that they use their own methodology for evaluating sources and not Wikipedia's criteria. The discussion isn't about whether the source is reliable in some absolute sense, but whether it's reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Additionally most of these sites are US based and simply reflect US public opinion on the political leaning of a source, and the political leaning of a source has absolutely nothing to do with if it is reliable or not. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please keep in mind that AFM is not a RS in context of use in Wikipedia articles.  That does not mean it isn't a useful source when evaluating the RS of other sources.  For example, if a prof of journalism had a page where he had detailed examples of journalistic failures made by various sources we would have to treat it as self published.  However if his arguments were solid we certainly could use it for evaluating other sources in terms of reliability, bias etc.  When AFM, MBFC and AllSides all say the source is strongly partisan we should pay attention.  These rating sites are used by others and in that regard we should give them some weight (not WEIGHT) in our discussions.  However, as a non-RS we should never put something like "According to AFM, [source name] is rated as [rating]".  This was a problem for a while and is the reason why editors said don't use the rating sites as RS in the article space. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Absolutely editors could use such sites for researching the quality of a source, but just saying "such and such site says" isn't meaningful. If there are failures that show a reputation that lacks facts checking and accuracy, then those need to be presented as evidence. Editors are in no way obliged to agree with how any external website rates a source. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I put his reply into 3 different AI detectors (the top 3, not that they are infallible). The results were: 100% human, 0% AI; 100% human 0% AI, and; 96% human, 4% AI. Accusing someone of using AI/LLM without evidence is a [[WP:PA| personal attack]], and stating some asinine remark like {{tq|"It is an unfortunate aspect of LLMs that they generate nice sounding wording that has no understanding of Wikipedia policies or guidelines"}} when you have no evidence presented is laughable. I would strike this. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 17:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I second that the baseless accusation should be amended to a strikethrough <s>like this</s>, and the discussion should remain [[WP:FOC|focused on content]]. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 17:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::[https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-work/ AI detectors are notoriously unreliable] (often giving false positives and false negatives). While there's no way to know for sure, I don't blame Dan Leonard for having a sneaking feeling. Numbered points pithy subtitles following by vague elaboration without specific examples or evidence is, after all, a very GPT-style way to answer questions. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 18:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I agree, which is why I said they're not infallible. However, they still have 0 evidence presented (in fact they now have substantial evidence against), and {{tq|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence}} are personal attacks. {{ tq| "Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."}} End of story. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 18:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The accusation was framed as a question and was justified by the similarity to how ChatGPT writes and the lack of substance in the !vote. If the accusation was poor etiquette, the !vote is not based on any real evidence or actual policy and thus will probably be given little attention by a closer. If the !voter wants to be taken seriously, they could add examples for their allegations. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My general comment about how useless AI comments is not a personal attack or an "asinine remark" as AI comments waste other editors time. However editors shouldn't tag other editors replies as being AI as it's not very useful, instead they should feed them back into a chatbot to generate a reply. That way their time isn't wasted replying to such comments. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Accusing @[[User:Precision123|Precision123]] of using an ChatGPT or LLM type tool to generate a response is baseless and is failing to [[WP:FOC]]. Jacobin is a bad source at best with additional considerations, or generally unreliable at worst, but neither of those details are raised when accusing this editor of bad faith without evidence. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 17:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree that we should keep this discussion respectful. Whether or not Ad Fontes Media ''itself'' is to be included as a source in the body of a Wikipedia article (due to a straight-line self-publication rule) is different as to whether editors can consult it in good faith when evaluating reliable sources. Ad Fontes Media is, in fact, well respected and regularly cited by newspapers of record and other solid news sources: [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-04-28/nexstar-unbiased-newsnation-struggling-viewers-fox-news ''Los Angeles Times''], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/learning/2024-election-teaching-resources.html ''New York Times''], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/09/musk-twitter-disinformation-trump-ban/ ''Washington Post''], [https://www.usatoday.com/web-stories/how-to-ease-anxiety-around-the-presidential-election/ ''USA Today'']. The idea that newspapers of record can regularly reference it but Wikipedia editors cannot even look at it when discussing the reliability of sources does not make sense. AFM is known to be independent with a a clear and comprehensive methodology that speaks not just to bias but more importantly to reliability.[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Passive_and_Active_Measurement/JSezEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22ad+fontes+media%22&pg=PA164&printsec=frontcover] Again, this is not about including Ad Fontes Media as a source in in other Wikipedia articles. This discussion is about another source that, after going through an independent review of its articles, came out about as reliable as [https://adfontesmedia.com/breitbart-bias-and-reliability/ Breitbart]. --[[User:Precision123|Precision123]] ([[User talk:Precision123|talk]]) 18:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You're welcome to divine source reliability in tea leaves too for all that matters - it's just that an RfC closer will rightly ignore such arguments and, I would hope, will ignore arguments that basically come down to a [[WP:GUNREL]] source saying "they're scary leftists." [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Saying that one of these sites rates a source in a particular way is meaningless. If there is evidence of a reputation of poor fact checking or accuracy then evidence needs to be presented here. Editors don't have to agree with Ad Fontes Media, AllSides, or whatever, so just stating that sites opinion doesn't add anything to the discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Such a site could be useful for researching an argument you can present here. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::My apologies to Precision123 if this is unfounded. I thought the bolded, numbered list structure and lack of policy specifics was similar to recent LLM use on the AfD nominations of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaskar Sharma (Physician)#c-Rolex98-20230405073100-Bhaskar_Sharma_(Physician)|Bhaskar Sharma]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation#c-Mellis-20241002002600-Seed_oil_misinformation|seed oil misinformation]], but I acknowledge I may have been a bit too quick to the draw here. I invite an uninvolved editor to mask this with a {{tl|collapse}}. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]]</span> ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 22:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::''Asking'' someone if they used an LLM to write something, as [[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] did here, is not an accusation of anything, let alone an accusation of bad faith. It's a perfectly reasonable and polite thing to do when you suspect someone might have. Not everyone knows that LLMs are discouraged and asking gives people an opportunity to be learn about community norms. [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''.  They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Yes, we allow biased sources, but a source like this with explicitly declared bias that includes its title should be balanced against our NPOV policy, particularly. [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] and [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]]. In Perennial sources we reserved option 1 for the established reliable sources like BBC or ''Time'' magazine. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup>   09:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*:BBC as unbiased, hmm ... [[Hutton Inquiry]], [[criticism of the BBC]], etc. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 12:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*::[[Time_Person of the Year|And Time Magazine has ''never'' had a spicy political take either.]] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Having a spicy ''take'' is not the same thing as "spicy" being both your brand '''''and''''' your model for all writing. Though that is to say nothing of the outright egregious falsehood discussed earlier that was begrudgingly and reluctantly retracted (with insult to the commenter pointing out the error just for good measure). [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 16:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::You have failed to demonstrate that the publication Jacobin did any of the above in any of your many comments above. You just repeatedly point back to a bad tweet the author of one article made and then throw all kinds of [[WP:WEASEL]] language around Jabobin's retraction. Focus on policy rather than your personal politics please. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. I sympathize with Marek's concerns about reliability and published falsehoods and with the perceived higher standard editors like Simon have outlined. I'll note that, regarding Wugapodes's comment on how a substantial number of journalists hew to Jacobin's analysis on the labor vote, there's the obvious ideological angle to take into account, but that doesn't justify special treatment. We ought to take all sources with appropriate context and salt. I personally think that analysis is bullshit, as do many others like me who conduct analyses on data and on elections. But that's [[WP:OR]] and thus irrelevant. That the citing journalists trust this data is not a mark on Wikipedia but on them. My bigger issues are with how the socialist classist lens blinds contributors and the editorial team to errors like the 1/3 of housing stock canard. I've seen variations on that rumor online, with each repetition more dramatic in the telling. Did the team pass it by out of incompetence or out of truthiness? How did fact-checkers, editors et al. let this blatant falsehood through so easily? I'm also dissatisfied with the correction itself. But it's nice that it was made at all. In any case, it's the essays and opinion pieces that offend facts the most (Blackstone, Ukraine, Georgia, the ''Eisenhower''). It's the lack of clear separation of reportage from opinion that worry me; this is unlike newspapers, so let's look at magazines. I can't claim to have read every magazine of this vibe, but I know that the ''The New Yorker'', ''Time'', and the former ''National Geographic'' didn't have issues of this nature. NG even had a clear remit! And while we're on the topic of misleading essays, might we remember Salena Zito interviewing registered Republicans in diners in 2017? I think then that the best practice is to examine linked sources that Jacobin pieces include, not necessarily the content of the pieces themselves. If we are to follow this practice, then, we must at minimum seek '''option 2'''. [[User:Iseult|<span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span>]]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>[[Special:Contribs/Iseult|'' Δx '']]</sup>[[User talk:Iseult|talk to me]]</span> 02:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You may wish to place a '''bolded''' "'''Option 2''' '''or Option 3'''" or whatever it is you choose to emphasize then as well at the start of your comment. I believe this makes it easier for an uninvolved closer to see all of the !votes and to close most accurately in the end of the RfC. Thanks for your comment @[[User:Iseult|Iseult]] [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 13:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Iljhgtn}} you might now want unbold your text here to avoid confusing a closer! :) [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 18:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' The Jacobin is a socialist outlet that posts primarily opinion pieces from a socialist point of view. Opinion pieces should be treated as such. The Jacobin strikes me as somewhat more reliable than genuine fringe left outlets - you’re not going to find, for example, defenses of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or pro-Assad pieces, typical hallmarks of “tankie” outlets. So I don’t see any major red flags here, with the caveat that opinion pieces are just that. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 14:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC'''. RSP is supposed to be about saving editors' time, i.e. BBC is reliable, conspiracysite.com is not. Otherwise, rating sources encourages editors not to critically interrogate sources every time, and to get into long arguments about consistency, like this one. The Jacobin falls into the biased but usable category of generally decent journalism. It featured and eventually corrected a shoddy article, but then again, no newspaper/magazine hasn't. Most articles are op-eds, and not relevant to us. Sometimes, it may feature useful investigative journalism or reporting, although even then, better sources often exist. Whether this puts it in generally reliable or additional considerations is down to personal editing philosophy. I don't care whether it stays green or goes yellow, but I do suggest that accompanying summary has the following added to remind editors: {{tq|"opinion pieces should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOGS"}}. See you all in a year or two when we get pinged again to vote once more. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 15:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You may wish to <s>strikethrough</s> this comment given your updated comment below. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 18:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Jr8825|Jr8825]] ping so it's not missed -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks for the ping/message. I considered this, but decided that I stand by the points I made here as they're broadly compatible with my soft !vote for option 2 below. Specifically, I think this is still a flawed RfC as unnecessarily rating sources into neat categories is unhelpful and impractical for contextually appropriate sources such as the ''Jacobin'', and that citing it requires particular care as it mostly prints opinion pieces, sometimes including fringe opinions as shown below, meaning that better sources usually exist. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 01:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''', As other editors have pointed out, being left-wing or right-wing does not necessarily mean you are unreliable. It doesn't mean you lie. It just means you're political. As long as Jacobin reports the facts, which it does, then there isn't a reason to depreceate it. [[User:Genabab|Genabab]] ([[User talk:Genabab|talk]]) 21:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''': its existence as an advocacy outlet combined with its blending of fact and opinion means considerations apply beyond general reliability. A [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea|previous discussion]] about ''Jacobin'' suggested that it's willing to publish conspiracy theories about the Russo–Ukrainian war, but I'd want to see more examples before declaring it generally unreliable. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 22:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'll be honest, I'm not sure I see the point of this RFC. Social media furor over a {{em|correcte}} error isn't really going to make any difference to an assessment. Volunteer Marek's assertion of {{tq|publish outright falsehoods}} would be a better reason if evidence could be provided, but there appears to be nobody interested in actually establishing a pattern of failure to correct errors or poor reputation. It is also raised in the discussion by some participants that most of it (and I expect, most of what we use it for) is opinion, for which I will note that whether the colour of a box  is green or yellow is essentially irrelevant, because [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]]/[[WP:RSOPINION]] covers both cases. I see neither the need (a statement of where having a yellow box instead of a green box would make the slightest bit of difference) nor the required evidence to make a change. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2/3''' per FOARP. It's strictly a collection of opinion pieces, so we should treat it accordingly, just as we would treat the opinion section of a reliable newspaper. I.e. it should be used with attribution per [[WP:NEWSOPED]]. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 05:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2 (or good 3)''' due to the issues described above, primarily the mixing of fact and opinions, some rather concerning errors, and similar. I would encourage avoiding them for contentious political, military and economic claims. While it's political leaning is significantly different from what the 'average voter' would consider to be part of the [[Overton window]], this is at worst indicative of and at best irrelevant for their (un-)reliability; I am concerned that consensus would look differently on a comparably right wing source. [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 09:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''' per Precision123, Barnards, and Springee. Clearly highly skewed reporting with ulterior motives other than reporting the news, making it a poor source to use. However, I don't think it necessarily merits deprication, just additional considerations when using. --[[User:Gryphonclaw18|Gryphonclaw18]] ([[User talk:Gryphonclaw18|talk]]) 20:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', mostly opinion, so where that is true we should attribute, but generally good at fact-checking and correcting mistakes. We do not expect any source to be free from mistakes, just to correct them when they come to light.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 17:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' because Jacobin deserves additional considerations in my opinion. The discussion around bias is a distraction—the thing to focus on is whether they consistently publish accurate information. It has whitewashed authoritarian leftist regimes, such as in its coverage of Venezuela. While U.S. sanctions have harmed the country, Jacobin has downplayed the role of the Venezuelan government’s economic policy and human rights abuses. This fits into a broader pattern where Jacobin prioritizes criticism of U.S. foreign policy while failing to discuss the failures of regimes they like. Given these issues, Jacobin should be treated with additional consideration. [[User:Gjb0zWxOb|Gjb0zWxOb]] ([[User talk:Gjb0zWxOb|talk]]) 23:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Barnards.tar.gz, the source itself state that it is biased, some issues with factual accuracy so additional considerations can apply. [[User:Senior Captain Thrawn|Senior Captain Thrawn]] ([[User talk:Senior Captain Thrawn|talk]]) 03:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. [[WP:RSBIAS|Bias does not automatically mean unreliability]]. Jacobin seems fine for opinion as long as it's not undue, but we should exercise caution when using them for factual reporting. 💽 [[User:LunaEclipse|<span style="color: purple;">🌙'''Eclipse'''</span>]] 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) <sup>'''[[User talk:LunaEclipse|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/LunaEclipse|edits]]'''</sup> 12:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Are we unfamiliar with [[WP:BIASED]]? There seems to be a double standard for sources like Jacobin compared to similar RS with different political views. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 13:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Nothing has changed since the previous RFC; a single retraction is evidence of reliability, not unreliability. So I'm just going to cite [https://www.cjr.org/special_report/the-abcs-of-jacobin-socialist-magazine.php the CJR piece I did back then], which compares it to a long list of sources we list as green. It is obviously a [[WP:BIASED]] source, which has to be taken into consideration when determining when and where it is due, but we have numerous other such sources listed as green on RSP, and nobody has really sustantiated any reason why this one would be treated differently. (Also, I note that someone above presented the unconvincing argument that it ought to be downgraded because there are no biased / advocacy-style right-leaning sources we consider GREL. That isn't an [[WP:RS]] argument in the first place; it's [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] for sources. But it's also wrong - we list [[WP:REASONMAG]], which is funded by a think-tank with the purpose of advancing {{tq|the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies}}, as GREL. As I pointed out the last time this came up, the CJR piece even directly compares the two as similar sources on opposite sides. Anyone who believes that the two should be treated differently ought to take a moment to explain the difference.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for straight news reporting and '''Option 2''' for analysis. We need reliable sources that provide an unambiguously left perspective just as we need reliable right sources. This lengthy debate shows that the publication will correct its errors, which is an indicator in favor of reliability, not against reliability. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 2''':Jacobin has limited reliability. While I won't delve into the numerous specific instances illustrating this, it is essential to recognise that Jacobin shares significant shortcomings with Fox News, which was ultimately classified as "marginally reliable."

The rationale behind Fox News being deemed "not generally reliable" stemmed from a decision by the Wikipedia community, which concluded that the outlet could no longer be trusted in its reporting on science and politics. The advice was that it "should be used with caution to verify contentious claims" in these domains, ultimately leading to its categorisation as "marginally reliable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

For example (just one out of many), consider this title from Jacobin regarding COVID: "Thank Socialism for the Vaccine. Blame Capitalism for Its Distribution. "https://jacobin.com/2020/12/socialism-vaccine-capitalism-distribution. This article presents itself as an opinion piece, interspersed with selective information, which reflects an observable trend within the publication. Therefore, it makes sense to follow the precedents set by Wikipedia for evaluating sources that exhibit similar issues of reliability and objectivity. [[User:Fenharrow|Fenharrow]] ([[User talk:Fenharrow|talk]]) 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:That article is clearly opinion and covered by [[WP:RSOPINION]] just like any other opinion piece from any other publication, regardless of the publication's reliablity. A publication having opinion peices does not relfect on their ability to fact check and issue corrections. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 23:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{+1}} - I'm not seeing Fenharrow's comparison to [[WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS]]. The problem with Fox News isn't that it's biased, it's that it's unreliable. All Fenharrow demonstrated above is that Jacobin has published opinion. A title like ''Thank Socialism for the Vaccine. Blame Capitalism for Its Distribution.'' makes it pretty obvious that what you're about to read is an argumentative essay, not a news article, and relevant considerations already apply without needing to recategorize the reliability of the whole outlet. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 12:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:::The majority of content published in Jacobin consists of opinion articles that require careful consideration and proper attribution, which makes it as unreliable as Fox News if not more.  Its quality as a source simply does not meet the same standards as, for example, The New York Times. [[User:Fenharrow|Fenharrow]] ([[User talk:Fenharrow|talk]]) 05:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Biased or opinionated content is not automatically unreliable. Neutrality and objectivity should not be confused. Again, Fox News is an unreliable source because much of the political content they publish is not reliable as a source of fact, not simply because it's a biased source. A source can be biased and still be reliable as a source of information, take Al Jazeera as an example. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 13:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::The argument was/is that Jacobin is a majorly a collection of opinions rather than a purveyor of news. If a source primarily presents opinions, then labelling its information as "generally reliable" without attribution is not a good practice. Hence Option 2 or 3. [[User:Fenharrow|Fenharrow]] ([[User talk:Fenharrow|talk]]) 18:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Frankly we shouldn't be calling ''any'' source generally reliable as it leads editors to make lazy appeals to authority rather than engaging with the sources in a thorough way. Which is why I !voted 2 despite thinking Jacobin just as reliable as its peers to the center. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"it leads editors to make lazy appeals to authority"
:::::::That's what the [[WP:RS]] policy says to do, I thought.
:::::::"engaging with the sources in a thorough way"
:::::::Isn't that [[WP:OR]]? [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="color:#9999FF;">'''Turbo'''</span><span style="color:#660066;">'''Super'''</span><span style="color:#CC3300;font-weight:bold;">A+</span>]] ([[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="color:##9999FF;">&#9743;</span>]]) 19:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2/3'''. While every source has a certain bias, Jacobine is a radical leftist publication, more on the fringe side, and at the very least additional considerations must apply. I'm sure it is always possible to find a more balanced source for the information reported by Jacobine, and if not, I don't think Jacobine should be relied on as a sole source for such information. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 10:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for factual articles and '''Option 2''' or inline attribution for opinion pieces. It seems that nothing has changed in their reliability since prior RFC. Per [[WP:Biased]], bias does not mean unreliability. The fact that they come from a biased perspective does not change the general trend of reliability in the factual content they present. Nothing has changed since past RFC and they typically provide retractions and corrections when there are errors. '''[[User:Malvoliox|<span style="color: darkgreen">~Malvoliox</span>]]''' ''([[User talk:Malvoliox|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Malvoliox|contribs]])'' 17:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' There are certain areas where their coverage is highly useful--including their critiques of the USA's Democratic Party, like this one that deftly eviscerates Kamala Harris[https://jacobin.com/2020/08/joe-biden-kamala-harris-vice-president-neoliberalism]. But then they screw up big time on other topics because their perspective on geopolitics and history is so heavily distorted by their strange ideological bent in favor of corrupt authoritarian dictatorships.[https://jacobin.com/2020/10/sanctions-venezuela-maduro-guaido-trump]  They vouch for Nicolas Maduro, who illegally seized control of Venezuela just to mismanage and embezzle funds, driving the economy into the ground, while he rounds up his political opponents and throws them in jail. And apparently--per Jacobin--the appalling poverty of Venezuela can be blamed on Donald Trump, since he was in the wrong to sanction Maduro's regime. Likewise, they argue "against the mainstream consensus"[https://jacobin.com/2018/04/1917-russian-revolution-democracy-bolsheviks] to condone the "virtuous" Bolsheviks who apparently had no choice but to centralize the Russian economy, thus transforming the country into a totalitarian hellscape.[https://jacobin.com/2018/11/russian-revolution-civil-war-peasants-red-victory].[[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 05:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] makes excellent arguments in favor of '''Option 3'''. If push came to shove, I think '''Option 3''' is best suited for ''Jacobin'', but '''Option 2''' would ''at bare minimum'' be fitting for this fairly fringe source. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 00:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::If you look at the Ad Fontes Media chart[https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive], ''Jacobin ''is rated about as reliable as ''The New York Post'' and less so than ''The Daily Caller'', ''Fox News'', and ''City Journal''.  I don't see many editors here clamoring to endorse those outlets. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 01:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::Ad Fontes Media is considered to be generally unreliable. Refer to [[WP:ADFONTES]] which states "{{tq|There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a self-published source and have questioned its methodology}}". ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 01:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::To be clear, Ad Fontes is viewed as not reliable for article space.  That means no editor should say "Source X is biased [cite AFM]".  It useful as a reference when evaluating sources at RSN.  Is it perfect?  Likely not.  However, if AFM says a sources is heavily left/right then it probably isn't reasonable if an editor claims the same source is mainstream.  I would say if AFM and MBFC and AllSides all say a source is strongly biased, it probably is strongly biased.  A search for AFM on Google scholar results in papers that cite it as a resource and at least one paper ''((Lin, Hause, Jana Lasser, Stephan Lewandowsky, Rocky Cole, Andrew Gully, David Rand, and Gordon Pennycook. "High level of agreement across different news domain quality ratings." (2022).))'' that does a comparative analysis and finds it agrees well with other rating systems and endorses it's use.  If we are going to say use by others matters when establishing reliability, well AFM is used (and tested) by scholars. I still think the decision not to use it as a reference in article space is correct. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::If a consensus of editors have questioned a websites methodology, then I'd suggest it is poor reasoning to quote it to establish any matters of fact. Ad Fontes suggesting that Jacobin is less reliable the New York Post, a publican known for a lack of fact checking and posting outright fabrications, is absurd. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The excerpt you cited does not have a lot of weight here since it is a suggestion about specifically the name-space.  Since editors in the user-space are better equipped to contextualize AFM material versus the general public for whom the name-space is carefully curated, therefore a different standard applies to the material we take into consideration here. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 07:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::How they judge reliability is not the same as Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Also their methodology is poor and they show nothing other than there own opinions. AFM is a trash website, along with other such sites. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::The research paper I referenced suggests their results are likely good and they align with other sources.  That doesn't mean they are correct on any specific claim but their overall direction seems to be both accepted and validated in scholarship. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Some minimal support from research papers doesn't make them the arbitor of what is, or is not, a reliable source. There methodology is poor and there nothing I'm seeing that changes my opinion on that. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Editors may want to use them as a place to start investigating a source, in the same way people use Wikipedia as a place to start investigating a topic. But the argument "because AFM said" should be given no weight in any argument. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The difference might not be one of quality so much as scrutiny.  The NYP has much greater reach thus is likely to be scrutinized by more people/sources.  If say 1 in 100 articles in each contained a damning error it's all but certain we would read about the NTP's failings in a wiki approved source.  In the case of Jacobin there are fewer articles published in absolute terms so fewer people are likely to check them and those that do are more likely to be right biased sources that will be dismissed as unreliable regardless of the quality of their specific argument. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::An argument about [[There are unknown unknowns|unknown unknowns]] isn't very compelling. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 23:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:These are helpful articles, {{u|Manuductive}}. They show Jacobin sometimes publishes [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] views, with implications for its appropriateness as a source and potential implications for reliability. Initially, looking at these articles [https://jacobin.com/2018/11/russian-revolution-civil-war-peasants-red-victory] [https://jacobin.com/2018/04/1917-russian-revolution-democracy-bolsheviks] I was concerned about who the writers were and whether they have any expertise or authority. After some digging, it does appear they are both relatively established, if niche/fringe, academics: [[Samuel Farber]] has been published by university presses and Soma Marik was a visiting professor at [[Jadavpur University]]. [https://jacobin.com/2020/10/sanctions-venezuela-maduro-guaido-trump This article] in places goes against the [[WP:MAINSTREAM|mainstream]] consensus on Maduro and recent Venezuelan history, but the writer appears to be an editor of a [[Sage Publishing|Sage]]-published [[Latin American Perspectives|academic journal]], so it could ''plausibly'' be used to attribute his views if contextually appropriate and not given undue weight. The existing guidance on op-eds and biased sources applies – but I do think this shows Jacobin has to be used with careful scrutiny to avoid false balance in favour of fringe viewpoints. There is an inherent ambiguity with fringe academic views, particularly if it's unclear whether they directly go against mainstream views (if an academic consensus even exists). I !voted "bad RfC" above as I think rating sources discourages critical contextual assessments, but after looking at these articles I think '''Option 2''' (additional considerations apply) would be a helpful flag for future editors unfamiliar with Jacobin. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 04:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Reliable for facts, with a well-functioning editorial process which corrects errors. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 14:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. An unnecessary RfC, as the standard approach (avoiding Opinion pieces generally, rules regarding attribution, etc.) is sufficient for dealing with questions of its political position. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 18:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per Burrobert and JArthur1984.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', primarily per [[User:CambrianCrab]]. Existing policy about use of biased opinion publications is largely sufficient, and the current RSPS summary adequately summarizes appropriate use of ''Jacobin'' articles as sources. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 21:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' Like it was noted before we do allow biased sources but when bias cross certain thereshold we should limit souch sources. It should be not be used for any conterversal topic --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 08:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
*''Jacobin'' is an opinionated source - their shtick is commentary, not journalism, and they have an explicit POV. As such we should be citing them only rarely, and usually with in-text attribution for cases where their views may merit inclusion; there are usually less contentious sources available for factual material. That said, the evidence here of unreliability is extremely flimsy. They made an error, it was pointed out, they corrected it. Our most reliable media sources do this on a daily basis. Un unretracted error would be grounds for downgrading them, but this isn't such. I give the fringe views claim very little weight - we do not downgrade sources because their OpEds are out of left field, even the most reliable news outlets publish questionable views among the opinion columns every so often. So I suppose I'm at '''Option 2''', but where the "additional considerations" are explicitly about using in-text attribution for their analytical content rather than reliability concerns about their infrequent factual reporting. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 19:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per TFD and Tayi.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 13:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 4''' A propaganda outlet with not even the intention to publish factual information. Highly opinionated, which in itself is a disqualifier. Frequently gets things wrong or make things up. Below, in the discussion on Daily Express, I recommended the Daily Express is should depreciated and I see no reason not to deal with Jacobin in the same way. The writers at Jacobin may be better at writing, but both the Jacobin and Daily Express are highly selective in their reporting, only report stories that suit their own (opposite) agendas, and prefer making things up if it favours their POV rather than reporting a truth they dislike. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 13:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</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. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Rfc:_Jacobin_(magazine)|2021 RfC]]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</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 [[User:Mikehawk10]] and [[User:Mhawk10]]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Wikipedia: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 [[WP:SUPERVOTE|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. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">[[User:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Tayi Arajakate'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Talk'''</span>]]</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. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</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> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</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> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</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.

[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_63#Erasure_of_Jacobin_Reporting 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. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::"Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests","
*:::Many WP:RS are saying the same, not just Jacobin. So that's not a good example. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="color:#9999FF;">'''Turbo'''</span><span style="color:#660066;">'''Super'''</span><span style="color:#CC3300;font-weight:bold;">A+</span>]] ([[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="color:##9999FF;">&#9743;</span>]]) 05:04, 9 February 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. --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Several new issues have been revealed since the last RfC, contrary to some claims and like Bobfrombrockley mentions above, including after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They were able to be discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 20:33, 6 February 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;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</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 Wikipedia policy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</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 Wikipedia's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at [[WP:VPP]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</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 Wikipedia generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</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 [[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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;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 [[WP:AUTHOR|the relevant wiki-notability standard]]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*My issue with Jacobin is that it is deemed a reliable source when it is really no different than [[The American Conservative]], [[National Review]], or [[The Spectator]] which are not. This comes across as ideological bias since all generally are opinion pieces from a certain angle.[[User:3Kingdoms|3Kingdoms]] ([[User talk:3Kingdoms|talk]]) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
*:I can't speak for those sources, as I don't believe I've ever been part of a discussion about them, but politics and the ideological bias of any source is not a reason for it being reliable or unreliable. Each source should be evaluated separately, on its own merits alone and nothing else. Also it seems all those sources are on the RSP as opinionated sources that should be attributed intext, I and many others have said the same about Jacobin. That doesn't mean they are unreliable, only that what they publish is usually opinion pieces.<br>Of course consensus may not agree with my position, but if that's the case then the fault will be with the strength of my arguments and failure to persuade others that my argument's right -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
{{hat}}
*:It is also no different to [[The Economist]] which is a reliable source. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 23:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
*::It is not "no different" than ''The Economist''. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 23:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::How? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 23:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::Literally in almost every relevant way other than just vaguely "both organizations have an editorial stance" and "their primary color is red." [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 00:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Ok, so enumerate those ways. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Well, to name a few, they aren't even the same type of organization. One is a newspaper, the other is a magazine. One is a nearly 200-year old bastion of journalism with a long history of general reliability, even holding the title [[newspaper of record]], the other is a fledgling org with not even a decade in anything remotely resembling a spotlight. One (The Economist) has a dedicated section for opinion pieces, with the rest of paper being normal objective newspaper format, the other gives no way of distinguishing. One usually does not have a by line, the other almost always does. And more. So yeah, plenty of differences. Plenty of ''relevant'' differences.  And saying they're "no different" is just objectively not the case. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 03:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Rubbish. Jacobin is also generally reliable as attested to by most of the participants in this RFC and The Economist blends opinion with factual reporting without any bylines indicating that is occuring as per consensus reflected at [[WP:RSP]] which states "{{tq|Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}." ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Most of the participants in this RFC actually ''haven't'' rated it as generally reliable. But hey, I guess counting isn't for everyone. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 05:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::@[[User:Just10A|Just10A]] given [[Special:Diff/1273195842|you previously requested for me to stay off your talk]] after I warned you about your conduct, I'll warn you here [[WP:NPA|not to make personal attacks]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Pointing out what you said is mathematically, verifiably false is not a [[WP:PA]]. Nor do I think you’re in any position to be throwing around wiki-links, given that blatantly misrepresenting the RFC vote when it’s right above this thread could raise legitimate [[WP:AGF]] concerns. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 14:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::The uncivil part of your comment was the "counting isn't for everyone" bit at the end. There are better ways that same point could have been made. Counting the !votes yourself and stating the numbers you came up with would have been fine. Suggesting that someone is incapable of basic arithmetic is not. I also suggest cooling down the fiery language — "mathematically, verifiably false [...] blatantly misrepresenting" — that's a lot of angry adverbs and accusations of bad faith when the thing you're disagreeing over is something as simple as "which position has the most support at the moment" and nobody provided any numbers. I see no need for the above discussion to be as heated as it is. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 17:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Ultimately an RFC is ''not'' a vote and counting !votes is about as useful as counting grains of sand. Whoever closes this RfC will do so on the merits. Just10A try to focus on content please. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I apologize if it was uncivil. However, it ''is'' mathematically false, and a person making such a claim when it's so easy to see otherwise clearly is indicative of, at best, severe negligence. Top that off with a dismissive tone and I think it's pretty clear that there's an issue. That's all I meant to convey. I'll refrain from similar remarks. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 17:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::If you think I have [[WP:CIR]] issues, take it to [[WP:ANI]]. Otherwise keep your personal attacks to yourself. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 22:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Still wasn’t a personal attack. And you’ve still yet to explain how you happened to plainly misrepresent the RFC poll. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 23:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::You've been asnwered by other editors. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Ps, I've just gone through and done a rough count and I see: 33 for option 1(some might say option 1/2), 31 for option 2 (some say option 2/3) and 3 for option 3 (some say option 3/4). So while I might have been slightly off stating that there was a majority for option 1, your claims of severe negligence are adsurd to the point of contsituting personal attacks. You should strike your incivility and personal attacks. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::That's because you're counting the 1/2 votes as "1s", while completely withholding them from the "2s". I did a complete breakdown, by exact vote type when you commented. In reality, '''~40%''' voted option 1 which, statistically speaking, isn't remotely close to a majority. Even if you remove the 1/2 votes from either side (since they effectively cancel each other out for the purposes of this conversation), the best you get is ~42%. Again, not close. 
*::::::::::::::::I gotta say, I'm a little confused as to why we can't just say "I didn't count the votes before I commented", and move on. It's not a big deal. As several editors have already pointed out, this conversation is mostly moot, per RFC procedure. If you don't want the comments there, then, assuming you strike your statement (since it's incorrect), I will of course strike any remarks I made about the statement. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I note your continued incivil conduct. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::Nothing in @[[User:Just10A|Just10A]]'s latest comment was "incivil" (which I think you meant "uncivil" by the way). The editor did point out that from a purely counting standpoint, the !votes do lean towards at least '''Option 2''' at this stage, with no consensus for Option 1 nor Option 3. Which makes sense. Jacobin is reliable for some things, but it is also just so chock full of unsubstantiated opinion that Option 2's additional considerations does appear to make sense as a recommendation for this source. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 05:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::Any kind of misrepresentation, or putting words in another editor's mouth might be construed as [[Wikipedia:WikiBullying]] or [[WP:BAIT]]. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 10:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incivil Incivil] ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Sources have to stand on there own, if we start saying X source must be reliable/unreliable because a similar source of a different ideological bent is reliable/unreliable then we will have started to judge sources based on their ideology. That would be a very bad idea. Consensus is based on the weight of arguments not votes, and we won't know the result until it's closed. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{closed rfc bottom}}