Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail)

• Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages --Guy Macon (talk)

Quote from WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically"

We need to modify our handling of old pages from The Daily Mail to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from WP:RSP, or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support David Gerard's suggestion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the Mail may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. buidhe 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See [2].

Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So we are using a situation source (Boing Boing) to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to a source as good as boingboing.net The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The term for it is historical negationism which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is beyond the pale given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- GreenC 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary

The WP:RSP summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, as documented above. (At the bottom of the altered content was a small single-sentence disclaimer noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content.

Suggested options:

1. Remove the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on WP:RSP
2. Add a qualifier: "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail."
3. Do nothing
4. Something else

10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested action on WP:RSPDM

• Remove the sentence - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. buidhe 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove, with the caveat that the print edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? Guy (help!) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --Jayron32 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([3], [4]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--Hippeus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety in the RSPDM will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote Remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) WP:DAILYMAIL makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- GreenC 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Something else - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per WP:BATHWATER clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but there is no indication of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they don't want to be informed about reality, but warned about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. They aren't even here. They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Add the reality, or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier that the Daily Mail may change their historical content, making it unreliable. Best practice would be to use another source, or link to a reliable archiving service. LK (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the Daily Mail going to be both a and also the only reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be WP:DUE (or, in the case of an article as a whole, WP:NOTABLE)? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open some use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. (Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of Chizerots, which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type [that] seems more Arabian than Berberic".) -sche (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. oknazevad (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that suggests this? How do you know say a 1905 archive copy of the Daily Mail is "likely fake"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Remove. In addition to the above, the clause as currently written also invites debate about what counts as "old", which isn't great in terms of guidance. The Perennial Sources page already has "Context matters" in the lead, and "generally prohibited" within the Daily Mail section, both of which already invite wiggle room for instances in which an old edition may be the best source. CMD (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSPDM

I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original WP:DAILYMAIL RfC left open the possibility that it may have been more reliable historically, but a subsequent RfC [link to this discussion] determined..." Sunrise (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from WP:DAILYMAIL which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the Charleston Daily Mail, which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:RSPDM in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions.

The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Wikipedia. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event).

It might therefore be useful to augment WP:RSPDM and WP:DAILYMAIL with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. Kahastok talk 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.

The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. Kahastok talk 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the WP:RSP supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance WP:RS and/or get actual specific judgement of WP:RSN instead ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary. — Newslinger talk 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust The Daily Mail?

(Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question)

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:

• The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
• wouldn't fabricate an interview,
• wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
• wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
• wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
• wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
• etc., etc.

Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in all situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing Whac-A-Mole. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I propose the following:

There are no situations where the post-1960 Daily Mail is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.

• If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists.
• If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate any material and publish it under any byline.
• If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation.
• If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information.
• Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On [Date] The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection.
• (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content.
• Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted.

Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when David English started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional RfC Question Discussion

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Wikipedia with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including one earlier today who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean completely prohibited, therefore his use was probably good.

So I would not support listing a date without strong support for the DM ever having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence.

Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too.

I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support without the post-1960 wording - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. buidhe 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on WP:RSN doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). This search is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Wikipedia greatly - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's important that we highlight the level of fabrication we're dealing with here, to help good-faith editors understand why the usual exceptions for attributed quotes aren't applicable to DM. –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support without 1960 wording. There are zero places where the Daily Mail can be trusted. They're as bad as the National Enquirer. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this unique to the DM?

Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We would have to find a source that [A] Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and [B] has been around for over 100 years. Infowars will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. The New York Times might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both [A] and [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see the actual thing the DM did, which was to say in the headline:

Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week

and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image:

SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945

without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text.

If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No this is totally not unique. If you are from the USA, hear this, people know in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism is not a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (not the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This does not mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers are all walking the sensationalist line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our TV news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to feature a teenage girl with her boobs out every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our newspapers are like, boobs out, SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES, every single day. You can rely on them for daily gambling news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the Daily Sport, is nothing but gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. They are not ashamed of what they are. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, always based in fact... but that is as far as they can be surely trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... no that is not what people are saying about them. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? No!! They are sensationalist. They actually try to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people love them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? But RTG... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. ~ R.T.G 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see [5] and [6]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Wikipedia is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:RTG Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ ~ R.T.G 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is not unique to the DM, but the reason we have these sorts of discussion (as I said way back in the original RFC) is that they have a specific combination of prominence and unreliability that is comparatively rare. We can't individually depreciate or ban every single unreliable source; the purpose of these centralized RFCs is to address a situation where a source that is patiently unreliable in any context where we would want to use it is, nonetheless, being extensively used by some editors who try to insist it is reliable. I don't think we can address that in a sweeping sense at a policy level because whatever category we create or define, a source's defenders will insist it doesn't fall into it. When there's a significant disagreement over the facts as they relate to a specific source, and it's leading to constant issues over whether / where it can be used on Wikipedia, a centralized discussion like this is really the only option. --Aquillion (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted

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

---

Problem at For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection). More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy WP:NPA. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Wikipedia hard policy, such as WP:BURDEN? - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "You say you have a better source?" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:CIVIL. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under WP:SPADE, then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one starting the drama as if out of some sense of blind entitlement, and being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a source that is not banned (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages remain in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the 2017 RFC and 2019 RFC, I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This edit removed a reference to the Mail on Sunday. Has the Daily Mail ban been extended to the Mail on Sunday? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to The Daily Mail title and its online presence. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither WP:DAILYMAIL or WP:DAILYMAIL2 covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat,

• Did you make this edit?[7]
• Did that edit add the source www.dailymail.co.uk?
• Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
• Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for The Daily Mail?
• Did I revert you with this edit?[8]
• Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
• Did you then edit war to re-insert the source www.dailymail.co.uk?[9] again?

These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) The Daily Mail] but you are now claiming[10][11]that they only added The Mail on Sunday? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Was this or this removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.

And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[12] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.

Re "Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?" First ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING. Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is your responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is your job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have The Last Word - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy. WP:EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... What edit warring is: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at WP:ANI. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:

1. It appears that Mail on Sunday is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
2. There is then the manner in which the sources to The Daily Mail are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say this edit exemplifies good practice. The problem with The Daily Mail is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?

Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is only in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The print edition of the MoS may be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.

I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "all grown up"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc., which quotes the Daily Mail as it's sole source would be acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. Guy (help!) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The process when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking immeditate removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a {{cn}}, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per wP:v.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagging with {{Deprecated source}} would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a lot more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. Guy (help!) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So Guy said "the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources". I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of WP:BRD. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but wp:brd is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."

That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We also have wP:agf, I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that the verification policy says that @Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.Slatersteven (talk)

Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)

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

---

In this edit,[13] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[14] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[15] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [16] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty obviously not an RS, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)#Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com). Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent Cardiac Arrest and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for The Daily Mail.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. The Guardian also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, someone needs to read WP:FANSITE. Guy (help!) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to Wikipedia:External links, which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. Guy (help!) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely can't answer the question. When you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules (something we have already seen with Wikipedia's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Wikipedia's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Wikipedia's policies, and you just flat out ignore it when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.

This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with David Gerard asking you to follow our rules.[18] and correctly identifying [19] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I told you to go to THE library - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.

More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

[self-reverted] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this is thoroughly out of order. SchroCat, it would be better not even to respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? Guy (help!) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Daily Mail: The halving

In Q3 2018, there were 27,336 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference on Wikipedia. At this moment, there are 13,630.

The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like this one, and help improve Wikipedia. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Wikipedia a noticeably better place - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail: It's below 10,000

The deprecated source backlog has less than 10,000 entries remaining! Your assistance is most welcomed - start at the top of this list (or wherever you like really), and see if you can knock off five - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Apple Daily

Given that references to Apple Daily are used in a lot of Hong Kong-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Thanks. 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Apple Daily)

• Option 4 or Option 5: It's a tabloid that regularly relies on poor sources, such as using a tweet from Solomon Yue a protest conspiracy theorist to cover which Hong Kong officials are on the U.S. list of sanctioned individuals in this article (now being added en masse to articles). A recent example of it producing false (i.e. factually incorrect but not necessarily with the intent to misinform) news (bolding mine):

  For example, a protest supporter last month posted a misleading image depicting Lam using her mobile device during the enthronement of the Emperor Naruhito, a sign of disrespect. Within hours, the post was shared thousands of times, including by prominent activist Agnes Chow and local news outlet Apple Daily. It turned out the image was actually taken before the event started, according to a report from Annie Lab, a fact-checking project at HKU’s Journalism and Media Studies Center.
  — A 2019 article by The Japan Times

  It's been described by academic sources as producing sham news, among a host of other journalistic issues:
  • A Wall Street Journal article (1999): describes it as giving readers a heavy diet of sex and violence and having been attacked for bringing tabloid journalism into Hong Kong homes
  • A Far Eastern Economic Review article (Taiwan — Lai's Next Move: The publisher with the Midas Touch hits new highs. But mainland China remains a dream (2001)): describes it as a racy tabloid
  • An EJ Insight article (2019): describes it as having never claimed to be objective or unbiased, particularly in reference to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
  • A journalism book published by the The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press (2015): criticizes it for breaches of privacy and paparazzi-like conduct.
  • An academic reference book by Berkshire Publishing Group (2014): its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred
  • An academic book on HK media by Routledge (2015, quoting 2005 criticism): Apple Daily has been described as 'well known for its brazen, sensational news coverage ... Legitimate political and social topics have been supplanted ... by sex, sensational crimes, the rise and fall of celebrities, scandalous paparazzi investigations, rumors, and even sham news.

To its credit, it's an example of press freedom in Hong Kong with extensive coverage of the protests, and is a rare publisher in HK that is willing to take on the Chinese government. Nevertheless, it's a tabloid that engages in the usual poor journalism practices across all types of content. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC); modified 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC); expanded 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC); struck Option 5 on basis on undemonstrated intention in false reporting 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical on "false" to save everyone's time 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC); add years of sources 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3, I think we should treat them with the same care we treat the New York Post and New York Daily News, they are usable in some circumstances but we always prefer higher quality sources. A distinction should be made between Apple Daily and the purely tabloid Next Magazine which should be deprecated. We must also be careful to make it clear that this is only about Apple Daily HK not Apple Daily Taiwan which has a completely different staff and editors (the Taiwanese one being much better, although they just had cuts [20] so who knows what the future holds). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2, changing iVote per [21] (the EJI Insight article provided above). They appear to currently be the third most reliable paper in HK and on a ten point scale score barely lower than SCMP (5.71 vs 5.89). The tabloid stuff looks to be largely in their past or confined to the separate Next Magazine publication. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 If it just a question of whether it is reliable, I would say no. I don't see a clear-cut case of intentional false reporting, so I don't think Option 5 is appropriate. In general, I would avoid it and seek better sources. However, ironically, I think the "controversial topics" of option 3 are where it may be valuable as a source. There simply aren't many news outlets covering Hong Kong political dissent, and I don't see major concerns about its coverage of this topic in particular. Editors should use it cautiously on a case-by-case basis. Daask (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3. Apple Daily isn't a fake news site, however some of the info may be opinionated against the government and should be treated with caution. It might, for example, downplay the violence by protesters and exaggerate use of violence by police. However, if it is reporting the GDP of France, it should be reliable. Political articles almost certainly cannot be quoted directly; they should be paraphrased if possible. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

striking out option 2 per arguments below. Not as bad to require a 4, but definitely not desirable in BLPs. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 They sometimes produce churnalism based on social media posts or images – but that's no different from other publications. They used to have a reputation of focusing too much on celebrity gossip, but that is no longer the case since a few years ago, as is reflected in survey results showing Apple Daily's reputation rising from the bottom to the top of the list. They take a different political position than every other print newspaper in Hong Kong, but that's not a reason to declare a source unreliable any more than to declare the Guardian unreliable just because they support Labour in a sea of pro-Tory newspapers. Apple Daily (HK) is perfectly reliable for news on property developments and government policy decisions, or reviews of local restaurants. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 See my comment in #Discussion (Apple Daily). Matthew hk (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: I agree with Daask. I would call Apple Daily a situational source, whether its usage is appropriate or not depend on the context, but I don't think this option is provided. Apple Daily is useful if we want to cover some of the more obscure details that English sources didn't cover, especially in the political/social aspect (certainly controversial topics), complementing other RS. If a controversial statement can be sourced to a RS, however, use those instead of Apple Daily. OceanHok (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, as mentioned above by other users, it is ranked above average among HK newspapers, television and online news sites by both citizens and independent research.--Roy17 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, per all, no point to make me Apple daily is not a RS. ----Wright Streetdeck 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2: In a recent CUHK research, Apple Daily enjoy high reputation in terms of credibility. If a page has only (or primarily) included Apple Daily as source, stating the need of having more diversified sources at the top of the page will mediate any potential problem. Universehk (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2: In the most recent survey conducted by CUHK, AD is second highest mark on Media Credibility--PYatTP (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 is ranked as one of the more reliable Hong Kong outlets and without a convincing rationale questioning its reliability I side with it being generally reliable with the caveat of seperating out fact from opinion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2: Apple Daily has an irreplaceable role in Hong Kong covering a wide range of sensitive topics extensively and exclusively. Political news articles may require verification, but occasional errors and the above journalistic issues do not seem to impact its general reliability. lssrn | talk 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Apple Daily)

• @MarkH21: please either source or retract, the statement that Solomon Yue is a conspiracy theorist violates WP:BLP no matter what space its made in unless backed up by a WP:RS. I noticed its unattributed on their page, it has been removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye Jack: Sorry, I took the statement from the WP article lead at face value too quickly. Digging in further though, sources do prescribe him as tweeting conspiracy theories:

  It’s a theory that seems to be somewhat related to the Wuhan lab conspiracy. One tweet by Republican Party official Solomon Yue, who has more than 100,000 followers, said: “#coronavirus is stolen from Canada by espionage & sent to Wuhan to be weaponized to kill foreign enemies.”
  — Article from Vox

  The problem of containment gets worse when power users such as politicians give this false information a boost. In US, Trump helped amplify tweets from the support of QAnon, the conspiracy group active in spreading Corona virus rumors. Republican party official Solomon Yue tweeted to more than 100,000 followers that the virus was stolen from Canada for use of a Bio weapon
  — Article from Rising Kashmir

  I’ve struck the label about him as a conspiracy theorist above, but the main point still stands about the article being based on his tweet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  The points a good one, I agree that Apple isnt generally reliable but we have a very high standard for calling someone a conspiracy theorist. Tweeting or re-tweeting conspiracy theories doesn’t count, we need a WP:RS to say in black and white “X is a conspiracy theorist” or “X is the originator of the Y conspiracy theory." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, and thanks for removing the statement from his article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MarkH21: Also just noticed that you’re mischaracterizing the The Japan Times article, neither the quote or the article supports the assertion that they’re "producing false news,” at most you can say “shared a misleading image.” Please correct yourself. I also note that since Solomon Yue is not a conspiracy theorist but is in fact the highest ranking member of the RNC born in China what they say and do is definitely newsworthy and reporting on it doesn't make them unreliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Also Multimedia Stardom in Hong Kong: Image, Performance and Identity doesnt make that statement, its a direct quote from Lo 2005 (and thus a little dated for our purposes, we are discussing Apple News’s reliability today not in the late 1990s). Representing a quote as coming from the source which used the quote is dangerous academically. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Actually now that I look at it a few more are too dated for our purposes: that WSJ piece is 1999 and the FEER piece is 2001. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The Berskshire book has been weirdly fashioned to remove both the beginning and end of the statement which changes the meaning entirely, the full statement is “Yet, its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred, but Lai insisted that journalism should feel the market’s pulse and reader’s feelings. Criticism of the government and the powers that be, including Lai’s good friends, was the rule and without exceptions.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The title of that EJI piece (which I believe is our most recent) is “Jimmy Lai's newspaper up in credibility, survey finds” btw, looks like you cherrypicked pretty hard to get these. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  The original Apple Daily article said that Lam was using her phone during the ceremony, as opposed to before the ceremony: 但她被當地電視台拍到在觀禮期間玩手機，對場合有欠尊重. Roughly: but she was filmed by a local TV station playing on her mobile phone during the ceremony, showing no respect for the occasion.

  Of course reporting that Solomon Yue says XYZ isn’t unreliable. However, publishing an article saying that six people are on the US sanctions list on the basis of his tweet that says Gang of Six: [six names] is very different.

  This is about the general reliability of Apple Daily. Editors can cite Apple Daily articles from 1999 or 2020 on Wikipedia. This is a whole body of literature being assessed.

  I don’t see how the part of the sentence about what the Apple Daily founder insists is relevant to assessing the reliability of the Apple Daily, or how it’s essential to the prior assertion in the quote.

  The EJI article isn’t asserting that Apple Daily is the third most credible news outlet; it says that the Apple Daily was third out of eleven paid local newspapers in a public opinion survey, while asserting in EJI's voice that the Apple Daily never claimed to be objective or unbiased. The survey barely means anything, and I hope that Wikipedia never has to rely on public opinion polls to determine reliability (even the deprecated Breitbart is distrusted by only 9% of US Republicans and 36% of US Democrats in a public opinion study by the Pew Research Center). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC); minor typo fix/clarification 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Your current argument is that Apple News made an error, you still have a long way to go to support “producing false news“ as that appears to be 100% your opinion rather than the opinion of the WP:RS.

  I don’t see how reporting on his tweet is journalistic misconduct as you’re claiming, plenty of people report on tweets these days and the tweet was by a notable person who is an expert in the field.

  We actually base general reliability on recent rather than historical reporting, if that were the case the we would have WaPo banned as a white supremacist conspiracy outlet. Thats why its wikipedia policy that the most recent WP:RS is the queen bee in any dispute.

  A public opinion survey in their home market has a bit more standing than your OR about false news. The way you pull that quote from the piece is highly misleading, in context it doesnt mean what you’re trying to force it to mean. Also again, even if it meant what you think it means bias and objectivity aren’t an issue for us WP:RS wise, lots of biased yet reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  False news isn't the same thing as fake news; fake news must be deliberately false. At least this is the most common definition and is the one used at the WP article, and seems to be the one you're using; I'm using "false news" to literally mean news that is factually incorrect. Apple Daily frequently reports information that is false, i.e. erroneous, but not demonstrably intentionally so. They have a habit of frequently making erroneous reports (here's another blatant front page error from 2013).

  The article isn't just reporting on the tweet, it just says that Regina Ip, for instance, is on the sanctions list. It credits the reporting of these people being on the list to Solomon Yue, without disclosing that it was based on the tweet Gang of Six: Commissar Carrie Lam, [...] Regina Ip are on a leaked 🇺🇸 sanction list.

  You're going pretty far back with that WaPo comparison. I don't think we're far enough into the 21st century that the recency consideration should exclude 1995-2005.

  It's not OR; RSes have reported several times about high-profile mistakes in Apple Daily reporting. I'm not trying to force anything, the quote means exactly what it means. But public opinion surveys don't have any standing on what makes a source reliable. This survey also appears to be the sole reason for your !vote that Apple Daily is Generally reliable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is getting off topic so I’l just address the main point and then you can edit your original comment. False news is not different from fake news or sham news, they’re different names for the same thing. What you are doing is calling errors/mistakes false news and that needs to stop now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Again, I've clarified several times that what I mean by "false news" is "factually incorrect news without a demonstrated intent to misinform", so there's no further need to explain what I meant. There are several differing definitions of the terms discussed at fake news, as covered in its "Definitions" and "Types" sections. I've explained the definition that I am using and clarified the exact statement that I am making. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I’ve searched high and low for a definition of false news like what you’re describing here (the fake news page makes it abundantly clear that they are generally used interchangeably), I cant find one. Can you link your preferred definition? We generally don’t let editors define words however they like when wikilinking those words would indicate something completely different (as it does here if we wikilink false news in your statement). By your definition of false news every single WP:RS has “produced false news” which is an odd statement that I think would be objected to by almost everyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  An MIT study published in Science defines "false news" in the exact same way that I have:

  We have therefore explicitly avoided the term fake news throughout this paper and instead use the more objectively verifiable terms “true” or “false” news. Although the terms fake news and misinformation also imply a willful distortion of the truth, we do not make any claims about the intent of the purveyors of the information in our analyses. We instead focus our attention on veracity and stories that have been verified as true or false.

  The rest of the paper then uses "false news" in exactly that way. Is that enough? Plenty of other reliable sources use "false news" to literally mean news that is incorrect, rather than the narrower requirement of being deliberately incorrect. There's a case to redirect false news to misinformation instead of fake news, but I don't intend on wasting any more time on this off-topic matter. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Using that definition publishing false news does not effect reliability as it relates to wikipedia so I’m confused by your argument. We require that it be deliberate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  The point was that they have had several high-profile incidents of erroneous reporting and sloppy journalism, and have been criticized for doing so. It’s more frequent and severe (relative to the body of independent coverage about their journalism, and relative to the age of the newspaper) than one would typically find for “Generally reliable” sources in WP:RSNP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who is is not familiar with the reliability of Apple Daily or Hong Kong news in general, I have to agree with Horse Eye Jack here that sources that are over a decade old are not appropriate to determine reliability. For instance Buzzfeed built an award winning news operation after initially being a publisher of listicles, if you were to judge Buzzfeed by article discussing the publication in the early years, you'd get inaccurate impression. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If it were "fake news" (deliberate false reporting), which I don't think Apple Daily has done, then it would go to Option 5. Reliability is not just about whether the newspaper reports news falsely and deliberately. Reliability is about whether the newspaper reports news falsely at times (even if not deliberate). This is related to the reputation for fact-checking, which according to arguments above have appeared multiple times. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability is more about owning errors, when reliable sources make errors (and they routinely do, NYT makes multiple errors a day) they correct or retract their error. Apple News (HK) does appear to do that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems more a Tier III thing personally, as it is, in my opinion, not completely reliable on controversial topics. As expressed above, they do correct their error.--1233 ( T / C） 03:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Too long don't read. Apple Daily has many error as well as tabloid journalism. The magnitude of error is way too large. For example reporting Wang Ming-chen as the first Chinese physicist when copy editing the original The Beijing News. However, the The Beijing News article clearly stated that she is the first Chinese female physicist and by common sense many Chinese physicist are born earlier and obtain PhD way earlier than Wang.

Another example, they made a huge investment on video news. However, for Hysan, they can't even read the source material probably and reporting the company has 10 properties in Causeway Bay in the video news. But in fact, the company annual report clearly stated 9 in Causeway Bay and 1 in Wan Chai/Mid-level. Their investment on photoshop / video compare to basic proofreading fact checking is disproportionate.

For other metric, a depart of CUHK (香港中文大學傳播與民意調查中心) conducted a survey on creditability, many citizen gave the newspaper quite a low score. (this is an option (edit: damn me for another typo. I mean opinion) article on Ming Pao regarding the survey, not the primary source [22] )

For the good side Apple Daily has on-site reporter on live event, accusing them not reporting that they actually saw is a WP:OR. Instead, for HK local news, if more than one source to reporting event A and if Apple Daily's narrative is roughly the same as other newspaper, i don't see any point to not to keep 2 newspapers as citation. I personally not recomanded to use Apple Daily as single citation without cross checking BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see that Apple Daily got a low score, I see that Apple Daily got the third highest score. Google translate yields "Among the paid newspapers, almost all the newspapers' scores have dropped, and they have fallen considerably. With the exception of the Apple Daily, its scores and rankings in 2016 have risen, and this year it has risen to the third place, which is almost the same as the score of the second Ming Pao, and the South China Morning Post continues to top the list.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The option (edit: typo: opinion) article is stating overall the newspapers got a low score. By a metric of 1 to 10. Yeah 5.18 in Y2016 and rank 8th among paid newspaper is self-explanatory. It was ranked 3rd with a score of 5.71 in Y2019 , after the outbreak of 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Apple Daily is ranked 11th in 2006, 2010, 2013 surveys BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The scores are relative not absolute, they can only be used to judge the newspapers against each other. You can’t just say “5.71 is not 10 so it must be bad!” when the source doesn't say that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The score itself does not have a conclusion by itself. But the opinion author, 蘇鑰機, which also came from CUHK, choose "香港傳媒公信力：低處未必最低" as the headline, which roughly translated as overall the creditability of the whole industry is falling and not yet bottom . Ranked 11th for 2006, 2010, 2013, 8th in 2016 and 3rd in 2019. That's some reference point for other people to judge Apple Daily's credibility. Matthew hk (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude you don’t get to file a bogus ANI report [23] on me (which you almost got boomerang blocked for) and then carry on discussions with me as if nothing has happened. Pound sand, I’m done with you and your disruptive editing style. Don’t let me catch you on my talk page either, you’re banned from there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, Horse Eye Jack, I recommend against holding this kind of attitude against users who fail to assume good faith. An allegation of editing on Dahua Technology, however egregiously failing to AGF, is not going to solve disputes. This discussion id different. Putting that aside, I consider Apple Daily kind of reliable for reporting straight facts like this report on COVID-19 but reports like calling the Communist Party bandits or reports of the protests (particularly the use of police force)? I'm not going to cite them. It is nowhere near reliable for contentious topics, as mentioned above. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many users here tend to discredit Appledaily because of its political standpoint. The truth is, the press in HK is so distorted and heavily influenced by Chinese govt that often very few other established newspapers would cover the sensitive topics that Appledaily covers, so people not familiar with press in HK may find that Appledaily is sometimes contradicted by other sources, but local citizens and researchers' rankings reflect the actual credibility Appledaily deserves.--Roy17 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Roy17: What do you mean by independent research and researcher’s rankings if it’s different from the local citizens’ rankings (i.e. the CUHK public opinion survey)? — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @PYatTP: 3rd (not 2nd) in the specific category of local paid newspapers (11 entries) of the public opinion survey. Also emphasis on it being just a public opinion survey. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe a bit late now, but I just noticed from the Apple Daily article that the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found the Apple Daily to be the third least trusted major news outlet in Hong Kong, essentially the opposite of the CUHK public opinion survey: Newman, Nic; Fletcher, Richard; Kalogeropoulos, Antonis; Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2019). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019 (PDF) (Report). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved 2 May 2020. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye Jack: This further shows how public opinion surveys shouldn’t matter for RSN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Those don’t appear to be interchangeable studies, comparing them to each other is apples to oranges as they’re measuring different things. Also not to be pedantic but you were the one who introduced that public opinion survey onto RSN as a valuable and informative source when you believed it supported your argument. When exactly between posting it and now did your opinion change? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

They’re two different studies from the same year about public opinion that have opposite results. Your !vote for option 1 is worded such that it’s based solely on one of the two public opinion surveys showing that HKers trust the Apple Daily 3rd out of 11 paid newspapers, meanwhile there’s a similar study where it’s 13th out of 15 news sources. I don’t think that one should take public opinion studies into account at all, but if you do then you can’t arbitrarily choose one study and ignore the other.

I never used the survey to support my argument. I linked the EJI article about the survey, but only for what EJI said in its own voice (that the Apple Daily never claimed to be objective or unbiased) unrelated to the survey. The quote is in the EJI article about the CUHK public opinion study, but the quote is in EJI’s own voice and isn’t about the CUHK study. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why use it at all then? We’re discussing reliability not whether they’re "objective or unbiased” (as you know neither is necessary in a WP:RS). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources need to be as objective as possible. Otherwise it’s just a subjective opinion. All sources have bias, but extreme bias is problematic too.

My point still stands that your !vote and three other !votes are based predominantly on one of two public opinion surveys. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not objective journalism is actually something that exists in real life or is a semi-mythic goal for journalists to work towards is a point of disagreement within Philosophy of Journalism. The great Molly Ivins said of objective journalism “there is no such thing.” I appreciate the point you're trying to make but my vote is not based predominately on the opinion surveys, they just happened to tip the scales enough to move my vote based on the clumsy five level scale we have here. I stand by my assertion the Apple is either “1 or 2” on the scale thats been provided. Given that you haven’t removed the ironically misleading first three sentences of your original post I think we’re going to just have to agree to disagree. I’ve been more than reasonable and at this point it feels like you’re WP:bludgeoning the process. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

My !vote was modified to clarify anything that could be misleading. I’m only bringing up new information that I only found recently for discussion; no need to accuse of bludgeoning. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

On that point we disagree, I find the current statement highly misleading and you don’t. Thats fine, we can have a difference of opinion and overall I respect your edits (heck normally I agree with them too). I’m sorry if the bludgeoning comment felt accusatory but I was just trying to let you know how it felt from my angle, I did not intend to make an accusation just to note a feeling. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

More nobility fansites

Should almanachdegotha.org, chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha, jacobite.ca and englishmonarchs.co.uk be deprecated? Guy (help!) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295 § RfC: Three genealogy sites, there are some more sites that appear to be nobility fansites rather than reliable references.

• almanachdegotha.org   - virtually unreadable, no About page that I can find, no evidence of an editorial board.
• chivalricorders.org   - now defunct but archives also show no obvious evidence of reliability.
• www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha   - Angelfire-hosted "Online Gotha", appears to be a one-man project.
• jacobite.ca   - another one-man project, Jacobite fansite run by an enthusiastic amateur but no editorial board and no relevant academic status.
• englishmonarchs.co.uk   (added 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}

There's another one which looks on the face of it to be reliable:

• almanach.be  

It looks OK, but I am a bit suspicious. Thoughts? Guy (help!) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation at least of chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha and duses|jacobite.ca. Not sure about the other two. Almanach de Gotha was the Royalist genealogist handbook in the 19th century, I don't know how reliable its modern revival is.Smeat75 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it was. And Online Gotha has nothign to do with it. Guy (help!) 22:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sure these have cropped up before and found wanting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Depreciate all I agree with Newslinger that these sites (perhaps aside from the Angelfire one due to usage and Almanachdegotha.org as it does appear to officially represent the modern publication, even if in its modern form it isn't all that notable) aren't worth adding to the Perennial Sources List, as they are used only around 100 times. Guy, I don't see why you find reliable about the .be one, there's no indication it is definitely the online verison of the Almanach de Bruxelles, which I can find essentially no reference to on google outside the initial 1916 NYT story, so I'm not sure that the original publication is even notable. The online version is totally inaccessible without a subscription, hasn't updated the copyright on the website since 2012 and looks exactly like all the other nobility websites, there's no reason to think that it is reliable merely because it charges a subscription and has an unsubstantiated connection. I would say that the original Almanach de Gotha published up through 1944 is reliable, though I have no opinion about the revival from 1998 onwards, though it appears not to be all that popular, as the official twitter account has less than 1,500 followers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I had more followers than that on my original Twitter account! Online Gotha is not affiliated with the revived Almanac de Gotha, as far as I can tell. It's a fansite. Guy (help!) 22:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, it says on the website "Welcome... to the Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha the Online Royal Genealogical Reference Handbook Der Saxe Gotha Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" And it also claims on its website to be © 1995-2020, 1995 being the same year that the rights were sold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, gotha1763.com   also claims to be the official website for the book, and has a much sleeker website, yet appears to have nearly the exact same follower account and automated messaging on twitter as the .org site, It also claims to have some kind of relationship with the King of Spain and Prince of Monaco, the Prince of Belgium and the Duke of Somerset? What? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Almanachdegotha.org (Almanach de Saxe Gotha) is run by a, err let me be kind and say a special individual, who claimed to have re-established the Holy Roman Empire. The website trades on the respected name of the Almanach de Gotha and I see it has now added another respected publication, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, to its handle, so it cons people. The genealogies were copied from the Online Gotha, the other texts from Wikipedia, so the genealogies are probably reliable at least.... The website Gotha1763.com is the website for the Almanach de Gotha books, so does not list its genealogies online. - dwc lr (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@DWC LR:, fair enough for .org, but how do you know Gotha1763.com is legit? Its website is admittedly much better looking, but its official twitter account, looks almost exactly the same as the .org one and I can't find any proof of its legitimacy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I’ve consulted their books, but their website has no use as a source because they don’t list their genealogies online (like some of the websites listed at the top), they are only available in the books which can be brought via their website direct, the publisher or book stores. It looks like .org just copy and pastes the tweets days later, .com always tweets first. The .org person is loopy so I’m not surprised. - dwc lr (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate all per the reasons given by nom.Smeat75 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment chivalricorders.org, before its demise, was published by Guy Stair Sainty who appears to be a credible authority—see my comments in later section. I would not include it among the others. Choess (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Choess, it appears to have been self-published without editorial oversight, though. Or am I missing something? Guy (help!) 08:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG I was thinking it would fall under WP:RSSELF, although some manual pruning might be necessary if it's being used to source BLP. I'll look at some of those links... Choess (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate all per above ~ HAL333 04:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage

• burkespeerage.com  

The Burke's Peerage website (which appears to be official) is cited over 500 times on Wikipedia, and the Book Volumes appear to be cited several thousand times. Burke's Peerage is obviously a much more notable and storied institution than the self published fansites, so I think it's worthy of its own separate subsection. My questions are: Is the website a reliable source, and does it have a separate reliability to the historical book volumes? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for genealogy, most of the rest is supplied by the subject so I don't have a strong view. Guy (help!) 15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• If the book is reliable, why wouldn't the website be? A reference work that's been around for almost 200 years is not going to start dumping stuff on its website that's worse in quality than what it puts in print. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nyttend, the issue is whether the information is independently vetted. For example, if Sir Bufton Tufton says he's a member of the Garrick and his interests include falconry and tiddlywinks, does anyone check that? Guy (help!) 11:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Burke's decides who they want in the edition, and ask the subject to tell Burke's about themselves. It's little more than UGC. ——Serial ^# 11:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per genealogy, indifferent on the rest, as per Guy. (I think the question of how one could check interests in falconry and tiddlywinks precedes that of whether they are checked.) I can't seem to find any information on how they do or don't check entries (are they wholly credulous? do they send round a list to Brooks's of claimed members to catch would-be social climbers?) The New Yorker fact-checkers report in 2014 that Burke's and Debrett's are part of their reference library and used at least for genealogy. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between what's on the subscription part of their website and what goes into their print products (indeed, you can't order a print edition at present). They do include "American Presidential Families", which was prepared by Harold Brooks-Baker when he controlled the Burke's name but not the rights to publish the "Peerage and Baronetage"; I would be more skeptical about the quality of that work, but that should be dealt with in the context of individual claims. Choess (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Debrett's

• debretts.com  

Debretts.com is currently cited over 1,700 times, seemingly also primarily for biographical information, and, of course, for etiquette. Many of the links appear to be dead, several example archives of People of Today from 2012 can be seen here, here and Keir Starmer. Debrett's is obviously a storied institution as well, being the longtime publisher of Debrett's Peerage, which again appears to be cited several thousand times. My main concern is that for the biographical information, particularly the (seemingly defunct as of 2017) "People of Today", it appears to be a Who's Who sort of thing where the information is simply solicited from the person without any fact checking, which would make it a self published source (see this letter to Architects' Journal). Debrett's is best known as an authority on etiquette, so I would tentatively consider them reliable in this area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mixed. Peerage is as reliable as you get for the kinds of things it publishes, but last time I looked people of today is basically pay to play. Guy (help!) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The letter to Architects' Journal suggests that (at least in 2004) the entries for People of Today were solicited by Debrett's, and that the author did not have to pay to be included (but was strongly encouraged to buy the book), which in my eyes makes it at least a better source than Marquis Who's Who (admittedly an extremely low bar), which does engage in the pay to play behaviour you describe . I would concur that both Burke's and Debrett's Peerages are reliable sources for genealogy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Marquis chose a deliberately deceptive title, and I have no idea why Who's Who did not do them for dilution. Guy (help!) 11:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, with some unease about People of Today. Per my comment above, Debrett's and Burke's are the two standard reference sources for the Peerage. Choess (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cracroft's Peerage

• cracroftspeerage.co.uk  

Yet another fansite with no indicia of relaibility. Guy (help!) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable For the same reasons as the other sources. I can kind of understand why Newslinger had an issue with all the self published sites on the Perennial sources list, but self published "Peerage" sites are such a consistent genre of problematic sources that they absolutely deserve a collective entry on the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

@Germash19: has been editing the article of List of the busiest airports in Europe for years, and has been adding the same reference citing outdated, old, and geographically wrong images from Encyclopedia Britannica. Claiming that Krasnodar, and the Krasnodar International Airport is located within Asia, when it is entirely within southern European Russia, in the western extremity of the Russian Federation, and the North Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe.

Now, coming to his point that the southern part of European Russia, is apparently within the Asian continent, as he claims, is as absurd as it seems. If you follow the map shown in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is clearly wrong, and shows that the North Caucasus is outside of Europe, and is a part of Asia, it seems like the North Caucasus is an exclave of Asia not even connected to Asia or Asian Russia by land, and is rather located within Europe. The image also excludes the smaller European portions of the transcontinental countries of Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is also not like that Krasnodar is located close to the divider of Europe and Asia, the Ural Mountains, and the Caucasus, that he keeps adding the reference that apparently the airport is in the boundary of Europe and Asia, and also a bold claim that it can be considered in Asia, without citing any other references or sources supporting his claims. The Krasnodar International Airport is located within the city of Krasnodar, which is located in Krasnodar Krai, a federal subject of Russia, which is clearly located in Eastern Europe, which borders the Black Sea, and is separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov. In fact, he also believes that Sochi, a seaport on the Black Sea coast of Russia, is also in Asia. So, according to this reference, the highest mountain in Europe, Mount Elbrus, which is located in the North Caucasus, is also located in Asia, so why is it considered European then?

Here are the references: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danloud (talk • contribs)

References

They may not be alone [[24]]. Do you have an RS that contests this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica has been extensively discussed before, see WP:BRITANNICA Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the used definition of the Europe-Asia boundary. If my memory serves me right, we were taught similar boundary in high school (with Mont Blanc as the highest mountain in Europe) - that was some 20 years ago. Books I have at hand (an old school atlas and small seven part encyclopedia) put Elbrus outside of Europe exactly like Encyclopedia Britannica. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Germash19:@Danloud:@Slatersteven:@Pavlor: As far as i know, European Russia covers the whole part of the Russian Federation west of the Ural Mountains, including North Caucasus, the northern part of the Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe. See these references: [25][26] However, South Caucasus is an area disputed about whether its in Europe or not. The map used in Encyclopedia Britannica excludes whole Southern Russia, European portions of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which are located in the southern part of the Caucasus, and suspiciously includes the European portion of Kazakhstan, which is almost never considered a part of Europe, and never added on the maps of Europe.[27][28]

Southern Russia is the southernmost point of European Russia, where the western part borders the Black Sea and the eastern part borders the Caspian Sea. Krasnodar is a city located within the federal subject of Krasnodar Krai, on the Russian Black Sea coast, which is also narrowly separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov, if Krasnodar Krai was within the limits of the Asian continent then the Sea of Azov is a divider between Europe and Asia, just like the Ural Mountains or the Caucasus Mountains, which is it not, it is a sea in Eastern Europe. Also, recently Russia inaugurated the Crimean Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland (specifically Krasnodar Krai, which we are talking about here) to the Crimean Peninsula. It surpassed the Vasco da Gama Bridge and has been halted as the tallest bridge in Europe since 2019, [29][30][31][32][33] so if whole Southern Russia was indeed in Asia, the Crimean Bridge is a bridge connecting Europe and Asia, just like the Bosphorus Bridge, which it is not. Mount Elbrus is located in the North Caucasus, and is indeed the highest peak in Europe.[34][35][36][37]

So the output is that Southern Russia, including North Caucasus is generally considered within the European continent, the map used in Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, and i must admit i have never seen that map anywhere else, and this is also the first time i have seen a map of Europe without the southern part of Russia. The map also excludes a few European bits of Russia across the Ural Mountains. Krasnodar and Sochi are both within Europe, and not at the boundary of Europe and Asia, and absolutely not within Asia, as the reference claims. Horope (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Horope, see also WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a question for WP:RSN. The best solution is an RfC to determine the consensus definition of Europe to be used in the article, because one could clearly argue this either way in good faith. Guy (help!) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NPV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." The article has two points of view on the location of Krasnodar airport (Europe and Asia). Danloud and Horope delete one of the opinions about the location of the airport.--Germash19 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Cartographic history comment Horope Krasnodar Airport is definitely in contested territory. Any time in the past three thousand years it would clearly be considered on the Asian side of the Black Sea. But since the 19th century the more expansive definition using the Urals as an eastern boundary for Europe has come into play but is not universal, and further disputes exist on where and how to draw the (entirely arbitrary and non-natural) boundary joining the Urals to the Caucasus. (Which were important in a lot of Soviet committee meetings that decided which SSR should have which territory) Classically though, it would seem very bizarre to put the Caucasus or eastern Black Sea littoral in Europe, when the standard divide was, and in many contexts remains, the Aegean Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River. The idea of the Urals forming a land boundary came very late to the party. Maps illustrating the vagaries of this are here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth#Europe_and_Asia. GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Kerch Bridge also appears here: [[38]] GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Horope's and Danloud's definition of Europe agrees with that of the wikipedia article, so if there is a dispute about the eastern boundary of Europe then there needs to be a broader discussion on the issue, otherwise I would favor their position for internal consistency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I agree that this is a geography question not a RS question --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Well, @Germash19: is back again restoring his edits on the List of the busiest airports in Europe, without giving any explanation on why he did it, and not citing any sources, or discussing the matter here. He is going to keep doing this, because nobody warns him or takes any actions. Just like Danloud said. Horope (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Facebook

Should Facebook be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (Per the IMDb discussion on this noticeboard) to discourage misuse? Facebook is currently cited over 60,000 times on Wikipedia per facebook.com  . Facebook is currently described at RS/P as "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight." 15 specific Facebook pages are currently on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Facebook is also specifically cited at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources as an example of "unacceptable user-generated sites" Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Facebook)

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

• Oppose as it is acceptable for self source of minor details such as date of birth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's odd. My facebook page has my date oif birth wrong. Thank goodness it isn't being used as a source for my date of birth. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: is this an oppose for XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which only reverts the use of sources in references for unregistered and new users with less than 7 day old accounts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support warn edit filter and XlinkBot Facebook is almost entirely user generated content, and is extensively used in WP:BLP articles, which require high quality sourcing, which Facebook falls far below. While I agree that it may be useful in limited WP:ABOUTSELF circumstances, Facebook links should be used only with caution by experienced editors and preventing new users from using Facebook would help curb problematic usage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Hemiauchenia - Admittedly I've used Facebook I believe twice here so extreme caution should be used with it and I agree with Hemiauchenia only experienced editors should be able to add it and even then if should only be added if necessary and in exceptional circumstance. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose since I oppose the use of edit filters in principle. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both—the cases where Facebook should be cited are very rare, inexpienced users are most likely to misuse. I think the helpful effects outweigh the harms from this filter. buidhe 22:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't spam-filter it (yet), it has its uses, but an edit filter is definitely appropriate. Do we have an edit filter as yet that completely blocks additions by IPs and non-autoconfirmed users? - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose setting such an edit filter to disallow. Support setting it to warn. Oppose the bot because it sounds needlessly bitey. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose bot. When I saw this, I immediately thought of a potential use — a notable person who has a Facebook account but doesn't have anything close to an official website. In general, I believe it would be 100% appropriate to link that person's Facebook site: either the person doesn't care about his privacy and makes lots of stuff visible, or he does care and restricts what's online. With this in mind, bots shouldn't go around removing newly-added Facebook links, since a likely good-use situation exists. Maybe do a filter that warns and tags, but new users can still be productive in this kind of setting, so at most we ought to warn them that it's a bad idea most of the time, and make it so someone can easily go around checking such edits. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It is a social media website in which people can claim anything without any verifiability and others would believe them. Even its owner has admitted the spread of fake news and hoaxes over it and has done little to curb it. A website with such content should not be allowed here. Also if it is listed on WP:RS as unreliable, allowing to use it will give users and readers the impression that we don't follow our own policies. I disagree with Nyttend over a notable person having only a Facebook account. Even if they do, they can create a LinkedIn profile which would be more acceptable. Fully agree with David Gerald about an IP filter. IPs are mostly the cause of vandalism here and I've seen only a few IPs who contribute something worthwhile. They should be encouraged to create an account none-the-less. It is not like you have to pay to create an account. One can stay anonymous under an account as well. I also support the bot only if it warns the user after it removes the Facebook link from the article. If the User continues, they can be warned from an actual user and then reported at WP:ANI for disruptive editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting - unless anyone can prove that Facebook is reliable enough. Not only is it unreliable due to the nature of content monitoring, but it is also being overrun by conspiracy theorists and fake-news-wielding communalists (people who discriminate by religion) in the USA and India respectively. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both, Facebook is still a useful, albeit unreliable, source, and including a warning filter for everybody would create the presumption that it should never be used, which is just plain wrong. Automatic reversion is also a bad idea, as that is Bite-y and would harm content more than help it, since there are quite common legitimate reasons to cite Facebook. this is an absolutely awful idea. Specifically, it would decimate articles on politics, very often a person has an account on there which serves as a campaign website. Also, this is not even going into the fact that Facebook can function as a perfectly good primary source. Blacklisting Facebook or putting a filter on it is an absurd overreaction that would have horrible consequences for Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Devonian Wombat, eh? No it wouldn't. It would simply remind people before they add Facebook to check WP:SPS. Guy (help!) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  That’s a good reminder for me to double-check what the person making the proposal is actually saying. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support warn+tag as MediaWiki:Tag-deprecated source, oppose bot as only humans can verify whether a Facebook link is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support filter for new users, oppose bot as it would be biting to automatically remove content that new editors think that they have added. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this. A "warn" filter doesn't stop it being used, but it will remind people that citing Facebook groups and other such crap is a Bad Idea. Looking at filter logs for 869, the XLinkBot addition is also justified. Guy (help!) 08:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. There are legitimate use cases for Facebook links — for example, I've seen professional organizations make announcements on their Facebook pages before/instead of their own websites — so we should allow such links in principle, but guard against them being introduced willy-nilly. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including blacklisting or any other restriction. There is nothing reliable about Facebook, as it applies to being a source. Any information can be fudged, verifying accounts is not easy (and in some cases, not possible). Nothing about it qualifies as a primary, secondary or tertiary source. From the perspective of sourcing, it is actually less reliable than a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the reliability depends on who is posting on what on Facebook et al. For example WIN News posts news stories to their Facebook pages - example at "RUGBY UNION". Win News Sunshine Coast. Maroochydore: Win Television. 25 May 2020. Retrieved 26 May 2020. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• I should've pointed out the stories are posted to those pages after they have been broadcast on TV. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose autorevert/blacklist, warning is ok I hate Facebook on many grounds but there is insufficient evidence given of these links being a bad enough problem to warrant interfering with editor judgment in such drastic ways. Per WP:PRIMARY, a self-published post usually isn't a good source; but per the same WP:PRIMARY, it sometimes is. Wikipedia should run on good judgment on these matters, rather than mechanized bots and filters. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the only good source for a claim is Facebook, then it is not notable enough. For discussing personal posts, it is not good enough per WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both, but especially the bot, since auto-reversion is an extreme measure that should be reserved for specific, extreme cases. In general, I don't see any evidence of a problem requiring a solution here. An official Facebook page is not any more reliable than an organization or individual's website, but neither is it any less reliable. For the classic situation of notable person/organization using their Facebook page (alone) to post a noteworthy fact or statement, the best practice is what it always has been: to link to both the actual primary source and a reliable secondary source discussing it. But best practices aside, just as bad content is better than no content, bad sources are better than no sources. Quality is iterative, and any measure that discourages editors from providing the actual source where they found information is iterating us in the wrong direction. -- Visviva (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Warning may be helpful, automated removal or preventing of edits is opposed It's settled policy that there are limited situations in which specific material in Facebook might be acceptable as a source or external link. If editors want to change that policy then that should be done explicitly and clearly and not through the imposition of an edit filter or other technical means. ElKevbo (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both, and change the policy to get rid of this and other commercial "social media" apps completely, for multiple reasons. 1. Social media services are unreliable. 2. Social media services are not Web sites, they're apps: they won't load properly without running their non-free malware-spyware JavaScript, so anything sourced to them is unverifiable for everyone who cares about that; linking to them is incompatible with the Wikipedia idea of free culture. 3. Social media apps are inherently advertisements for their own services, making links to them spam. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. A spot check indicates that most of the existing citations to Facebook do not qualify under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy, and should not be used to support article content. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both per Visvisa. Facebook is fine in certain cases, such as WP:ABOUTSELF information, and statements by organizations. In my experience, municipal- and county-level officials and departments often release statements on Facebook first, and sometimes only on Facebook. I also want to add that we've already drifted way too far from being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We don't have nearly as many active editors as we should. We don't want to be scaring newbies off - oftentimes excellent contributors start out with well-meaning but misguided edits. The last thing we need is even more hoops for newcomers to jump through. Lastly I want to object to Goldenshimmer's 2nd and 3rd reasons for supporting these proposals. Verifiability doesn't mean it has to be free on a noncommercial website with no tracking scripts. That would block off almost all of the Internet. In research for articles I've written I've used material from numerous local newspapers whose websites look like 2004 came to life on my screen, with obtrusive ads blocking almost all the content so that I have to use "inspect element" in order to actually read the text. Many widely used sources are behind paywalls - The Times of London, the Economist, etc (I don't count NYT/WaPo/etc because their paywalls are easily bypassed by pressing ESC at just the right time during pageload). Sources don't even have to be on the Internet - books are widely used, and often they are more reliable than Internet sources. Our primary goal isn't to promote free-software culture. Our goal is to build the world's largest collection of easily accessible knowledge using any tools available to us, regardless of our personal feelings on their profit model or use of javascript. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  CactusJack: 1. I think you misunderstood me: a Web site using tracking scripts doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate to use, mainly because of their ubiquity (as you point out). Rather, requiring these scripts to run is the issue. Most Web sites will work with such scripts blocked. Social media apps generally will not, and therein is the issue. — 2. I'm not sure why you bring up offline sources; I generally would consider them preferable to online-only sources because they have a longer lifespan and generally reliable access through libraries. — 3. Wikipedia's goal, at least as it presents itself, is first and foremost to promote free culture; it is "the free encyclopedia" after all — promoting free-software culture is an important part of free culture. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

voltairenet.org

• voltairenet.org  

Is voltairenet.org a reliable source? [39] It seems to be a collection of fringey pro-Russia, anti-EU editorials with little indication of editorial oversight. buidhe 05:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Most of the stories are written by Thierry Meyssan, "a French journalist, conspiracy theorist and political activist". Guy (help!) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)`
• It seems that original of article(could not post link here) is from GlobalResearch which is blacklisted site by itself --Shrike (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Voltairenet

Should voltairenet.org   be (a) deprecated and (b) removed as a source and added to the revert list? Guy (help!) 10:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Deprecate and remove. This is a self-published source, run by Thierry Meyssan, "a French journalist, conspiracy theorist and political activist." It is used in over 130 articles, often for contentious content about living people. Guy (help!) 10:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Deprecate and remove. Per Jzg comments also it probably reprints sites with copyvio violations like the article in question which orinaly appeared on GlobalResearch --Shrike (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Deprecate and remove per above. buidhe 12:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Deprecate and remove per everyone above. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Deprecate and remove republishing articles from the blacklisted GlobalResearch Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources unacceptable as primary for Anti-fascism?

User:Rupert loup removed the following as "primary" "Political scientist Antonia Grunenberg describes "anti-fascism" as a "strange term, that expresses opposition to something, but no political concept", and points out that while all democrats are against fascism, not everyone who is against fascism is a democrat; in this sense Grunenberg argues that the term obscures the difference between democrats and non-democrats. Tim Peters notes that the term is one of the most controversial terms in political discourse. Norman Davies notes that "anti-fascism" originated as an ideological construct of Soviet propaganda: "'anti-fascism' did not offer a coherent political ideology. In terms of ideas, it was an empty vessel, a mere political dance. It showed its adherents what to oppose, not what to believe in. It gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat, or that democratic socialists had only minor differences with Communism." Michael Richter highlights the ideological use of the term in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, in which the term fascism was applied to opponents of Communism regardless of any connection to historical fascism, and where the term anti-fascism served to legitimize communist rule."

and this as "Primary opinion WP:PRIMARY"

"The diversity of political entities that share only their anti-fascism has prompted the historian Norman Davies to argue in his book Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory that anti-fascism does not offer a coherent political ideology, but rather that it is an "empty vessel". Davies further asserts that the concept of anti-fascism is a "mere political dance" created by Josef Stalin and spread by Soviet propaganda organs in an attempt to create the false impression that Western democrats by joining the USSR in the opposition to fascism could in general align themselves politically with communism. The motive would be to lend legitimacy to the dictatorship of the proletariat and was done at the time the USSR was pursuing a policy of collective security. Davies goes on to point out that with Winston Churchill as a notable exception, the concept of anti-fascism gained widespread support in the West, except that its credibility suffered a serious but temporary blow while the USSR and Nazi Germany coordinated their wars of aggression in Eastern Europe under their Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact."

I don't see it. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Er, really? On the face of it, all that is perfectly fine. In fact better sources than a lot of content we have. Guy (help!) 13:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Looks like a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and a failure to clarify their objections to the content in your discussion. I would say that a series of attributions to random authors causes the text to read as a bibliographic narrative rather than a summary of the topic. Who are Grunenberg, Peters, Davies, and Richter that their views should be highlighted? Do other scholars look to them and their works as making important contributions on the topic? That's not an argument for outright removal tho, and i don't see any policy or guideline based objection to the content. fiveby(zero) 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Fiveby, well, Antonia Grunenberg and Norman Davies both have author links, and the other two are peer reviewed papers in respectable journals, so the answer appears to be that yes, others do look to them. In fact this looks like its pretty squarely the area of expertise of Grunenberg, especially.

  Maybe the argument is closer to WP:SYN, rather than WP:RS (clear pass) or WP:UNDUE (unlikely given the author credentials). Guy (help!) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  When reading outside WP, and an author mentions another's work i tend to assign some importance. Whether the author agrees or disagrees with the view he is calling attention to it for a reason. When i see another author quoted it's because he has either phrased something so well that it nicely summarizes a topic or perfectly illustrates what is so wrong about their view. When reading WP articles i must reverse that assumption and assign less weight. Maybe it's something that editors couldn't agree how to incorporate into summary test so by default it ends up as an attributed statement. Maybe it's just something an editor googled and inserted because it matches their POV and is only there because it is "RS". Compare the number of attributed statements in some articles to other works, much more than usual and much, much more that other encyclopedias. Anyway that argument probably goes far beyond what most editors would see as WP:UNDUE, but would readers agree? fiveby(zero) 18:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely - and there are many more scholarly publications. It is an inadequate term and has been throughout its history in Europe with no distinct definition. See journal article What Fascism Is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept by Gilbert Allardyce, and Marcel H. Van Herpen's book Putinism pp 116-126, Defining Fascism: The “Thin” Method ...an ideology in which national revival (palingenesis) has a central place, and that it is populist and ultra-nationalist and thereby “precludes the nationalism of dynastic rulers and imperial powers before the rise of mass politics and democratic forces (…), as well as the populist (liberal) nationalism which overthrows a colonial power to institute representative democracy. There are countless books and articles by historians and academics that corroborate the term's inadequacy, and the inability of scholars and historians to succinctly define it because it takes on so many different forms. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, that's fascism, though, not anti-fascism. Much of the issue with defining fascism is people being overly careful not to violate Godwin's Law when describing white supremacists, as far as I can tell. Antifa doesn't seem to care about such philological niceties, as it defines white supremacy as a thing it opposes. Guy (help!) 15:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  But Guy don't we first have to know what fascism is before we can say for certain what it isn't? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, we don't, no. There's a presumption that members of the Antifa movement should, but even then, their statements seem to imply a definition of what they oppose that does not require it (e.g. opposing white supremacism, which may or may not be fascism). Guy (help!) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  You mean the organization or individuals that define themselves as "Antifa"? Organizations or individuals don't need to have a single exclusive ideology, being ant-white supremacist doesn't cancel being anti-fascist. At least there is no such statement in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Rupert loup, I suggest you report any antifa activists who do not apply the correct definition of fascism, to the Central Anti-Fascism Council.

  Which, as the sources make rather clear, doesn't exist.

  This is not unique of course. Not all white supremacists are neo-Nazis, for example. Guy (help!) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Guy I don't understand what are you trying to say. I'm referring to how the sourced content in the article describes anti-fascism. The article describes anti-fascism as "opposition to fascist ideologies", the current Wikipedia consensus on what fascism is in its own article. You said "Antifa doesn't seem to care" as if there is an authoritative organization that defines what antifascism is. Now you say that there is no centralized Antifa authority, so how do you know that "Antifa doesn't seem to care about such philological niceties" if there is no such thing? Why an individual/organization is not antifascist because they say that is against white supremacy? Why individuals/organization being opposed to things that "not require" fascism exclude them of being antifascist? Did to be and antifascist you need to be only and exclusively against fascism and nothing else? Or maybe is the use of fascist as an insult toward someone that may no be a fascist that cancels being opposed to fascism? That's what are you talking about? Going back to the sources here, if the statements in the sources are not reported in reliable secondary sources then those theories are fringe. WP:FRINGE: "For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." So in short, what is and what is not antifascism depends on those secondary sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Richter and Peters are in the article, I don't know why are included here. This is a very controversial topic, and an argument from authority is not good enough. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. To be a secondary source it must be an analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Maybe I'm taking it wrong but Davies don't cite any secondary source there. I don't know where he gets that "the concept of anti-fascism" was created by Stalin? The article states "Organizations such as the Arditi del Popolo and the Italian Anarchist Union emerged between 1919–1921, to combat the nationalist and fascist surge of the post-World War I period." Davis already recieved criticism before. The same with Grunenberg, which primary source is referring when she said that anti-fascism is not a "political concept", and what has the "opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals" to do with that falacy of "democrats are against fascism, not everyone who is against fascism is a democrat"? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Since they're notable scholars their primary opinions are probably due in the article, but we should also look for alternate scholarly views as to what anti-fascism is before assuming that the current article is neutral. buidhe 01:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not understanding why they're viewed as primary sources. The passages quoted above are both fine. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Because secondary sources are based on primary sources. In which primary sources are based there? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, those are reliable secondary sources. A primary source would be a propaganda pamphlet from the '30s, not scholarly works written seventy years later --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If they are secondary sources then on what primary sources are based? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      • How is irrelevant? If they don't rely on primary sources they can't be secondary sources. WP:SECONDARY Rupert Loup (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
        • • Ohh I see, actually they could be using secondary sources themselves. But we do not dismiss an RS because we were not there at the editorial meeting. If it is RS we assume they can be trusted to have done their homework, we do not have to check it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
        • It is irrelevant because we don't need to know what primary sources they relied upon. Even if they don't tell us what they are, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Whether it's an essay based on the totality of the author's professional research, or an article based on some specific primary documents, it doesn't matter. Published books and articles written by academic experts in the field of political science specializing in anti-fascism are exactly the sort of sources we should be relying upon for this kind of content. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For verifiability in this controversial subject it needs well documented sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Frankly, your demands go beyond exceptional, and you don't seem to even know the difference between primary and secondary sources. The only "documentation" necessary is the reputation of the authors and publishers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• These are reliable sources, but may not have been used appropriately in the article for different reasons. They are primary sources for the views of the authors, but secondary sources for dealing with anti-fascism. They are scholarly assessments of anti-fascism, but the question that should determine their inclusion is not an RS issue; it is a DUE issue. i.e.: are they typical of scholarly assessments of anti-fascism, or are they minority views? should they be balanced with other scholarly assessments, including ones that are more sympathetic to anti-fascism? are they talking about anti-fascism in general, or about a very specific moment in time in one country? I think Rupert Loup might be right to question their inclusion, but wrong to call them primary sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is The Tower a reliable source for information regarding programs at CUA?

At The Catholic University of America, AlmostFranics has removed a few statements here, and here, relating to a distance learning program at the University. ElKevbo restored some of it, believing (I assume) it to be a reliable source. The Tower is an independent, student-run newspaper. Are they reliable for statements about happenings at the university? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've made the same argument myself before, but college newspapers are not considered reliable, with very few exceptions (e.g. the Harvard Crimson). I assume that is the argument being made by AlmostFrancis (fixing the ping , you mis-typed, I do that all the time too). We should not use affiliated sources for promotional content. Actually we shouldn't have promotional content at all. Guy (help!) 14:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• No clue what RS of the Tower has to do with anything. As JzG said Its promotional content by an affiliated source and I removed it for editorial reasons. Something you could have found out if you had asked. Its also misrepresenting the source though. The Tower, too their credit, makes note that the info comes from a university press release and not their own reporting so.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  AlmostFrancis, I see. Your edit summary only said "college newspaper," which led me to believe you were saying you didn't think it was reliable. Personally, I think a college newspaper is reliable for something like this but would like to hear the opinions of others on whether or not they think it's appropriate. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  We can probably trust a college newspaper to accurately quote a press release, but as an affiliated source the fact that they covered something does not indicate that Wikipedia should cover it as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What specific part(s) of WP:RS is this source alleged to fail? I readily accept that a student newspaper is almost certainly not a stellar source - JzG's deference to The Harvard Crimson is baffling - but that's a far cry from being unreliable.

I also fail to see how the specific material that is being discussed is promotional nor do I see why there is a due weight issue given that we're only discussing a few sentences. But those are issues that should be discussed in the article's Talk page and not here. ElKevbo (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Tower does not have professional editorial control, it doesn't seem to post corrections, it this case it is partaking in churnalism, and I haven't seen any declarations of COI though they could just not be easy to find. I looked around and couldn't even find the official publisher on the website. What parts of RS do you think it meets?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

More iffy sources from the fake royalty goldmine

This really is the gift that keeps on giving. New Internet law: for every abolished title, there is at least one crappy website claiming to be the true inheritor.

These seem very dodgy:

• historyfiles.co.uk   (actually looks nice but there's no detail on who compiles it. We already have many thousands of links to Spartacus Educational often added by the owner, but that doesn't set a precedent I think)
• kingsimeon.bg  
• http://greekroyalfamily.org   - may be valid, but looks bogus
• njegoskij.org   - appears dead, here's an archive [40]
• borbone-due-sicilie.org  
• btinternet.com/~allan_raymond  
• imperor.net  
• russianempire.org   (now redirects to a flashy site selling shit)
• nikolairomanov.com   - cybersquatter, here's an archive: [41]
• heraldica.org   - at least not insane, but no obvious reliability
• welfen.de  
• genealogy.euweb.cz   - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute

Maybe legit:

• familiaregala.ro  
• royalhouseofobrenovic.org  

There are several refs to Guy Stair Sainty's websites. Some have come up before with an "unreliable, deprecate". The article says he is an authority on royalty, but since most of the content was written by drive-by WP:SPAs and GuyStairSainty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am not sure we need to revisit those. Guy (help!) 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sainty is a legitimate authority in the field, e.g., contributor to "Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II" (2011) which AFAICT is a legitimate scholarly work. I personally would omit Heraldica, at least for now; its author, François Velde, is principally an economist, but has some published works related to medieval coinage and is described in this NYT article as an "amateur expert" on heraldry, and I find that the Routledge History of Monarchy refers to Heraldica as a "scholarly website". GBooks link. Whatever the merits, I think we can at least agree it's a qualitatively different proposition from most of these. Choess (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Choess, if he's cited in a RS then sure. Self-published websites not so much. Guy (help!) 21:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, yes, albeit marginally; the Routledge History does cite him and recommends him as providing an excellent summary of apanages and how they worked. There are some other scattered uses as a reference that come up in GBooks and GScholar. I don't think deprecation would be appropriate. Choess (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable, btinternet.com/~allan_raymond appears to be dead, as does imperor.net. njegoskij.org again self published unreliable, bulgarian, bourbon and two scillies and greek royal family websites look somewhat legit, might be okay under ABOUTSELF, welfen.de and nikolairomanov.com again self published unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As for historyfiles, their about page gives some interesting detail, I would still consider them a self published, unreliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (

King Simeon, Greek, Two Scillies, Nikolairomanov, Romania, Obrenovic, Welfen were/are official websites. Sites like Online Gotha before, the .cz or brinternet site here will have been put together by people consulting Almanach de Gotha, Burke’s, other genealogy works etc. The reason they have been used is because the people who’ve edited the various Wikipedia articles probably don’t have access to the books so have used websites like these which are easier to consult (and others to verify stuff) and updated constantly. It’s pretty basic stuff they are used for, dates of birth etc but It’s fine to say they can’t be used (will they meet the strict Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, I assume not) , but genuine question, what happens next?

• Is the content they are used to support just going to get left in the article anyway?
• Will the refs be replaced with a ‘Citation Request’ with someone going to follow all of those up and delete in due course?
• Is someone going to go and replace all those website references by checking in other sources like an Almanach de Gotha etc?

So a bit like what are we achieving here if the content is staying anyway. Here JzG you removed Online Gotha but left [thepeerage.com which will probably be flagged up soon. - dwc lr (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it's worth noting that the reputable peerage books do have a significant number of citations, Burke's Peerage   and Burke's Landed Gentry   are cited over 4,500 and nearly 700 times respectively, ,Debrett's Peerage   nearly 4,000 and Almanach de Gotha   over 400, so it's not like noboody is consulting the books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, that's perfectly reasonable: they are authorities for this stuff. Unlike the fansites. Guy (help!) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, yup, that's next on the list, along with royalark. It takes time. As to what happens? Well, the problem here is years and years of POV-pushing by people who are writing as if these deposed noble houses are still consequential. If one is removing, say, the Daily Mail, then the claims are often easy to check: a quick google, you either find an alternate source or none, in which case the content goes. Here, for the most part, you find a sea of hits, all mirrors of Wikipedia or the fansites, and no RS. Many of the articles are on people who are supposedly "notable" only because of who their parents, grandparents or in some cases great-great-grandparents were. Wikipedia is not a directory of deposed nobility, we need sources about the people. My favourite was an article about a social worker that was formatted and titled as if she were an archduchess, {{infobox royalty}} and all. Frankly, a lot of us don't think the content is worth the effort of trying to source. But if you and others do then you are welcome to do so. The important thing to remember here is that wer'e not suddenly determining that a source is unreliable. It always was unreliable. It should never have been used in the first place. Guy (help!) 21:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing all of thepeerage's 9,500 citations will be torturous and likely take years, as we've seen with David Gerards herculean one man effort to remove all of the Daily Mail links Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I know exactly how difficult it is. Look at my userpage. Guy (help!) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, I have already read your user page so I am familiar with your good work, which is much appreciated. As an aside, I've noticed that you describe Amazon links as "The Elephant [in the room]", and I agree that much of amazon link usage on wikipedia is problematic. Do you think it's worth proposing edit filters and Xlinkbot for Amazon links as I have proposed for Facebook, or are such measures already in place? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I wish we could. Guy (help!) 23:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, Now: what evidence do you have that [42] is genuinely an official site? Guy (help!) 21:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The removal of thepeerage's links is worth doing no matter how long it takes. There are wikignomes who will take on the task if there is a way to create a centralized location for those articles - maybe a category. This task would have been tailor made for an edit-a-thon but I don't know if those still occur. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The biggest obstacle is the accessibility of replacement references. Most of the references to thepeerage.com can be replaced with citations to Burke's Peerage, which requires either an online subscription or access to a physical copy. I've sporadically worked on adding citations to Cokayne's Complete Peerage to replace thepeerage.com when possible, but it doesn't cover the younger children of individual peers, which is where it's most necessary. Copies of Burke's aren't uncommon in research libraries, so an edit-a-thon focused on this would probably make some good progress. Choess (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Another thought: would it be possible to do this as a two-stage process? Stage 1, remove links to thepeerage.com and replace them with the reference to Burke's given at the peerage.com and tag them as needing verification; Stage 2, verify that this information is, in fact, in Burke's. I'm not quite sure how to tag them, though; Template:Verify source is the closest thing I could find, but it's not quite the right thing. That would minimize the amount of time people actually have to sit around and flip through a hard copy of Burke's during an edit-a-thon (if they only have to carry out Stage 2). Thoughts? Choess (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If there not “consequential”/worth the effort (for a lot of you) then get the articles or the content deleted surely? That is a problem though that a lot of Editors have a very disparaging POV to royals, deposed or otherwise, think the deposed ones are fakes or fantasists for considering they are the heir to the throne of an abolished monarchy, refuse to accept that they are still referred to by a title because the “law says so”, think any source that refers to them by one is unreliable, wrong, misinformed or ignorant. I’ve largely moved on to other things now, but depending on the article I might step in with other new sources if I feel there’s something really worth keeping. A lot of old Almanach de Gotha’s and other works are available to view online if someone wants to trawl though those and update the references. So I’m just asking the question what’s being achieved here if we are saying these websites are not suitable for Wikipedia, which is fair enough, (off Wikipedia I would happily use a lot of these websites and have done for years as they are convenient and reliable just not Wikipedia “reliable”) then why is the “unreliable” information going to be left in the article, that doesn’t achieve anything, as far as I can tell it’s a whole load of work for no change other than perhaps make editors with a certain POV (which is fair enough everyone has a POV) feel better. Similar to the King Simeon site the Nikolai Romanov website was the official site of Prince Nicholas Romanovich of Russia (1922-2014). - dwc lr (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What has astonished me about this issue of deposed royals being called by their abolished title on WP is that the editors who do such things will admit that Austria and Germany for instance abolished royal and noble titles more than a hundred years ago, but they say "It doesn't matter, people still call them that, look here's proof, so we are going to have an article about this person on WP and call them His or Her Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke or Archduchess too." I don't think it's the actual subjects of these articles who are fantasists so much as the people who indulge in this phony "royal" fancruft.Smeat75 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I like to mention Hungary and their new transgender law, everyone knows Wikipedia has a “left” bias so I’m sure no one would make the case for that law being respected like they would insist with legally abolished titles not being used (maybe I’m wrong) because Monarchy/royalty are probably seen as a “right wing” topic by most editors. But if reputable Reliable Sources say someone is an Archduke or Prince, then that’s what they do. Most of them still use titles anyway, there’s nothing to stop them renouncing or changing their names if they wanted to. This has been a long established tradition for hundreds of years, the French royals didn’t just stop using titles when they were deposed and were never stopped being attributed them by serious publications and encyclopaedias, respected academics and authors whether it’s a source from today or a source from 125 years ago, but of course Wikipedia Volunteers are the real experts. Even recently take the Habsburg’s, only those born of approved equal marriages used to be Archdukes, the ones who were not were just Mr von Habsburg in the eyes of the Imperial House, then in 1990 the head of the Imperial House Otto von Habsburg recognised them as Counts von Habsburg, then later his son and successor Karl von Habsburg upgraded them all again to Archdukes (Imperial & Royal Highness). You may call these actions fantasy and make belief, but these families still adhere to their House Laws and one seems to care what the Austrian Republic and their sacred law thinks, it’s not illegal outside of Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is starting to spiral into the place it usually goes (in my experience), where people start to get their views on the "worthiness" of the topic and the soundness of the hereditary principle confused with policy. While it is a very niche topic (like most of Wikipedia, really), dynasties (deposed or otherwise) and their right to bestow titles, and the membership of the nobility is still a subject of occasional academic interest (e.g., Noel Cox on the state of orders of knighthood granted by deposed dynasties under international law), and of some general interest, as evidenced by the continued production of standard reference works on the peerage/nobility.

There's nothing here that can't be handled by our usual policy on notability. Emperor Norton gets an article not because he was crazy and thought he was an emperor, but because other people were, broadly speaking, willing to indulge his pretensions. To the extent that the same courtesy can be reliably shown to be extended to the former dynasts of Bavaria, Austria, etc., there's no reason we shouldn't do the same; and likewise, we should reject titles that don't really propagate outside of the Internet. (I suspect the reason for the collision between popular practice in, say, referring to Franz, Duke of Bavaria and the legal status of his name in German law is that the laws forbidding titles were enacted to enable lawfare against monarchism as a serious political movement; conceding him the traditional style of a reigning Duke is palatable precisely because all parties involved realize that monarchism is a dead letter.) Choess (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Constant attempts at scrubbing and obfuscation at Falun Gong articles: Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, etc.

Many of you here are no doubt familiar with The Epoch Times at this point, but far fewer editors are familiar with the broader organization behind this media entity. Here's a brief overview from a recent article from Los Angeles Magazine:

Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party.

Source: Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online Archived 26 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine.

And according to NBC News:

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

The Epoch Times, digital production company NTD and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.

Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online Archived 23 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine.

This is also happening here in Germany:

In the United States, the Times bills itself as the newspaper that President Donald Trump views as “the most credible” and the only one he trusts. The U.S. version of the newspaper is a far tamer version than its German cousin, but it has won over fans in the far-right with its exhaustive coverage of “Spygate,” a theory pushed by the president who claims the FBI “spied” on his campaign and a “criminal deep state” sought to undermine his presidency. Revenues for the newspaper have doubled since Trump took office, according to the group’s tax filings.

Source: Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". New Republic. September 17, 2019. Online.

Anyway, currently quite a few Falun Gong articles—Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, Society of Classical Poets, and several more—are either in a state of either reading as essentially promotional pieces for the new religious movement or are the subject of daily attempts at scrubbing, like this attempt from today. This often occurs from single-subject, new accounts, or accounts with very new edit histories.

These articles could really use a lot of work with reliable sources outlining developments in these circles since 2016, particularly the topics mentioned in the quotes above. If nothing else, these articles all really need many more editors keeping an eye on them to ensure that they do not revert back to promotional pieces parroting the talking points of the organizations they outline. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a few comments below:

• User Bloodofox's edits on the FLG articles were not proper.

Bloodofox made a huge change to the lede of the Falun Gong article on May 18.[43] Other users（not me）tried to cancel the edit. Their reasons have nothing to do whether those sources were RS or not, but were as one user explained on the article talk page on 5 June:

"With respect to WP:BURDEN, a reminder that the lede section was very stable for years. It was substantially altered by Bloodofox beginning a few weeks ago. Legitimate concerns were raised regarding Bloodofox's edits with respect to WP:LEAD, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, including WP:WEIGHT. These concerns have been repeatedly raised, and never addressed. Instead, users have edit warred to enforce their preferred version, and repeatedly accused other editors of acting in bad faith. This is not a platform for activism, and it is not a battleground."

• User Bloodofox​​​​​​​ has misrepresented his own sources:

As I commented on the talk page on 5 June, NYT and NBC were misrepresented. Aside from that, the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad" and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided , including these above 3 sources Bloodofox​​​​​​​ posted. But Bloodofox​​​​​​​ reverted any correction of his misrepresentations.

• Bloodofox​​​​​​​ is not supposed to copy the long paragraphs of his preferred sources on RSN. Plus the views from those sources are different views from other reliable sources. For example, reference a said "In 2000, John Tang and a group of Chinese Americans started The Epoch Times in his Atlanta, Georgia basement. ​​​​​​​", which was contrary to the LA Mag Think Blog source. Bloodofox removed many reliable sources [44] that say to the contrary to his views. Here are some of the deleted sources by Bloodofox.

• http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301%7Carchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690
• https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom
• https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/06/17/the-china-tribunal-pronounced-its-verdict-on-organ-harvesting-in-china/
• http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

Based on NPOV, different views from different RS should be proportionally presented. Bloodofox seems to have a strong viewpoint on FLG related topics. He promoted his favorite sources, misrepresented those sources and deleted other correctly represented reliable sources that express views contrary to his. He should stop advocating his own views in Wikipedia and blocking others’ legitimate edits. Precious Stone 21:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are some issues with the sources listed above:

1. "Be The People News" is the personal website of conservative analyst Carol M. Swain, and the podcast episode is a non-independent interview of Dana Cheng, the co-founder and vice president of The Epoch Times (RSP entry).
2. Forbes.com contributor articles (RSP entry) are considered self-published and generally unreliable, unless the contributor's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Can you link to where this is the case for Ewelina U. Ochab?
3. There is disagreement on whether the News Weekly is a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38 § Australian News Weekly. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § newsweekly.com.au for details.
4. Freedom House is a think tank, which is not necessarily unreliable, but should be attributed in-text for any controversial claims.

Can you clarify how the other sources are "contrary" to Bloodofox's proposed wording? — Newslinger talk 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the details of these sources and letting me know some of them may not be reliable. Here is only one "contrary" example (there are a few other examples):

1. as Bloodofox posted in this RSN page above from the LA MAG City Think Blog

"In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences."

.

2. But the NBC report Bloodofox used for other info said

“The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.”

3. The SF Chronicle report said

"Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong, which Li Hongzhi had founded in China in 1992 and drew on the tradition of qigong, in which breathing, meditation and movement foster good health or spiritual enlightenment."

.

(Please note in my post above, the Newsweekly source were typed twice, which was a typo I made on this RSN page - one time should be used for this SF Chronicle source - that was used in the article and was deleted by Bloodofox)

Bloodofox's info that Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded or launched by Li is quite different with the NBC source and the SF Chronicle source, which said Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded by John Tang in 2000 and by followers of Falun Gong in 2006 respectively. There are many other sources confirming such info. Precious Stone 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see the conflict between sources you describe, they seem to be in almost complete agreement on the important details. Are you trying to argue that Shen Yun and The Epoch Times aren’t part of the FG movement? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Some sources should be promoted for the sake of neutrality

Hello, I noticed that The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, and Newsmax are listed as marginally reliable, but that Slate, The Nation, and The Daily Beast are generally reliable. According to this chart <https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?v=402f03a963ba>, the former group of sources is placed at equal or greater reliability compared to the latter group. I believe that this is evidence of liberal bias here on Wikipedia that ought to be rectified. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As Stephen Colbert once said: "Reality has a well known liberal bias". The "Media Bias Chart®" does not make its methodology clear either and is just as subjective as Media Bias Fact Check, which is also considered unreliable on this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of those websites have a methodology page. Media Bias/Fact Check uses a more simplified process, and they do not publish a chart, which is why I did not cite them. Ad Fontes Media has a more detailed methodology page including a statistically sound white paper and a rubric, and they claim to use a multi-partisan panel for evaluations. Could you please explain what, exactly, is not clear in Ad Fontes' Media Bias Chart? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Their methodology was to study a total of 1800 articles, and that's across over 100 news sources... so that's fewer than 18 articles per source. That's really poor quality analysis of any one source. And the minimum they covered for any one source is 7 articles, hardly a good basis to capture the general reputation of an outlet, particularly not to a four digit exactitude. So yeah, it's a dubious chart we should not be reworking our methods around. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources I mentioned in the opening post have more than eight evaluations linked on WP:RS/P. Certainly, Ad Fontes is not perfect, but it's better than Wikipedia's way, where only a handful of the most contested articles are submitted for discussion on this noticeboard to inform community ratings, and where there are no controls among the population of evaluators for an even distribution of political leaning. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you specifically cite the methodology section? The chart doesn't even say that the "liberal" sources you mention are unreliable, it merely states that they are "Opinion/Fair persuasion", on the Perennial sources entry for Mother Jones it states that "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." For Slate "Contrarian news articles may need to be attributed" and for The Nation "Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." These are not blanket statements of reliability, but stating that while the reporting is factualy accurate, you should use them with some caution. You have not presented any substantiative argument that Slate, The Nation, and The Daily Beast are unreliable. For a source to be unreliable, the questions you would want to ask are: Does it publish false or fabricated information like Sputnik news, Infowars or Opindia for instance? Does it publish misleading information? Does it have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control? I think all 3 of the "liberal" sources pass these guidelines. Reducing media bias to a number is essentially pointless, it is something that can only be measured heuristically. The last discussion on Newsmax was in 2013, so if you feel that there should be a new discussion on it, feel free to create a new entry on this noticeboard about it. If you look at the other two sources you mentioned (The Washington Examiner and The Washington Times) neither have had a proper, full discussion about their reliability, so feel free to open a RfC on them to settle the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood my intentions. I do not mean to diminish the left-wing sources, but to elevate the right-wing sources. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, you haven't presented an actual argument about why you think that The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, and Newsmax are reliable. Source reliability is not some weighted scale of left and right-wing sources, and each outlet should be evaluated on individual merit, not some meaningless WP:SOAPBOX about "bias". Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I could evaluate an individual article from each of those sources, but it would be best to do so within the context of a specific article, so that discussion is for another day. I am not here to convince people of conservatism, but this seems to be the best place on Wikipedia for a wide-ranging discussion on the neutrality of sources, if it exists at all. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources I mentioned in the OP are in the business of political, not scientific, journalism. By linking there, you seem to equate mainstream American conservative journalism with conspiracy theorists such as InfoWars, which is not a fair characterization. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is fair to characterise "Trumpism" if you consider that to be mainstream conservatism, as similar to Infowars, as both, on an objective level, engage in disinformation and conspiracy theories, see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, I'm certainly not comparing the sources you mention to OANN or the Epoch Times, but to be pro-Trump as an appeal to "balance" is a violation of WP:NPOV Hemiauchenia (talk)

Some of the sections in that article are about wrong predictions he made, differences of interpretation of complex data, or opinions that he changed his mind about. Yes, he has lied to the public, but lying is what politicians do. The media is trying to run up the score against Trump because it all started when he made a politically incorrect but true remark about illegal immigrants at his campaign announcement speech in 2015. "Respectable people" immediately disavowed him, the mainstream media rebuked him, Trump criticized them in return, and they've been going at it ever since. I only agree with what Trump does about half the time, but to claim that he lies more than any other politician is misleading. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a basic flaw in the argument at the very top of this section. It assumes without evidence that politically biased sources are unreliable and that politically unbiased sources are reliable. There are plenty of politically biased but reliable sources (we use them as reliable sources for facts while taking care when they offer up opinions or editorials) and pretty much 99% of the Internet is politically unbiased but unreliable. An example of the latter would be [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ], a completely unreliable website with no political bias at all. Another politically unbiased but unreliable website is [ https://pokemonblog.com/ ]. BTW, Stephen Colbert is a comedian and should never be cited as if his comments have anything to do with reality. Quoting him as if he was an authority is about as valid as quoting Larry the Cable Guy. There is bullshit that is popular among conservatives (creationism) and bullshit that is popular among liberals (antivax). As for media bias, yes, the nightly news leans liberal, but talk radio leans conservative, and I don't see any conservative complaining about the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Looking more closely at the ratings, Newsmax is ~33, Washington Times ~31, Washington Examiner ~29. Meanwhile, Daily Beast ~34, Nation ~33, Slate ~31. The RSP entries for Newsmax, Washington Examiner, and Washington Times don't actually say they're unreliable but that they should be attributed and that more reliable sources should be used if available. The RSP entries for Daily Beast, Nation, and Slate all note some recommendation for attribution instead of saying "yeah, just state anything they report as a plain fact." Honestly, we need kind of a yellow-green for these entries (that or make most of the other yellow entries orange and the six sources being discussed yellow).
  Course, if we did go with Ad Fontes, since the scale is from 0 to 64, 32 (50%) would have to be the minimum threshold. That keeps the Daily Mail off the site, keeps barely keeps MSNBC on the site, raises the status of the Huffington Post and Vice News, and prompts us to boot Slate but also the Washington Examiner, the Washington times, The American Conservative, National Review, and Fox News. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ian.thomson, you say that like it would be a bad thing ;-)

  Ad Fontes is a two-axis chart. My benchmark is that a source should be in the "green box of joy" (most reliable for news in their parlance). I do not use HuffPo, MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Intercept, The Daily beast, Think Progress, News & Guts and the rest. Occasional opinion pieces in The Nation, due to its long history, might be acceptable with attribution, but generally anything outside the green box is a problem in a highly polarised world.

  The problem for conservatives is that the green box of reliability contains virtually no right-leaning sources. WSJ and IJR is about it. Travel across the pond to the UK and you will find numerous reliable right-leaning sources. The Times and The Daily Telegraph are considered reliable. The Financial Times is probably the most reliable factual reporter in the UK. These are not left-wing sources. On the left, there is a continuum, with accuracy decreasing as partisanship increases, which is exactly what you'd expect. On the right there is a huge gap between Reason and the New York Post, and Newsmax, Washington Times, Washington Free Beacon and the like. Right-leaning media are also less accurate on average for a given degree of bias, but that is a small difference, the big problem is the cluster effect around Breitbart.

  You can also see how things have changed over time. Version 1 of the Ad Fontes chart had Fox and National Review much higher up on the accuracy scale and much less biased. That has changed in my view largely because conservative media is required by its audience to defend Donald Trump, and objective fact checkers rate him as far and away the most untruthful president on record, routinely repeating false claims long after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be false. So in order to defend his statements against "liberal" (i.e. factual) critique, you have to decide what matters more: factual accuracy or tribal loyalty. And it's tribal loyalty that wins, hence the cluster of the right wing bubble around Breitbart at the partisan right / least accurate corner.

  There was a comment today on Breitbart, on an anti-Wikipedia rant written by The Devil's Advocate: "Wiki is about as reliable as the main stream media ...". Yes. Yes, we are. Guy (help!) 10:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I wouldn't mind that shift, but I figured OP would have a problem with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See my 20:42 reply to Hemiauchenia. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This here is a great idea that I hope to see more Wikipedians discuss. It makes no sense to have some sources in green and some in yellow when the summaries for them basically say the same things. It reminds me of King Solomon's (allegorical) proposal to halve the baby: instead of drawing a line on this chart, we need to distinguish between journalistic organizations that do hard reporting from publications that are mostly opinion. For example, National Review and The American Conservative belong in the third level, because they are opinion magazines for ideologues, but so do The Atlantic and The Economist. Organizations that "get the scoop" should be in the first level, including AP, Reuters, and the BBC. I would argue that the Wall Street Journal, and not the New York Times, should enjoy higher reliability, since the WSJ enjoys support from across the spectrum <https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/>, while the NYT is more controversial. Did you see what just happened when they tried to host Sen. Tom Cotton? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I could provide some examples of sources that are politically opinionated yet factual and sources that are merely centrist propaganda. However, I fear that to do so would further polarize this discussion. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you don't understand what Wikipedia wants in a source, i.e. basic journalistic practice and not making stuff up.

You'd think this wasn't a high bar, and people could agree that this was a reasonable minimum requirement, but then I spend a bit much time answering the sort of WP:DAILYMAIL advocates who literally claim that the Times and the Daily Telegraph have left-wing bias, not like their lovely DM - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The three American conservative news sources I listed publish a mix of factual reporting and opinion columns. I have endorsed User:Ian.thomson's "yellow-green" proposal, and I believe that those three sources would fit into that category. I don't know why you're bringing the Daily Mail into this, as I did not list any tabloids in the OP. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is straightforward: some people think that mainstream, and conservative are antonyms. This is not so. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. The opposite of conservative is liberal. The fact that quite a large number of conservative sources also espouse fringe views, to the point of being deprecated as unreliable, is not a problem of Wikipedia, it is a problem of the conservative media bubble, whose feedback loop places ideological purity above factual accuracy (“THE CONSISTENT PATTERN that emerges from our data is that, both during the highly divisive election campaign and even more so during the first year of the Trump presidency, there is no left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing of the media ecosystem behaves precisely as the echo-chamber models predict—exhibiting high insularity, susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy theory, and drift toward more extreme versions of itself. The rest of the media ecosystem, however, operates as an interconnected network anchored by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit, that adhere to professional journalistic norms.” - Benkler, Yochai,. Network propaganda : manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Guy (help!) 10:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps people think that because in journalism and comms. faculties, there are twenty registered Democrats for every Republican <https://www.natcom.org/sites/default/files/publications/NCA_C-Brief_2017_March.pdf>? And then the professional outlets hire their indoctrinated students? Go to Minneapolis and tell me that's not the result of a radicalized echo chamber. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I don't think Colbert is being cited as an authority, but the phrase has entered the popular lexicon due to its obvious truthiness. In short, "reality has a well known liberal bias" is perfectly cromulent in the context of an Overton window that positions the (globally) centre-right Democratic Party as "radical far-left". Guy (help!) 10:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(For those who don't know. "The other Guy" is a self-described liberal UK Liberal democrat, whereas I hold both major US political in contempt and question whether they are actually different in any substantive way. But we manage to get along even though it is obvious to each of us that the other is wrong.)

Yes, the US conservatives do mislabel the US liberals. but the opposite is also true. I do not believe for a second that anyone who posts that Colbert quote does so for any reason other than it being (to them) "obviously true". There are quotes that US conservatives think are "obviously true", such as "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views" by William F. Buckley or "Liberals are never capable of letting anyone else have a conviction of his own without at once meeting their opponent with abuse or even something worse." by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Note that I think those quotes are as full of crap as the Colbert quote.

So my question is this. Which major US political party is in favor of the US not being at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger? Which is in favor of a smaller government with fewer powers? Which one will close down Guantanamo bay? Which one will reign in asset forfeiture? At least the UK gets actual choices instead of two peas in a pod. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I think that the truthiness of the Colbert quote is situational and largely refers to the conservative shibboleths of the time when it was said, which was 2006 (gods, was it really that long ago?). CO₂ emissions are causing catastrophic climate change, tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, the Earth is billions of years old, abortion is safe, guns do kill people, being gay isn't a choice.

Today it's also clearly the case that when fact-checkers show conservative voices to be incorrect, this is portrayed as liberal bias, and in that respect the phrase retains its value. The central message of the conservative media right now is that when the mainstream (i.e. as-opposed-to-fringe) media contradicts a conservative message, it's because the mainstream media is biased against conservatism. This echo-chamber effect is well documented in books and studies.

And I think people are aware of this, at least on a subconscious level. A 2007 AP poll found that 71 percent of Republicans said it was "extremely important" for a politician to be honest, compared to 70% of Democrats and 66% of independents. The same question in a Washington Post poll of 2018 showed only 49% of Republicans holding that view, with no change in Democrats and independents.

Incidentally, I largely agree with you about political parties. Organised politics is as toxic as organised religion these days. It's a vehicle for interest groups to gain power, and little more. And I'm a Liberal-Democrat, not a liberal. Guy (help!) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You won't find me defending the US conservative nutjobs, but Re:

"emissions are causing catastrophic climate change, tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, the Earth is billions of years old, abortion is safe, guns do kill people, being gay isn't a choice",

Are not the following also true?

"Vaccines don't cause autism, peanuts and gluten are not harmful unless you have a specific medical condition, "Frankenfoods" and power lines do not cause cancer, denying that the only possible solution to climate change is an increase in the size and power of the federal government is not the same as climate change denial, new-age religion is not any more or less stupid than fundamentalist Christianity, Essential oils and crystals are not actual medicines, Berkley, California reducing carbon emissions while China increases them will not result in a significant reduction in global C02, Almond milk is not more "natural" than cow milk, and the homeopathic section at Whole Foods Market is not in any significant way different from a televangelist selling you a bottle of healing water."

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yup, absolutely. And you'll find me on the front lines of all those things (don't get me started on glutenbollocks: I am coeliac).

The comparison is not entirely valid - for example, there's an obvious difference between the effect of gay marriage on those who are not gay, and the effect of banning it on those who are - but both sides do have blind spots. Historically they were as bad as each other. Right now? Not so sure.

That said, the question here is one of reliability, and one of the reasons I consider HuffPo unreliable is that they gave a platform for years to Dana Ullman, one of America's leading homeopathy shills. So: absolutely on point :-)

Also, can I just say that I am really happy to see you back on form. I look forward to your comments, they are always insightful. Guy (help!) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

By "globally", you mean some cherry-picked western European and Anglopshere democracies, don't you? There's no way that the Democratic Party is to the right of the governments of the United Kingdom, Poland, the Muslim world, China, Japan, Russia, India, and Thailand. No party that calls for giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants should ever be considered to be on the right. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not to the right of the UK's Conservative Party, since that is dominated by the same right wing think tanks that infest US politics. But the Democratic platform is not dissimilar to that of Germany's CDU/CSU, for example. Actually that's quite apt as CDU/CSU is a coalition with CDU probably to the right of CSU. Sanders is centre-left, a Democratic Socialist like the Swedish and other Scandiwegian centre left parties, but he is not a member of the Democratic Party Guy (help!) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Democratic Party is not to the right of the Tories. Did you mean to say "to the left of"? But by somehow citing Germany as a yardstick for political party ideology, you've only proved my point. I do not consider the CDU/CSU to be a socially right-wing party, since recently, they have allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter every year. Although democratic socialism is already a century or two old, that does not make it any less radical, so they cannot be considered to be of the center-left. Center-left is the Whigs (British political party). 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is centre-right, in my view. To interpret that as a claim that it would be to the right of the British government is odd since the British government is currently very right wing. The Democratic Party is quite a long way to the right of the Labour Party, the UK's centre-left party.

The comment about free healthcare for "illegal immigrants" is a red herring. Not only is "illegal immigrant" not a legally defined term, the position of the Democratic Party is to provide healthcare for all Americans, so this is wholly contingent on whether you consider people who live, work and pay taxes in the US to qualify as Americans. That's a matter on which reasonable people may differ, and it is a single part of their platform. Pretty much every mainstream party in the developed world appears to support universal healthcare, after all.

A centre-right party supports social market principles and qualified interventionism. The Democratic Party certainly contains centre left elements, and some who are outright left wing, but they were recently offered a choice between what in Europe would be a social-democratic candidate and a christian-democratic candidate (centre left v. centre right) and chose the christian-democrat.

But it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Reasonable people may differ on whether the Democratic Party is centre-right, centrist, or centre-left. The point is that the cherry-picking occurs when asserting that the political centre is the midpoint between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. That's a US-centric view that ignores the historical position of US politics as centred to the right of the rest of the developed world, and of course ignores the fact that America's Overton window was fitted with warp drive technology recently. When Mitt Romney is the left wing of the Republican Party, you know something has changed.

And of course none of this is a reason for allowing sources given to conspiracy theory and fabrication in the name of "balance". Guy (help!) 10:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant to say about British politics in your prior reply. I was saying that the Democrats were not to the right of those governments, including the UK's. I knew that the Tories were to the right of the Democratic Party, but that was a point I was willing to concede, because the majority of the world's population does not live in Western European or Anglosphere developed countries under liberal or left-wing governments. Why do only the politics of developed countries matter to you?
Whether "illegal immigration" is in the dictionary is irrelevant, and it is, because we all know what it is: It's when people enter a country without the government's permission. Therefore, it can be thought of as a euphemism for invasion. There is only one represented party in Germany that opposes it, namely the AfD.
The Democratic Party satisfies all of the points offered on centre-left politics. The "progressive faction" tidbit seems to be one or two people's opinion, not a consensus. The Republican Party, however, cannot be considered to be too far to the right, because American political culture is formulated in the language of both liberty and equality. For example, many Republicans believe that the utility of the free market arises from the fact that it lifts people out of poverty, so they claim.
I have previously refuted the idea that the mainstream right is full of conspiracy theorists, see my previous exchange with User:Hemiauchenia. Please stop attempting to discredit a legitimate political movement.
The ideological posturing of political parties is only tangentially related to the purpose of this thread, which is to promote neutrality in Wikipedia's research. The problem is that you and a few others have engaged in name-calling. Let us focus on the solutions that have been proposed in this thread. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll chime in now, no we should not. If a source is dodgy it is so for a reason and we should not create a false balance (in the name of neutrality).Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This. WP:DUE does not mean "divide the issue into two sides according to the current split in American politics and crowbar in whatever terrible sources are necessary to keep them even." It means that reputable, high-quality sources are given weight in accordance to the prominence they lend a topic, with a goal towards having Wikipedia reflect the preponderance of reliable coverage, discussion, and analysis. In fact, WP:FALSEBALANCE specifically prohibits using lower-quality sources in an effort to "balance out" an article. Otherwise, people trying to crowbar articles into what they consider 'balanced' in an American political context would lead to results that would look severely unbalanced to most of the rest of the world; and someone who got most of their news from the types of sources listed above is obviously going to over-weight them. This shows the underlying problem of pushing for WP:FALSEBALANCE, in that in practice any particular weighting is going to reflect an editor's biases. We avoid that by weighing sources according to their reliability, expertise, prominence, and so on, not by trying to put a thumb on the scale to make it reflect our personal preconceived notions of what a 'balanced' presentation is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, these are not "dodgy" sources. The opening post simply demonstrated a double standard between Wikipedia's reliability ratings for a set of right-wing sources and for a set of left-wing sources, which were placed at about equal reliability according to an independent and impartial research group (I eyeballed it). As Jimmy Wales was quoted in WP:DUE, if there is a significant minority of scholars who support a position, which is true of most conservative causes, then name prominent adherents (with attribution). Somebody already linked to WP:GEVAL, see above. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The choice of sources and the placement of sources in that chart was pretty clearly chosen on order to get the inverted V shape they were looking for. I believe that the evidence shows that liberals and conservatives are equally stupid and equally vile, but that does not imply that liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning media are equally reliable. A lot of the sources that are reliable for facts lean liberal. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have looked through their source data before now and I don't see it. I think actually that it's possibly an accident - their original presentation was different. And if you think about it, you'd probably expect something like that shape, because accuracy is likely to decline more or less as bias increases, right?

I mean, it could be true, but the placement of Guacamoley and National Enquirer would be anomalous on that basis.

That said, the closer we get to the green box of joy, the greater consensus there is likely to be that a site is reliable. If I thought I could carry it I would propose that we exclude Mother Jones, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, The Intercept, Think Progress and so on, at least for notionally factual content. Vanity fair is fine for film criticism I guess. I'm not even that sure about Axios and Politico. Guy (help!) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good idea. I support this and User:Ian.thomson's "yellow-green" concept. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Questions about the addition of the Praise & Criticism section to Jacobin (magazine)

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

---

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain editorializing?

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain poor writing?

Is the sourcing in the Praise & Criticism section unreliable?

Are the topics chosen in the Praise & Criticism section worthy of inclusion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobin_(magazine) BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Only one of those questions is appropriate for WP:RSN. Here is the disputed edit in question. The most immediate thing I'd raise concerns about is that, per WP:CSECTION, "praise / criticism" isn't generally a good way to arrange sources; in particular, it involves editors categorizing sources as one or the other. Sections like that also have a tendency to become dumping grounds for random op-eds as editors on different sides try to engage in nose-counting, running up the numbers with random opinion cruft. If opinions are relevant to the topic (often they are not), the broad reactions should be summarized rather than broken down into a scoreboard like this. They also encourage people to dig up very low-quality or unimportant opinion pieces to "balance" the two, which should never be done per WP:FALSEBALANCE. That said, the sources:

• Vox, used with attribution; Jacobin has been described by Vox as the socialist magazine "winning the left's war of ideas". Obviously a reasonable source to cite when covering the question of "is Jacobin effective at what it's trying to do." Again, note that this is more specific and useful than "here's someone praising them!" and shouldn't be discussed in a praise section - if there are sources disputing this, ie. saying that Jacobin is ineffective, they should be grouped with Vox here, which is one of the many reasons a praise / criticism section is a terrible idea.
• The bit about Tucker Carlson is only mentioned in passing in Salon (the interview in question) and Politico (a secondary source with regard to that interview, but very much in passing.) This is enough to say that it's his opinion, though people might reasonably quibble over WP:DUE.
• I hadn't heard of New Left Review (cited to this), but they seem to be an actual academic journal, if one with an obvious point-of-view; they seem reasonable to cite in order to illustrate the New Left position on Jacobin.
• The New York Times opinion piece is notionally usable but what it's being used to say here seems trivial (calling Jacobin the "flagship publication of the new socialist left" doesn't add much.) It feels a bit peacocky / nose-counting; yes, it could be used to illustrate the subject's importance, but that's already demonstrated by non-opinion sources, so what does this add? This opinion piece is then cited a second time on Elizabeth Warren, in a context that doesn't seem very relevant to Jacobin. In general I would avoid citing an opinion piece in multiple places in the same article unless there is a clear indication that this opinion is particularly relevant (read: it has secondary coverage.)
• The Politico source above is cited here again, and this is where I begin to get a bit dubious. Why is this aspect important enough to get an entire section?
• The next paragraph is where everything falls apart (and I get the impression that the other parts were padding to try and crowbar this unusable source in, because this is the source that really tries to turn it into a controversy. With this one removed the whole section falls apart.) The podcast cites don't mention Jacobin, and are debatably self-published. The patreon posts are definitely self-published for our purposes and are not usable; and by my reading the entire section ultimately rests on them (the other sources barely relate Jacobin to the topic.)
• Then we have another paragraph cited to youtube videoes from the same people and no, just no. These are both unusable and at this point horribly WP:UNDUE. The entire Elizabeth Warren section and pretty much everything discussing her has to go; the few usable sources plainly aren't enough to support a section.
• I'm just gonna skim the rest. I'm dubious about Venezuelanalysis and Brasil Wire. Bread and Roses and Socialist Call have similar problems.
• Not buying the identity politics section, either. A cite to jacobinmag itself is reasonable to illustrate their views, but makes no sense in this "praise / criticism" section (though really, it feels like this was trying to be a section about Jacobin's views, and somehow morphed into a praise / criticism section in order to try and slip opinion pieces in.) The problem is that I'd question the way these particular pieces are being used in that it seems like the views of one Jacobin-affiliated podcaster (in a book review!) are being presented as the views of Jacobin as a whole. "Here's something someone said in a book review on their podcast" seems WP:UNDUE in context.
• The rest of the identity politics section has similar problems - citing individual columnists (often via youtube videos?) No.

There's a tiny bit salvageable here, but mostly this reads like a bunch of low-quality sources and opinion pieces slammed together to advance a few particular "controversies" as important. If these are actually relevant to Jacobin as a whole, there ought to be better sources covering it; if they reflect Jacobin's actual positions and history, there ought to be better cites to Jacobin itself rather than just a few opinion pieces or youtube videos. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Here I am, again, because it seems the virus lab leak/handling incident theory is being brought up in what seems to be reliable sources. But it has been relegated to WP:FRINGE so often now that I'm probably better to start here.

• People that need to be notified of this: @Swood100:, @Thucydides411:, @JoelleJay:. If you don't want to be included in further discussions about this please state it here.
• My question is: Are these articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists considered a reliable source for inclusion in Wuhan Institute of Virology or COVID-19 pandemic-like pages?
• Article 1 (most recent): https://thebulletin.org/2020/06/did-the-sars-cov-2-virus-arise-from-a-bat-coronavirus-research-program-in-a-chinese-laboratory-very-possibly/
• Article 2 : https://thebulletin.org/2020/05/natural-spillover-or-research-lab-leak-why-a-credible-investigation-in-needed-to-determine-the-origin-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

• Not seeing how the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists passes WP:MEDRS. Without that it's not really useful as a source in this context. It doesn't help that it is, ultimately, an advocacy organization - it's a reasonably well-thought-of one, definitely, and might be citable for uncontroversial statements about its area of expertise, but for a claim this WP:EXCEPTIONAL, on a topic that falls under WP:MEDRS, which falls into an area where its advocacy makes it comparatively biased (ie. the dangers of WMD), it's basically useless. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: Is the origin of the virus really bound to WP:MEDRS? I find the example in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands to be a pretty good summary of why it shouldn't. I am not implying that there is stonewalling, I just think the example is good. Is there any place (consensus) that I am not aware of that says that talks about the origin must follow WP:MEDRS? I find the origin of the virus could belong in some of those categories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. Thank you for your input. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• We are talking about the origin of a virus that, within six months, has infected almost seven million people, and killed nearly 400,000 people. And the official numbers may well be low. Of course, any content about the origin of this virus must summarize published sources that fully comply with WP:MEDRS, except in articles explicitly about conspiracy theories or fringe explanations. Should the research as described in MEDRS sources change, then so too should the articles. As for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, it is an excellent advocacy publication to read to help understand nuclear weapons issues. But it has no established reputation for accuracy about the origin of viruses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• PhysiqueUL09, put simply: yes. Guy (help!)22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG: Yes? Like it's reliable but can't be added? Or Yes, it can't be added? I know I won't be adding it anyway. I hope you read the thing, it's one of the most comprehensive piece of work about it. And it also expresses the fact that Trump and Pompeo basically shot the credibility of it by doing what they did. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  PhysiqueUL09, yes like MEDRS is required, and this doesn't meet it. Guy (help!) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not WP:MEDRS, and no evidence of any expertise in this field. Since this is a contentious claim (to put it mildly), this source seems inappropriate to me. Guy (help!) 10:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see how MEDRS would apply to this since it's not a medical claim. It's hard to see how MEDRS could even comment on such a question. Is Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists regular RS for something like this? Don't know. Maybe. I don't think anyone claims it is MEDRS. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

LADbible and Joe.ie

LADbible is a is "social media and entertainment social publisher", that is among the most popular sites in the UK and is in the top 25 most viewed outlets on Facebook. It is currently cited around 80 times on Wikipedia per ladbible.com  . Joe.ie is also very popular among young people in the UK and Ireland, being cited Joe.ie   over 400 times, It describes itself as "JOE has always been and remains the go-to place for viral content in Ireland and is your one-stop shop for news, music, sport, fitness and everything else important that is happening right now." Apparently Joe.ie is in stormy water over using click farms to inflate traffic of a podcast, and is now in Examinership. While neither source is terrible top 10 xyz clickbait garbage like boredpanda, WhatCulture, etc, above the lowest of the low clickbait content, they are still low quality sources, being mainly proprietors of lowest common denominator clickbait content designed to be shared on Facebook, and I don't see any reason to cite them over more reliable sources. LadBible in particular ought to be systematically removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Another site, Dailyedge.ie (part of TheJournal.ie) is used over 100 times according to Dailyedge.ie  , the site is no longer updated as of Mar 29th 2019. Again, also looks like a pretty low quality clickbait source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• LADbible can die in a fire as far as I am concerned. Joe.ie is marginally less shitty but still a clickbait site with no meaningful editorial process and no obvious generation of new factual content. I've never seen DailyEdge. Guy (help!) 10:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • DailyEdge was TheJournal's "irreverent" tabloidish pop culture site. I see no evidence it straight-up fabricated, but I wouldn't use it as evidence of notability (similar to what I think of the Daily Mirror) - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Rbc.ru and rbc.ua

Are rbc.ru   and rbc.ua   reliable sources or not? I cannot read Russian or Ukrainian, but they were used to readd material that had previously been sourced to a conspiracy site. [45] buidhe 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• They are used on more than a thousand articles including Vladimir Putin, War in Donbass, and International Space Station. But it is difficult to find info on this source in English so hard to judge. buidhe 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, rbc.ua is RBC Ukraine News Agency. Russia’s Roskomnadzor blocked RBC Ukraine News Agency for “instigating the Crimean Tatars to war against the Russian Federation”. The cynic in me says it's probably reliable on that basis alone.

  Rbc.ru appears to be RosBiznesConsulting , a Russian company. It was at one point critical of the Kremlin's kleptocracy but that changed in 2017: [46]. I'm pretty sure this has come up before, the story rings a bell. It might be OK for inside baseball on Russian business but anything pertaining to Russian state interests I would treat it with great suspicion. Free and independent journalism is not really a thing in Russia right now. Guy (help!) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was thinking that they were the same site. buidhe 10:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  This one has a been a bit challenging for me. I’ve tried to avoid rbc.ru where feasible. But it does have fairly comprehensive coverage on some things and has been from time to time the only source, so I have used it if I feel comfortable with what I have in front of me. And, with that said, given Kremlin control of media, it’s hard to trust TASS or anything else. I think it’s ok but couldn’t give a firm statement. I guess we would have to examine how it’s being used and what it’s being used for. My Russian is adequate so if you have particular articles that I could review and see how it’s being used, maybe I can offer more of an opinionTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I did pop in to The RS board on Russian WP and I think they have struggled with rbc.ru as well. Don’t know about the Ukrainian site TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would say evering before 2017 is reasomably reliable; everything after 2017 as reliable as any Russian news agency for example Interfax: reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be biased, but I consider pretty much everything in .ua domain, with a very few exceptions, as a blog platform, so no, not reliable. I just has a look and I do not see them producing own content.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is true that there is a lot of bullshit media in russia but rbc is one f the reliable, so are: meduza, novaya gazeta, kommersant. All of them are oppositional, for example you can check the story with Ivan Golunov and Meduza.--DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• user:buidhe give some examples of rbc articles that you have doubt in
• And here is the russian article about the rbc info agency: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%91%D0%9A. It is number 532 in the global Alexa rating. DonGuess (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• omg, that’s actually extremely strange that there is so little written about RBK, but other media too. I’ll try to add some stuff about RBK. Do you think we should something else about the media? Cause it may seem like russian federation is almost 1984-like government. --DonGuess (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

User warning templates

At the moment we have a user warning template set for unsourced material (e.g. {{uw-unsourced1}}) but nothing for problematic sourcing. This is a common enough problem that I think it might be worth either modifying the unsourced warnings or adding a bad sources warning to cover deprecated sources including predatory open access journals. In theory "unsourced or improperly cited" would cover it but the warning text is as below:

warning template text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
uw-unsourced1 Hello, I'm JzG. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. uw-unsourced2 Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. uw-unsourced3 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. uw-unsourced4 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia.

I think that unsourced and improperly sourced are two separate issues, but maybe others think differently?

There is {{Uw-unreliable}}, but it lacks incremental warnings. FDW777 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, missed that, thanks. It's not linked in Twinkle. I'd like RC patrollers to be empowered here, because the majority of additions of crap sources go unchallenged. Guy (help!) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not always clear which one to use for insistent re-adders of deprecated sources. Usually I go for {{uw-unsourced1}} with a note added - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses journal

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, Editor-in-Chief: Thomas Hope, PhD, ISSN: 0889-2229.

Is this journal any good? Topic of interest is a COVID-19 related article in the current issue. The contents are interesting but I feel a bit triggered by the style. It throws a lot of shade at someone who has apparently been spreading conspiracy theories about the virus, after having done something similar with CFS some years back. The article is doi: 10.1089/aid.2020.0095 (person's name is in the article title so I won't post it here) and Wikipedia also has a biography of the person, which is similarly unfavorable. I'm asking mostly about the journal as a whole (since it published something like that), rather than about that particular article. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As it seems to be a peer reviewed and professionally edited scientific journal, yes I would say it is an RS. Not do I undersatnd why you are being so coy about who this is about its Judy Mikovits.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

See AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses. Published by Liebert, a respectable publisher. Not a huge IF though. What content is it supporting? It's clearly fine for the articles on Mikovits or Plandemic. Guy (help!) 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to use the name of a living person in connection with a journal whose quality I wasn't sure of, that had content like that. That said, the article in the journal has details/citations about the Mikovits saga that aren't currently in the Wikipedia articles, so someone might want to add it. The Mikovits biography is currently protected so I can't edit it myself. I hadn't looked at the Plandemic article since that movie sounds terrible. I'm not aware of the journal being cited elsewhere in Wikipedia, though I haven't checked. I came across that journal article externally and decided to ask about it here, before wanting to use anything else from the journal. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Fox News

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) foxnews.com   has been cited over 15,000 times on Wikipedia.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Additional questions:

• Does FOXNews.com have a separate reliability from their cable news reporting?
• Do local affiliate stations have a separate reliability to the main Fox News operation?
• Is Fox News reliable for US Politics?

The last RfC on Fox News was in 2010, Fox News is currently described at the RS/P as:

FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG. The network consists of 12 news bureaus worldwide, including their New York headquarters. Several shows in the channel's news lineup include America's Newsroom, The Daily Briefing, Bill Hemmer Reports (replaced Shepard Smith), Special Report with Bret Baier, The Story with Martha MacCallum, and Chris Wallace anchoring Fox News Sunday. Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source. Editors should always exercise caution when choosing sources, and treat talk show content hosted by political pundits as opinion pieces, avoid stating opinions in Wikivoice and use intext attribution as applicable. The Fox News website maintains a form for requesting corrections.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Fox News)

• Option2: In view of recent events, their reporting seems biased towards information discrediting the protests. However, their factual reporting of non politically charged subjects stays adequate. That being said, I noticed that they give a lot of weight to POTUS since it was revealed that he was a regular watcher. Being nearly the only network giving him interviews. Feynstein (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox News is a standard WP:NEWSORG, yes it may contain a bias (most RSs do), but does not mean it is not reliable. Fox also issues corrections which further indicates fact-checking. At this point it is beating a dead horse unless some substantive evidence can be presented on the contrary. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 (lean towards 2), the quality of the core network’s reporting has declined over the last decade. Care must be taken though, most network affiliates (such as WTIC-TV) remain generally reliable sources and I want any downgrade to be clear about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1/2. Option 1 for straight news reporting. Fox News's straight news reporting is very different from their talk shows like Hannity, Ingraham, etc. Their news department's bias appears more in what things they choose to cover than in how they cover it. This bias doesn't make it unreliable - almost all news orgs have some form of bias. However, given the network's close ties with Donald Trump, I think option 2 is warranted for coverage of Trump in particular.
  I don't think any outcome of this RfC should apply to content produced by local bureaus affiliated with Fox. In my experience those bureaus are no more or less reliable than other local news bureaus. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per User:Spy-cycle. Fox News does appropriate fact checking on their reports. This establishes reliability of their works in general and the fact that it is cited quite a lot means that most in wikipedia understand that it is a standard news organization. Furthermore, the others who say that it is not as reliable are going to argue based on subjective measures of not liking it with no empirical metrics. The fact that Fox News tends to have notable commentators like senators, representatives, etc that are notable right wing and left wing on shows like Tucker Carlson and Hannity's shows means they are not like Daily Mail. Also some heavy members of government like Mike Huckabee (ex governor and ex presidential candidate) and Jason Chaffetz (ex congress member) actually host some of the programs and this gives the network insider access to details on developing news. Furthermore, emotional reporting done by CNN and MSNBC does not demote them either. The point on reliability is not whether their stories end up to be true, it is do they have fact checking. Many news stories are developing so the details get confirmed and then rejected as time goes on and as more information emerges. CNN and MSNBC were wrong about Russian Collision, Muller Report, impeachment proceedings on Trump, and other stuff, but they would not be unreliable in Wikipedia's eyes either.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, except for prime time "pundit" reporting about Trump. Speaking generally about, for example, articles posted to the website, Ad Fontes, an organization that analyzes and compares news sources, considers the website reliable. I agree with CactusJack. --Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Bsherr:You might want to double check that source... They put Fox News in the “Red Rectangle: Nonesense damaging to public discourse“ [47] which is their lowest category, they rate it below Daily Mail and I see no indication that they endorse Fox New’s reliability (at most they say “Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.” while assigning Fox News a score of 26.75). Can you elaborate? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - (less pundits) didn't we just have an RfC about Fox News a few months ago? Did the OP check to see before calling this RfC?? Fox News is as reliable a source as the other cable news networks that also host pundits. The news is reliable, the pundits are opinion. See the write-up at WP:RS/Perennial sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. You can track how Fox's news output has moved over the last three to four years from a right-leaning mainstream source to part of the conservative media bubble. It's extensively documented in Yochai Benkler's Network Propaganda, and you can track it over successive iterations of the Ad Fontes chart. You can also see it in specific events such as the departure of Shep Smith. It used to be that Fox talk shows were junk, and Fox news broadcasts and websites were OK. Not so any more. Example: "the amount of coverage Fox News devotes to [Antifa] is preposterous. A search for “antifa” on Fox News’ website from November 2016 to the present returns 668 results, while “homelessness” returns 587, and “OxyContin,” 140. “Permafrost” returns 69. A decentralized, leaderless activist group with no record of lethal violence in this country, antifa has been skilfully transmogrified by the conservative media into one of the gravest threats facing Americans in 2019" [48]. The wall of separation between reporting and opinion has long since been blown away, and Fox is now the media arm of the administration. On CO|VID-19 it has published outright misinformation "Tara Setmayer, a spring 2020 Resident Fellow at the Institute of Politics and former Republican Party communications director, said what’s coming from Fox News and other pro-Trump media goes well beyond misinformation. Whether downplaying the views of government experts on COVID-19’s lethality, blaming China or philanthropist Bill Gates for its spread, or cheering shutdown protests funded by Republican political groups, it’s all part of “an active disinformation campaign,” she said, aimed at deflecting the president’s responsibility as he wages a reelection campaign." [49] I could go on. Fox has changed over the last three to four years, in a meaningful way, and we should recognise that. Guy (help!) 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do not know the reliablity of Yochai Benkler's "Network Propaganda", not listed at RSP so I cannot determine its usefulness in this discussion. The opinion of a Buzzfeed News journalist on how much coverage Fox News should give to Antifa compared to homelessness is irrelavent. We need to know whether these articles produced by Fox are reliable and fact checked (which as I explained above I believe they are) not what topics they do and do not cover. I cannot speak for the latter half of your comment since it is an offhand quote from Tara Setmaye as opposed to a multitude of RSs. It is possible Setmayer is true but was referring to the talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight which is more likely to be true as opposed to the website. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Benkler et al.'s Network Propaganda is a peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book.[50] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter for our purposes whether Fox covers various news events proportionally. What matters is whether specific news articles produced by Fox News are reliably accurate. If we were using Fox News coverage as an integrated whole to tell what current events are important based on their coverage, yes, that would be a problem, because they often selectively choose what topics to cover most heavily. But Fox's lack of coverage of the opioid crisis, for example, has no bearing on whether an individual Fox News article on homelessness, for example, is accurate. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with other commenters that the reliability of their cable pundits are separate from their news operation (I would consider the pundits to be generally unreliable considering their recent role in downplaying the Pandemic and for many other misleading and false statements made throughout the years). However their publication of a false story about Seth Rich working with Wikileaks was an egrigious error of judgement, which they (thankfully) subsequently retracted, which makes them much better than some sources (cough, OpIndia, cough). However, their decision to publish the story in the first place makes me question their editorial judgement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2020 UTC)
• Concerns have been raised about other articles in Fox News by Malia Zimmerman, the author of the Seth Rich report, see The New Republic and Quartz

  That was Hannity - a pundit. Maddow does the same stuff only different topics. We've also endured 2 or 3 years of a Russian collusion nothingburger by left leaning sources. Our job is to bypass the speculation, conspiracy theories and biased opinion journalism regardless of who is publishing it - they all do. Stick to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG - the latter of which are now conglomerates. Wait for the historians and academics to give their retrospective accountings. There is no argument here that I've read that is not based in political opinion, and that is not a valid reason to declare the most watched cable news show unreliable. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme:, While Hannity also spread the conspiracy theory, it was also reported on at foxnews.com, see this archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  That archived report was simply a news report - the big 3 also reported the incident. ABC reported it and criticized Fox "commentators", not Fox newscasters. Please state the facts accurately. Fox has criticized the networks as well for their misreporting of events. It goes back and forth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, MSNBC is not reliable for factual reporting. Even though Maddow, unlike Hannity, does cite her sources. Guy (help!) 23:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, do you frequently watch Hannity or Maddow? If my memory serves, they're on at the same time? From what I understand, Hannity actually interviews the sources on his show (radio talk-show, too). I can quickly recall Maddow's "self-defeating spectacle" per Slate over Trump's tax returns, and there are several such spectacles, not unlike Hannity's but guess who leads in the ratings for whatever reason? And what exactly determines "mainstream" - one's POV, or the ratings? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 I would not trust anything I read on Wikipedia that was cited to Fox News content alone. They purposefully manipulate their content for political attention and have an obvious bias that should disqualify them from any use as a reference for even the most basic facts, especially when it comes to America and/or the rest of the world. GPinkerton (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, Fox News is politically biased to the extent that it affects their supposedly factual reporting. Take this article, front page of their website right now, about the New York Times, which is titled: Liberal paper's editorial page editor steps down amid fury over Cotton op-ed note that the actual article once you click on it is titled differently, meaning that they specifically had this title on their home page in order to drive up rage in place of actually reporting. This is just one example of many, Fox News is a right-wing propaganda outlet that is most certainly not reliable. I would not go so far as to call them unreliable, since as far as I know they have not published downright false information systematically, but I am changing my vote per comments below, any source which publishes climate change denial and Seth Rich conspiracy theories is not reliable. Having that green next to their name is a display in bothsidesism that is not reflected in reality. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Which part of the headline was inaccurate? The NYT itself reported that its editorial page editor had resigned and that his resignation was connected to negative response to the publication of Tom Cotton's op-ed. [51] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, or, failing that, 2. No one, I hope, disputes that Fox is extremely WP:BIASED on anything to do with American politics (and I'll note that cites to it are often careless about the requirement for in-text attribution that that generally requires.) While such biased sources can be used provided their bias doesn't interfere with their fact-checking or accuracy, the issue with Fox is that the ideological mission it was founded for takes absolute priority over these things. ([52][53]) It has been covered as a case-study in propaganda ([54][55]) and as a leader in the shift towards market-driven sensationalism at the expense of accuracy. ([56][57]) More importantly for our purposes, these things have led to misleading or outright inaccurate coverage of many disparate topics, especially, though not limited to, climate change. ([58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]) Most recently (and perhaps most dangerously), Fox News' COVID-19 coverage has been notably inaccurate in a way that may have contributed to the severity of the epidemic in the US ([68][69][70]); this, I think, is the main reason to categorize it as a 3. It is true that the network is extremely popular and has high viewership, and it is true that a lot of what they cover is merely biased rather than misleading; additionally, it could be tempting to say that the network is only grossly, constantly misleading and inaccurate in a few specific contexts (eg. climate change), and that it's therefore unusable for those topics but still usable elsewhere. But I feel the recent wave of COVID-19 misinformation from the network provides clear evidence that Fox will freely publish inaccurate or misleading stories without warning, on any topic, the moment the people in charge decide that doing so is important to their core ideological mission and hand it down as part of the daily memo, even in situations where doing so is extremely dangerous. Trying to carve out only a few "unsafe" uses for it as a source is a bad idea because the underlying problem is systematic - while they are not incapable of fact-checking and accuracy, their ability to meet that standard is fatally compromised by a structure that places it completely subordinate to their ideological goals, and by ownership and leadership that have shown themselves to be entirely willing to disregard fact-checking and accuracy, even for extremely important topics, when they find it ideologically convenient to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for most purposes, option 3 for political and racial issues, based largely on the fact that the reputation of the network for bias would taint the reliability of Wikipedia articles citing it for those purposes. Fox just drew controversy for an issue where it posted a graphic of stock market gains tied to prominent murders of African-Americans. Moreover—and this is an aspect I really haven't seen raised before—option 2, at least, because some of their content appears to be undisclosed paid advertising. For example, in one period I saw numerous articles on Fox touting a "Black Rifle Coffee" company, so much so that I even started a draft article on the company. However, I quickly ran into a roadblock in finding that all other news reporting of any substance on the company was in pay-for-play churnalism venues. Upon further examination, it became apparent to me that the Fox pieces were written more like paid advertisements than objective news pieces, and contained objectively false characterizations of the notoriety of the company. There was no disclosure of any payment, so Fox is either in the pay-for-play reporting business, or they are allowing articles to be published that readily appear to be pay-for-play reporting. Either option is problematic for any news coverage that could potentially benefit a party with a pecuniary interest in how an article is presented, from a perspective of either financial or political gain. BD2412 T 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, do you have a link to that controversy? I'm on island time and pretty much out of the loop in real-time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, covered here. Of course, Fox is hardly the first network to have to apologize for tone deaf coverage. BD2412 T 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. You're right about apologies - back in January, CNN went silent when Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to investigators. Most recently, this apology by Brian Stelter with CNN who lied about ‘no sign of smoke or fire’. Do we downgrade CNN? I can provide numerous errors and ommissions for that network, as well as MSNBC, ABC, CBS & NBC. Did any other network besides Fox News report these things? We've already seen how the left-leaning stations & networks handled Reade-Biden sexual assault allegation vs how they handled Kavanaugh. WP garnered negative media attention over the left-leaning handling of it - don't you find that concerning? Being a biased source is not a valid reason to downgrade the most-watched news source (with right & left viewers) - to do so is strictly POV rather than being based on an equivalent analysis with other networks. WP policy requires NPOV - it's one of our core content policies - downgrading RS because we disagree with their POV is noncompliant with NPOV when choosing sources. Is the plan to downgrade all political news because it's all biased? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am actually somewhat more concerned that they may be promoting paid advertising as news. In retrospect, the thing that first struck me as suspicious about the "Black Rifle Coffee" story is that it appeared on the Fox website, then disappeared for a time, and then reappeared at intervals, a pattern more characteristic of an advertising campaign than a news story. BD2412 T 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see any paid advertising scheme there, but I do see insensitivity, and they apologized for taking it out of context, as well they should - somebody obviously wasn't thinking straight. There is no mention in that report about "Black Rifle Coffee" that I could find, so it seems to me that mentioning it with the S&P issue would be SYNTH with a splash of OR, wouldn't it? Newsrooms can be hectic, and you can rest assured it's a ripe environment for mistakes. The latter is why I have always stressed "exercise caution" when citing news sources today. The same FCC regulations that apply to broadcast news don't apply in the same manner to cable/internet news - they enjoy much more freedom because they're not using public airwaves, although none of them are totally immune from political pressure. If you haven't read my op-ed in The Signpost this month, please do.<— shameless advertising, not paid advertising. 😉 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  SYNTH and OR are not really applicable, as we are not discussing whether to include such assertions in an article. Whether we are dealing with shameless advertising or paid advertising, the ultimate effect is that they published claims about the subject that led me to believe that it was a notable subject, and those claims turned out to be inaccurate. BD2412 T 18:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 they call Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham news. Shows that they don't separate factual reporting from opinions. They promote conspiracy theories with no basis and call it news. Smith0124 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Smith0124, there's a difference between opinion & talk shows and straight news reporting. Fox's talk shows are as much of a crapshoot, w.r.t. political affairs, as all other mainstream media. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Atsme with a bit of the Option 2 caution suggested by Cactus Jack. I personally think this RfC should be closed since the intent seems to be to ask the same question over and over again until finally someone will close with the answer a group of editors has been hunting for. Springee (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 While Fox News Channel was founded to provide a forum for U.S. conservative opinion, it has always provided a professional news service. I don't see that the fact they provide right wing commentary detracts from that. Many of their talk show hosts came from other cable news networks: Glenn Beck, Geraldo Rivera, Lou Dobbs, while Megyn Kelly moved from Fox to NBC. All news by the way is biased since editorial discretion is required in choosing stories to present. For example, Fox News covered the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden long before other legacy media did. But that has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting, merely that their emphasis is different. TFD (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The following text is in regards to the news reporting division at Fox News (not its prime talk shows and commentators). Academic sources widely consider Fox News as a propaganda outlet, including in its straight news reporting which is often misleading, hypes up non-stories and gets things egregiously wrong all the time. I'll keep the focus primarily on two issues rather than to just list every egregiously wrong thing that Fox News has done: (i) Fox News' climate change denial propaganda and (ii) the intentional promotion of Seth Rich conspiracy theories to divert attention from a negative news cycle for Trump.

  (I) Climate change. Peer-reviewed research has widely described Fox News as a major platform for climate change denial. According to the fact-checking website Climate Feedback, Fox News is part of "a network of unreliable outlets for climate news."

  • Bill Sammon, the Fox News Washington managing editor, instructed Fox News journalists to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change: "A leaked email from the managing editor of Fox News Washington, Bill Sammon, during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 reveals Fox’s sceptical policy towards climate change. Sammon advised Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”." Page 174 of Marisol Sandoval. "From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries". Routledge.
  • Bret Baier, a straight-news anchor pushing climate denial propaganda -“In February 2010, a paper on sea level rise that had previously been published in Nature Geosciences was formally withdrawn by the authors because of an error they had identified subsequently in their calculations. Fox News announced the development in this vein: “More Questions About Validity of Global Warming Theory.” In fact, the error in the calculations had led the authors to projections of future sea level rise that were too low!" Page 223 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”
  • Bill Hemmer, a straight-news anchor: Promotion of Climategate falsehoods: "“This particular falsehood had been promoted recently by venues such as Fox News , e.g., Bill Hemmer on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, December 3, 2009: “Recently leaked emails reveal that scientists use, quote, ‘tricks’ to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the past, say, few decades." Page 353 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”

  (II) Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy (i.e. "Russia didn't hack the DNC"). On May 16, 2017, a day when other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News ran a lead story about a private investigator's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich, a DNC staffer. The Fox News story reported that the private investigator had uncovered evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks and that law enforcement were covering it up. The story was in the context of right-wing conspiracy theories that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed because he was the source of the DNC leaks. U.S. intelligence agencies determined Russia was the source of the leaks. In reporting the investigator's claims, the Fox News report reignited right-wing conspiracy theories about the killing. The Fox News story fell apart within hours because other news organizations did the basic journalistic legwork to confirm aspects of the story that Fox News intentionally opted not to do. Furthermore, other news organizations quickly revealed the investigator was a Donald Trump supporter and had according to NBC News "developed a reputation for making outlandish claims, such as one appearance on Fox News in 2007 in which he warned that underground networks of pink pistol-toting lesbian gangs were raping young women." Later that same day, the private investigator said he had no evidence that Rich had contacted Wikileaks. The investigator claimed he only learned about the possible existence of the evidence from the Fox News reporter herself. Even though other news organizations had quickly found the story to be erroneous and the story had complete fallen apart within hours, Fox News chose merely to alter the contents of its story and its headline, but did not issue corrections.  It took Fox News a week to retract the story. Unlike normal news organizations, Fox News did not bother to publicly explain what went wrong in its reporting. The reporter behind the fabricated story, Malia Zimmermann, may still be working at Fox News (that's at least what her Twitter bio says) despite having egregiously fabricated a story – Fox News can't show the basic transparency of clarifying whether she is still working behind the scenes on Fox News stories.

  Note that as soon as the Fox News story appeared, editors on the Murder of Seth Rich page fought hard to include it in the article. Editors on the talk page argued that Fox News was considered "generally reliable" (this includes one editor who is voting for Option 1 in this very RfC). This is precisely why Option 1 is unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • And note that I argued against inclusion on the basis that the story had not been widely reported. Also note that you argued vociferously to include a misleading story about Rep. Tulsi Gabbard that had only been reported in one news source (NBC) and I argued against inclusion for the same reason. But that is the nature of investigative reporting. One news source presents something that a source told them and the rest of the media either pick up the story or they don't. Are we going to ban NBC News too on the basis that they are biased in favor of establishment Democrats? TFD (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • As soon as one other RS reported "According to Fox News...", you said "Fantastic! Let's include this batshit insane conspiracy theory in the article."[71] I have no idea what your Gabbard commentary is about. On the Murder of Seth Rich article, I had to spend hours re-writing and fixing the article, and preventing editors such as yourself from lending credibility to a deranged conspiracy theory on one of the most read websites in the world and preventing editors such as yourself from imposing more harm on a murder victim's family. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Your climate change points are not any proof against RS. Point 1 doesn't mean anything because that isn't reflected in any actual stories we can point to, nor is it a requirement for WP in reporting on CC stories that the news source has assert climate change is real in every story about climate change. Unless the source is spinning every climate change story in full outright denial mode, that doesn't make them unreliable (At worst, judging the latest CC stories they have run [72], [73], [74] they play just a bit into "skeptic" but they do not let that taint how they report the basic facts of these climate change reports, only just throwing in a para "skeptics say these there may be no climate change" langauge" somewhere. That's not wrong nor touches anything about their RSness. Your point two is using the headline of a story which is never considered reliable so we ignore that. On 3, its clearly misunderstanding the language of the emails as applied to the data per [75] (eg even that book gets the context wrong). So no, none of that proves Fox is not an RS. I wouldn't use them for CC news data only because I don't believe their bias would be helpful and other sources are tons better in terms of the basic science that is involved like NYTimes, but that doesn't rule it out.
  • On the whole thing with Rich, the "news" part of Fox that reported on the conspiracy was simply reporting it existed (that the Fox opinion desk side were going all crazy over it) and gave insight from the other side's denial nothing happened like that. Did they chase it down as well as the NYTimes or others? No. Is that a requirement for an RS? No (like the answer to the CC #1 above). All we are looking for is editorial control and fact-checking, which they did some. Not as extensive, and likely they were rushing to print (again, they have a bias) . And key to all that: They Redacted the story within the week [76] . Editorial control. That's all that matters for the RS factor. Now, that editors rushed to want to add it, that's a problem that we are not enforcing BLP, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM especially with controversial claims from biased RSes. --Masem (t) 03:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It was the news division that was behind the Seth Rich story! It was a Fox News scoop – not commentary by Sean Hannity. There would have been nothing for the opinion desk side of Fox News to get crazy over if not for the fabricated story by the straight news division. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as long as we are clear we are not talking about their opinion or talk shows, but only their news programs or news portions of their websites which have been repeated shown to follow the expected editorial control we expect of RSes, biases notwithstanding. Bias does not discount a reliable source, though it is fair to raise the question (like this) if a bias has affected the reliability of a source. Their talk shows should be treated only as RSOPINION and used only when DUE is appropriate. I also point out as noted below this has been asked at least 3-4 times in a non-formal RFC (which is NOT required to include on RS/P) and the weight of those discussions be considered in this. --Masem (t) 03:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How can the news division of Fox News be considered reliable when its reporters are instructed to promote climate change denial and when said straight-news reporters act upon these instructions and tell brazen falsehoods about climate change? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Their reporters don't lie about climate change, but they give too much time to climate change deniers. Similarly, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and the broadsheets gave way too much coverage to misleading pundits falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, in fact manipulating public opinion in favor of what would be a devastating military adventure. TFD (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Do you have any examples of this that aren't over a decade old? If so, please provide them. Ten years is a long time in the politics and media world. 10 years ago Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting; today he's one of the most vocal critics of the Republican president. 10 years ago Breitbart News was a generic conservative commentary site; nowadays it's a hard-right propaganda outlet. The layman's consensus in the US around climate change is much, much stronger than it was a decade ago. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 03:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Fox News, Nov 2018[77]: "NASA warns long cold winter could hit space in months bringing record low temperatures" – A complete misrepresentation of the science in order to promote a global cooling narrative.[78]
      • Fox News, Oct 2019[79]: "Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age" – A complete misrepresentation of the science in order to promote a global cooling narrative.[80].
      • Fox News, Feb 2017[81]: "Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges" – Giving credence to the dumb ravings of a climate change denier[82]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
        • The Nov 2018 was a mistake several outlets made per Poynter and per Poyner "Like Metro, Fox and The Sun have also since corrected their stories." Editorial control. So not proof.
        • Oct 2019 story: As per Climate Feedback: "The Fox News article has been corrected..." Editorial control. though the fact they don't check with scientists of the work behind a paper before publishing the results of a paper is not great journalism but that's not a requirement under RS.
        • Feb 2017, this one is a bit different. If you read Fox's article, all claims of it are directly attributed to other sources and none to their own; the slowdown claim is from the whistleblower, and of course Daily Mail and Washington Times are used as other sources of information. Now, red flags go up in that I would not touch this story for use in any CC related article, but I stress that in terms of an RS, its not wrong. It doesn't go out of its way to say "this is bad understanding of a graph" but thats again, not a requirement of an RS, and in terms of discussion if someone said "We need to use this article", I would suspect that UNDUE factors from other less biased sources would be there. But again, nothing about that article says anything against being an RS. Just a biased source for CC claims. --Masem (t) 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • All the sources that also happened to make Fox News's "mistake" were sources which are considered generally unreliable or which have been deprecated (does the fact that The Sun sometimes runs corrections make it a reliable source with thorough editorial control? No, of course not). That's a clue as to what company Fox News belongs in. And it's entirely consistent with the existing academic literature on the broader network of right-wing disinformation that Fox News sits smack in the middle of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Just like CNN and MSNBC and all the other cable news channels, they have a news show and a talking head show. Their news is reliable, just as most of the other RS, even if they don't share the same bias as CNN or MSNBC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Baloney, this is the old false equivalence claim. Fox doesn't even try to be neutral, their biases are displayed on their sleeves for anyone to see. CNN and MSNBC keep their news operations separate from the opinion operations, but at Fox, it's all one bag -- that's precisely and entirely what Roger Ailes intended to create. You could see it in his programming on the pre-Fox "America's Talking" channel (that became MSNBC after they kicked Ailes out). His purpose has always been to create a conservative-leaning "news" channel which would counter the bias he perceived in CNN. He wasn't shy about declaring this, and the result is the biased, unreliable Fox News we have today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not really commenting in the poll, but it’s worth pointing out that there is a substantial difference between Fox News TV and foxnews.com. The former can have some decent reporting depending on the reporter and anchor (also some real crap as has already been pointed out.) Foxnews.com makes the Daily Mail look like the New York Times, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the most part. Fox News is reliable enough for run-of-the-mill news, but not for news regarding politics or anything connected to politics. They do not maintain a Chinese wall between their news operation and their opinion operations, and are blatantly biased in favor of Trump and the Republican Party, and against anything perceived to be liberal or (God forbid!) socialist. I have no opinion about the local stations, but would suggest that the owned-and-operated stations are more likely to hew to the Murdoch/Ailes model, while the affiliates would be independent operations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the core news reporting (though there can always be exceptions), and option 4 for the pundits, talk shows, and opinion pieces. I fully agree with GPinkerton's and BD2412's assessments of Fox's lack of editorial diligence, and Aquillion has highlighted only a fraction of their misinformation campaign. Even setting my political bias aside, I do not trust their capability to report statements of fact. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:14, 08 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG. Having read Network Propaganda, this is conclusively proven. Because you cannot rely on self-correction of mistakes, every piece from Fox News needs to be independently verified by the user and therefore citing Fox News ends up being an act of original research. There will be still things one can source to Fox News, for instance "Fox News thinks" or "Murdoch told on Fox News that". For right-wing perspectives one can always cite other prolific media like The Hill which, while clearly politically tinted, tends to be more matter-of-fact (for now). Nemo 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Standard WP:NEWSORG with oversight. Yes it may have political leanings, but so does The Guardian, CNN and the majority of other media outlets. Yet I don't see them getting the same treatment as this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I'd normally try to stay away from US politics as toxic but feel obliged to respond to RfC's listed at WP:CENT. I nominated the two most recent stories listed as blurbs at WP:ITN and so am familiar with their details. Looking at the coverage of these on Fox News ([83], [84]), this seems shallow but accurate and generally unexceptional. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 meets WP:NEWSORG with oversight just like CNN and MSNBC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 mostly, Option 2 at best for core news reporting. Fox News has consistently peddled inaccurate/fake news, whether an hierarchical structure of a news organisation exists is irrelevant. Fox News also lacks the journalistic tradition of correcting their mistakes publicly in most cases - to state how widespread it is, I found an example in the last one day alone, WTVQ. For pundits and opinion pieces (Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, et al.) it should strictly be Option 4 due their nature of sensationalizing news reporting and often making biased and inaccurate reporting. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - It either meets RS standards or not. Their core news department does meet WP:NEWSORG from what I can tell. Pundits and opinions should be handled by WP:NEWSBLOG. I think it is important for people to realize the distinction here and I think that is what is being missed by some. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 One of the only major conservative news outlets, it is a source for reliable news. Just like CNN is considered reliable even though both news sites have a bias and tend to lead towards their political standing. It would be a shame to not count Fox news as reliable. Csar00 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It meets WP:NEWSORG. Fox News being a WP:BIASED does not severely affect it's reliability; it is not WP:QUESTIONABLE since it's not an "extremist". Now in the COVID-19 pandemic, eh a small difference in its reliability. Taking hydroxychloriquine is not recommended, warned Neil Cavuto to Fox News Viewers. Well then.
  .@FoxNews is no longer the same. We miss the great Roger Ailes. You have more anti-Trump people, by far, than ever before. Looking for a new outlet! Donald J. Trump 4:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
  That is enough to show that Fox News doesn't have bias that affects it's reliability. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the news programming, Option 2 or 3 for the pundit programming. Nothing has really changed since the last RFC on this. Note- I would have the same opinion if we were discussing CNN or MSNBC. The problem is that too many of our editors have difficulty differentiating between news reporting, news analysis, and news commentary/opinion. Each needs to be handled differently. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2. I think everyone here acknowledges Fox has a conservative bias. That alone is not enough to deem the network unreliable or to deprecate it, unless we also take a hard look at MSNBC. Calidum 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of responses in this thread so far are simply "reliable per NEWSORG" without any justification. I would like to present another story, the false claim that Omar Mateen had been radicalised by Marcus Dwayne Robertson. From The New Republic:

  Since [Malia] Zimmerman joined Fox News in 2015, Fox News has repeatedly picked up her reporting and used it to legitimize the larger counter-narratives that form Fox News’s fevered worldview. These stories touched on alleged issues like voter fraud, gun confiscation, the Benghazi terrorist attack, the unmasking of Trump transition officials in confidential documents, and the murder of Seth Rich. Fox News has repeatedly picked up Zimmerman’s reporting and used it to legitimize the larger counter-narratives that form Fox News’s fevered worldview. In June 2016, shortly after the attack on the gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando that killed 49 people, Zimmerman reported that the shooter, Omar Mateen, had been radicalized by an imam and ex-con named Marcus Dwayne Robertson.

Citing anonymous law enforcement sources, Zimmerman alleged that Robertson had been “rounded up” in the wake of the attack and that Mateen had been radicalized while attending an online seminary run by Robertson. But Robertson and Mateen had never met. Furthermore, Robertson had never been “rounded up” by anyone. That didn’t stop Fox News from running with the story—or other outlets, including The Daily Beast, from picking it up—until it was finally debunked. Robertson was forced to defend himself on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News show On the Record. As reporter David Gauvey Herbert wrote in Quartz his explanation satisfied Susteren. But the damage was done. Zimmerman’s shadowy unnamed sources—whom Herbert and others have been unable to identify—fingered a man who had nothing to do with the terror attack and upended his life. Robertson lost his job and faced a barrage of death threats, despite having no connection to Mateen.

The story, which is still online has not been corrected or retracted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be retracted? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe retracted is the wrong word, but there's no update on the story to indicate that the claims are no longer considered true. The only update on the story was adding Omar Mateen to the death count. Hemiauchenia (talk)

What claims? Please provide a link to the source that supports what you're saying because I don't know what you're talking about. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"or other outlets, including The Daily Beast, from picking it up" Would you argue that the other sources should be downgraded as well as Fox? I note that The Daily Beast was this year upgraded to a green source on PERENNIAL, should we reverse that? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with bad news stories is that they are like anecdotes, they don't tell you the hit rate. I don't think having reported a news story that later turns out to be incorrect is necessarily an issue of reliability, I mean look at the whole Covington thing. As the Perennial sources entry indicates, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" Which is inline with them covering this story, as it involves BLPs. I would consider the Daily Beast a significantly lower quality source than something like the NYT or WashPo, and if something is being covered in the Daily Beast but not those would have to make a judgement if its use was appropriate. I called this RfC simply to get a new concensus on how reliable Fox News is, not because I have a vendetta against Fox News or conservatives. I would be happy to see Fox News retain its generally reliable rating at the end of this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 There is clear bias in how they report certain things, and which things they report and which they don't. For instance, I believe they're the only news organization anyone would consider legitimate at all that tried to discuss the Michael Flynn "unmasking" issue as anything other than a right-wing conspiracy theory. They are okay on some factual matters, but we should use caution when citing Fox News. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Limited option 2 - Option 2 is very broad, so I'm going to say that Fox News is problematic on a significant amount of US political reporting. Outside of that, their flaw rate certainly is no worse that others that sources we consider generally reliable (which certainly doesn't require perfection by any means). That political reporting (reasonably construed) is not always flawed, but an appreciable amount is. As noted above, this is often on what is notreported (or not covered in depth) - this can make their reporting lack context, but may, or may not, mitigate on accuracy concerns about what is present. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, certainly for anything related to science, politics, or COVID per Snoogans and also concerned about native advertising per BD2412. buidhe 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on news reporting. I note that they use a considerable amount of AP content. Obviously does not apply to commentary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2 for their straight reporting with the usual sanity checks - newsorgs are only the first draft of history, but is the news side of Fox really so much worse than its peers? Certainly the Seth Rich article (three years ago) was a grotesque lapse of judgment, what of CNN letting Chris Cuomo lob softballs at his brother rather than press him on his atrocious response to the coronavirus? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  NPalgan2, please avoid the whataboutism and keep an eye on your own POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 and Comment. FOX News has had a front-row seat at the White House Press Briefing Room along with NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN for a very long time reporting on the activities of multiple presidencies, both Democrat and Republican. I believe that FOX News should be treated *the same way* as NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. Also, to the OP User:Hemiauchenia, in the interest of transparency, could you please fill out your User Page with some information about yourself? Thank you. History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  History DMZ, Please do not ask editors to post personal information. It is not required to post political opinions either. Please respect WP:PRIVACY. buidhe 20:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, I never asked for *personal* information. I asked for *some* information. That can be userboxes, a short introduction, etc. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't speak. But to be clear, NO personal information was asked of the OP. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 20:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  History DMZ, I can tell you that I don't really care for Hemiauchenia, despite the fact my account is named after it, having never edited the article. I do think the article (alongside that of Paleolama) are in need of serious work though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hemiauchenia, thank you for your cordial and humorous reply. Perhaps what you just shared is TMI for some lol. But seriously, it wouldn't hurt if you introduced yourself a little to the community through your user page. It's *optional* of course. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  History DMZ, The White House gave press passes to Infowars and OANN. That means literally nothing. Guy (help!) 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, The Obama White House (2009-2017), whom I voted into office and hold no bias for or against, gave *front-row* press passes to FOX News and sat them next to NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. That means a lot. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  @History DMZ: that was then. They have totally changed because of Trump. It's a symbiotic relationship made in hell. They have moved from ordinary right-wing RS, to extreme right-wing allies of Russian propaganda defending Trump, no matter what, and we know he lies constantly. -- Valjean (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Far more reliable than its cable competitors such as the pathetic CNN or MSNBC that are little more than 24/7 coverage of "we hate Trump". Considering all the poorly worded tones of once reliable sources such as the NYTimes, the WaPo, BBC and simliar mostly print based news entities, FoxNews appears as reliable as as them overall. Since we shy away from posting news opinion pieces in most BLPs we also do so with cable based pundit commentary, or at least we should.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, with Option 3 for political content. Speaking as a journalist, Fox News's news coverage, while better than its opinions commentary, still flouts the professional standards of the industry, and this has worsened since the prior RfC. The Seth Rich example (Poynter headline: "Fox News’s retraction is a woefully inadequate response to its colossal mistake") is just one of many. While it does often publish decent enough content, I agree with Nemo that anything we cite to it would have to be confirmed somewhere else more reliable, at which point it is no longer functioning as a source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Opinion, punditry, and headlines aside, their straight news stuff is fine. Like SJ says, on par with CNN, MSNBC, or any other cable news. (Well, better actually than some cable news, like OANN and Newsmax.) I agree with Masem's comments above that making mistakes and correcting them later is not a sign of unreliability. I think it's quite the opposite in fact. Fox News is not a top-tier source and can usually be replaced by a better source, but it's an RS, when used properly. By the way, we just did this last year. [85] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1- How many more of these discussions do we need to have. Sure I understand that consensus can change, but having the same exact discussion every other month just because there is a group of people who hate Fox News is a massive waste of time. It is at least as reliable as its competitor CNN and we haven't banned that as a source yet.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Reliable. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per Atsme. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 As far as actual factual reporting they seem to do about as well as most NewsOrgs. They post their corrections which are easy to call out. Not a huge fan of what they choose to write about but that doesn't make it unreliable. The Punditry is hot garbage but then most punditry isn't reliable anyway.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1 to 4. The news department will generally get "sky is blue" type facts right. They still get all the way over into reporting debunked information, which is sometimes called out by other members of the team, but not always.

Are they "reliable for US Politics"? Hell no. Ask yourself if their reporting deviates from what all other mainstream news sources report. If someone can't see that there is a huge difference between their reporting and the reporting from the rest of mainstream media, they are blind. If they do see the difference, and still consider Fox News generally reliable for US politics, they don't know what's really happening, are buying the GOP party line without thinking, and don't know how to vet sources for reliability. Note that such people consistently hate fact-checking sources.

Keep in mind that research shows that Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All

Fox News was created by Roger Ailes to be a voice for the GOP, not a real "news" station. It's their propaganda channel. With the arrival of Trump, they have gone from normal right-wing (which can be opinionated, but still reliable) to extreme right-wing (which, like extreme left-wing, are not reliable) and often repeat Russian talking points, the exact same ones being pushed by RT and Sputnik, which are Russian propaganda channels. That is very worrying.-- Valjean (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. Great to be here. Lots of folks out there are saying Option 1 and many are saying Option 3, but I like Option 2. In my experience, the reliability of the "News Division" of Fox News has gone down over recent years. I don't think enough people here are talking about that. For me, since Shepard Smith left,^[86] their standards have started to lax. According to Brian Stelter, Smith wasn't the only person in the News Division to leave, and he reported that Fox News executives are mainly trying to head the company away from prioritizing actual journalism in their coverage.^[87] Regardless, it is certainly clear that they have changed in some way over time.^[88]
  While writing this comment, I did some digging. I wanted a reliable source to tell me how other reliable sources think things are. It's easy to get caught up in your own perceptions of things, so I wanted something outside my own biases. What I found was this article. It's answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  It's not clear, and no one knows for sure. We can debate it all we want, but we're never going to get a satisfactory answer out of this question besides (to me) Option 2. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• It keeps coming up, because it's such a hard case. Ultimately, I land [close enough to] Option 2 for the news. Certainly the pundits/talk shows can range anywhere from option 2-4, depending, but the news content is ok for a lot of subjects. I think where it's hardest is when it comes to story selection and word choice. Fox doesn't regularly simply get it wrong and doesn't often contradict other sources on the basic facts, but will cover some things that don't get any traction elsewhere and is more likely to use particular kinds of language to cover those stories (like one they've gotten some flack for in the past is "thug" -- for which they're certainly not the only one, of course). Not sure if that should factor in to RSP -- just seemed worth mentioning — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, generally. Mostly per all of the above. I'd also add that Fox tends to be a good source in terms of determining what the Republican Party's stance on an issue is. This is roughly in line with my opinion on the merits of including Xinhua or CGTN as a barometer of the "official stance" of the CCP. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: The arguments that Fox News is generally reliable because of WP:NEWSORG aren't convincing. This specific part of the RS content guideline reflects general consensus for the entire class of sources that are news organizations, and the following are not the same:
  • generally considered to be reliable (from WP:NEWSORG, bolding mine)
  • considered to be generally reliable (an apparently common interpretation here)
  When it comes to an RfC to determine the consensus on the individual reliability of a particular news organization, it's a very weak argument to just say that Fox News is a news organization and then point to the massively general group of news organizations. We need to identify whether the particular news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy
  There is problematic journalism by Fox News, which is elaborated by (among others): JzG and Aquillion regarding misinformation and inaccuracies, Snooganssnoogans and Aquillion regarding climate change and conspiracy theories, Aquillion regarding academic studies on the priority given to ideology, and Sdkb and MJL regarding general journalistic standards.
  Fox News does have editorial oversight, yes, but the existence of an editorial team doesn't guarantee reliability. The quality and standards of that editorial process is not at the same level expected of a generally reliable source (bolding mine):

  The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.

  The historical level of journalism over the past decade requires editors to pay significant attention to individual articles, in many contexts, before they can be used as references. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (Standard disclaimer of I'mabout their opinion/commentary, which is a solid "4", but just the actual news...) Either 3 or 4 overall, and its questionable assessment of appropriate weight means it absolutely should not be used in assessing WP:DUE; probably 2 for the basic facts themselves. I don't think it's the worst offender in regular use on ENWP; it tends to get basic facts right more than it gets them wrong (admittedly a shamefully low bar to set); it strikes me as only a dull roar of awfulness surrounded by a sea of utter journalistic tripe. I'd rank it substantially below "real" reporting — Reuters, AP, NYT — but a bit above all the tabloid-y rags like Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Washington Examiner, Complex, etc. By all means let's ditch Fox, but let's also take care of the tabloid infestation while we're at it! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG, Devonian Wombat, Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 1/2 My feelings mirror that of BD2412 for national programming fairly closely. I live in a very small television market, but I would have to say Option 1 for local affiliate news programming. My local station, WEUX contracts with the NBC affiliate for news programming. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Respectable WP:NEWSORG with editorial control no different then NYT --Shrike (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Shrike, oh, I can think of some differences :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't done any investigation of the issue myself, but just looking at this thread, the points put forward by User:Masem are a lot more convincing than any of the points set out by those arguing against (many of which bring up things which aren't relevant to reliability). --Yair rand (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. I think by now it is clear that the pundit shows are not included in this analysis. That said, Fox has shown a top-to-bottom willingness to slant coverage, to use misleading headlines, chyrons, tickers, etc., to give mouthpieces for despicable views a platform, to present conspiracy theories as facts, etc. WP:NEWSORG does not apply when a source has a well-established pattern and editorial direction that allows rumors and untruths (NB:untruths are different from usual journalistic mistruths) to be reported as facts. This is not merely bias. Unfortunately, a blanket statement about which of those options applies is impossible because the reliability varies depending on context, story subject, and even time slot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Per Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, and Guy. Everyday non-political/scientific event reporting is fine, but their record in fact-checking and explicit error correction is unacceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. treat the same as CNN, NYT, etc. As with any source, my first check is whether or not they have a corrections process and/or policy. They do. [89] Sure, they have gotten stories wrong, and corrected themselves, but then again they didn't treat us to 2 years of Russia Hoax, either. Their bias seems to be less of an issue than with, for example, CNN, which has broadcast 10 interviews of Andrew Cuomo by Chris Cuomo [90]. Additionally, the inclusion of Fox as a "gold-standard" source would give Wikipedia some sorely-needed political diversity in its "gold standard" sourcing on US politics, something we lack if we treat it any less than CNN, NYT, etc. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny: "they didn't treat us to 2 years of Russia Hoax, either". Therein lies the rub. Editors who think that Fox News constant pushing of the completely false conspiracy theory that the proven fact that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win (that is the narrative from all RS) is a "Russia hoax" have swallowed the kool-aid served daily by Fox News. No wonder the votes for Option 1. They actually see that there is a huge difference between the counterfactual narrative pushed by Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Breitbart, Bongino, and all other fringe sources, and the factual narrative documented by all mainstream sources (IOW the ones we consider RS), and seeing that difference, they still believe the false conspiracy theories because they have been deceived into believing Trump's lie that mainstream media are fake news. No wonder we have this problem. They don't know how to vet sources. Fox Fake News is treated by them as equal to CNN, ABC, BBC, etc. No, there is a world of difference. -- Valjean (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The hoax is the assertion that Trump colluded with the Russians. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Adoring nanny: that's not the only part denied by Fox News, but, just to keep the terminology correct, the Mueller Report was not able to collect enough evidence (because of Trump's proven obstruction of the investigation) to prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but did describe numerous examples of what could be considered collusion/co-operation/invitation/facilitation, which is not a crime, just disloyal to the interests of the United States. Trump and Fox News still attempt to deny/downplay that Russia interfered, and the term "Russia hoax" includes that, not just the part about collusion/no collusion. Trump has still not done anything to prevent the current disruption of the elections and has stated he would accept foreign interference to help him, and that he might not even notify the FBI, which would make him vulnerable to blackmail by foreign bad actors like Russia. -- Valjean (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
        • MR. CLAPPER: Well, no, it's not. I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election [91]. So Fox was right about that all along. A fine example of why we need them as a first-class source. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
          • You seem to be ignoring the difference between "conspiracy" and co-operation/collusion. Mueller describes the Trump campaign's actions quite well as "the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." The Trump campaign did take myriad proven "actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests", but without evidence of a formal written or spoken agreement, conspiracy could not be proven, even if everything done, and the results of those actions, indicated that such an understanding existed, regardless of whether a formal "agreement" existed. Conspirators usually avoid leaving such evidence.

Starting in 2015, EIGHT foreign allied intelligence agencies reported to the FBI that numerous Trump campaign members and associates were secretly meeting with known Russian intelligence agents (who were being monitored). The campaign lied about all these contacts. Their conversations were so worrying and a threat to American democracy that those intelligence agencies reported their findings to the FBI (and maybe CIA). The Trump campaign was deeply involved with Russian intelligence, and we saw the results. That's collusion (or unproven conspiracy), no matter how it's defined. Fox News will not tell you any of that, but RS do, and our articles here do.

There is a huge difference in the coverage by Fox News and mainstream news. Fox News paints Trump and his campaign as innocent victims of a witch hunt, when all the suspicion was actually justified and a result of the campaign's own actions. Trump's continued refusals to condemn the interference and constant cozying up to Putin doesn't help. Now he's threatening to withdraw American troops from Germany, which is a nice gift to Putin.

The Steele Dossier alleged “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation". Well guess what. Even though the "conspiracy" was not proven, what actually happened was loads of proven "co-operation". Fox News ignores what actually happened and focuses on what was not proven. How convenient. Trump is still "co-operating" with Putin, and that's very wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is zero requirement that a RS tell a complete story. Obviously we give more credibility to the sources that have routinely shown commitment to tell the full story and follow up as needed (NYTimes) but plenty of other high-quality RSes will go to press with 3/4ths of the story and may update as the go along or the like (like CNN). Omission by choice of part of the story is also acceptable but of course this might depends on what's omitted and why. If a story involves a rumor about X and the publication doesn't even attempt to reach X to ask about it, that's iffy, while when a source does try to reach out to X and gets no response, they'll say that. Fox will omit parts of stories, this is not in doubt, and this leads to their bias, but it doesn't change their reliability in a big-picture sense. I would say that if a source is making so many omissions in a story to make it swiss cheese and or to actually make it swing a totally different way by omission of essential details, then we'd have a problem but that's not what Fox does. --Masem (t) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with everything except the last part. Fox News consistently ignores or downplays anything that is negative about Trump. That's classic pseudoscientific "journalism", because it's agenda-driven reporting. It's not real journalism. It's propaganda. They paint a totally different picture than the picture painted by all the mainstream sources, and that is not by accident. It's not a bug that they ignore "essential details" and end up pushing counterfactual narratives. They do it so egregiously that Shep Smith and Wallace were constantly having to call out the others. That's problematic. -- Valjean (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Treat the same as The New York Times? This is not a serious !vote and should not be afforded any weight. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Political diversity is not a factor for reliability. Using extreme neo-Nazi and anarchist blogs would also be politically diverse, but that's irrelevant to their (un-)reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, but it does show how treating Fox as somehow more biased than (for example) CNN, we harm Wikipedia. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as a standard American news org. Obviously they have pundits and talkshows, and common sense must be used just like with any source. In his 2014 book Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States, Virginia Tech media professor Jim A. Kuypers wrote that partisan journalism is a very widespread and old phenomenon in the mainstream US news. I would not muddy the waters between reliable and opinionated sources further, and strongly oppose popularity contests of singling out news orgs from a partisan media field for this reason. --Pudeo (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: This is my first time participating in something like this, so weight it accordingly, but I found more persuasive arguments in favour of anything less than Option 1 which is mainly citing WP:NEWSORG or bothsideism, among other flawed rationales (see the Russia hoax claim or the argument that, along with other news outlets, Fox had the front-row seat at the White House Press Briefing Room; InfoWars and other unreliable news outlets have been invited too). Certainly, I disagree with the current wording of Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source which should probably reflect the change in recent years to Most editors consider Fox a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons like The Daily Beast (I do not have any opinion yet on whether it should be demoted, I trust the consensus; and I do not think that we should demote it just to compensate for a possible demotion of Fox as a bothsideism). The difference between the two is that, as MarkH21 put it, Fox may now considered to be generally reliable which is different from generally considered to be reliable for the green box and the overcited NEWSORG. I also agree with Goldenshimmer assessment that Fox is closer to the Huffington Post (which is currently yellow) and others mentioned than the AP, The New York Times and Reuters which, if anything and like Wikipedia (for those who claim Wikipedia to have a left bias), have a centrist bias rather than left bias, at best centre-left and mainly on socio-cultural issues. Finally, if we are going to prefer those sources over Fox anyway and we need those sources to confirm whether Fox was reliable or not on a case-by-case analysis, we are already following Option 2.--Davide King (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG for factual reporting. Talking head punditry stuff is rarely used in articles and where used is attributed as it should be. an important news source which expands into subject areas other NEWSORGs may not. -- Netoholic @ 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - the discussion here is convincing me that this is a terrible source even for news. Option 2 as second choice. If a local affiliate has a news story that's worth noting, it'll be in less tainted sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I would be fine with option 1 also, but from the discussion it seems that there are "additional considerations" as to the division between reporting and editorials. I prefer option 2 because it allows us to make that distinction clear since unlike many other news organizations brought up, their editorials are generally not reliable for information. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: better sources are available w/o the risk of running into misinformation or conspiracy theories. If Fox is the only media org covering a certain issue, then it's probably undue anyway. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: Local affiliate stations are generally reliable, but the Fox News Network has reliability problems when it comes to certain topics such as climate change[92] and Donald Trump[93]. I would favor excluding it as a reliable source for those two topics. Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Fox News)

• US media landscape has changed a lot since 2010, and not to the better. That being said, I am interested to see what concrete examples of inaccuracies on Fox's part that can be found. Talk shows on any network should never be cited for facts imo. buidhe 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think lack of factual falsehoods makes a source reliable. Remember that the coverage of something in RS is also used for determining WP:WEIGHT in Wikipedia so if a fact collection is sufficiently biased or omits relevant info due to agenda pushing, it can end up tilting what we call the NPOV if we treat the fact selection as neutral. Facts themselves can also be distorted without being stated falsely outright, and the nature of agenda pushing is to do that. This is goes beyond Fox News. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• The local affiliates will make this a really tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Buidhe, my opinion is that the RfC from 2010 was outdated, as I agree that the US media landscape has changed greatly since 2010. Fox News tends to discussed a lot, so I thought it was worth opening a proper RfC to settle the issue. One of the main controversies about the factual accuracy of Fox News since 2010 revolves around the now retracted false claims that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks back in 2017, see this archive of the original Fox News article and these Politifact and Snopes articles, there are allergations that some of the quotes for the story were fabricated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Newslinger, please remind me again - wasn't the purpose of WP:RS/Perennial sources to avoid multiple time-sink RfCs? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  The purpose of the perennial sources list is to index past discussions on this noticeboard. The previous uninterrupted RfC on Fox News is from 2010, a decade ago. As noted in the "Controversially classified sources" notice at the top of WT:RSP, Fox News and the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) are the only sources whose entries were subjected to edit warring since the list was created, and based on that, I had been expecting RfCs on these sources for some time. — Newslinger talk 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, if this is a "real" RfC, the projects and wider community need to be informed. Who is in charge of doing that? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  adding - Newslinger - this RfC is malformed because it doesn't separate the pundit shows from the actual news, and it doesn't say anything about it being Fox cable or Fox broadcast. 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC is not malformed. The RfC statement includes the text "(as separate from their cable pundits)", which clarifies that it refers to the Fox News (news and website) entry. (If the statement didn't include the text, the RfC would cover both the Fox News (news and website) and the Fox News (talk shows) entries.) In my experience, notifying WikiProjects of discussions on this noticeboard about mainstream American news sources tends not to make a difference in participation, but you or anyone else can notify related projects if you wish to do so. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Newslinger - it doesn't specifically state FoxNews (cable/satellite) vs FoxNews network affiliate broadcast stations. The latter are subject to FCC regulations that are different from networks and satellite transmitted news. I see David Gerard also mentioned it above. Oh, and thank you for adding this RfC to WP:CENT. My concern is the continuous partisan push (for years now) to downgrade this RS because of its conservative bias while keeping only center-left and left leaning biased sources. It appears the arguments are based primarily on POV opposition rather than factual news reporting. A network like Fox News doesn't become a most watched political news station whose viewership is bipartisan by being unreliably biased. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. It looks like Hemiauchenia has inserted an additional question into the RfC statement that specifically asks about affiliate stations. As a general rule of thumb, RSP entries for television channels only refer to the main channel, and not to any affiliate stations of the parent company's television network. For Fox, the Fox News entry is scoped to Fox News, and the stations listed in List of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state) are out of scope. If an affiliate station becomes controversial enough to meet the inclusion criteria on its own, it would receive a separate entry on RSP. I trust the community and the closers (preferably a panel of closers) to reach the right decision. — Newslinger talk 05:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, the most effective way to publicize this RfC is to list it on the centralized discussion template, which would put this RfC on the same level of vetting as the ones for the Daily Mail (RSP entry) and Quackwatch (RSP entry). I've added this RfC to the template. — Newslinger talk 05:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: I'm not sure what your point is, the last RfC on Fox News really was in 2010. Fox News is also listed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as one of the most controversial sources on the list (alongside SPLC, which has never had a RfC) and recommends opening a new one. There have not been any recent-discussion on the general reliability of Fox News, so I thought it was worth having this discussion as a reference for subsequent discussions about Fox News's reliability, a lot has changed since 2010, especially with the election of Donald Trump, so I think it is worth doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 237#Is Fox News a WP:RS 2018 RfC ^{update per below: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Fox_News_reliability_RfC 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)}
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257#Fox News 2019 Discussion
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 276#Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows) Oct 2019
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Fox News, 9/11 topic March 2020
  • And there were several other discussions in 2020 that point editors back to eariler discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Atsme, WP:CCC. We're likely to see the Mail off the list at some point if the new editor continues to make progress. In the same way, Fox has changed over time and the March discussion was narrowly focused. Guy (help!) 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Atsme: I don’t see an RfC in the 2018 post in Archive 237? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    I think it might be Archive 238 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Fox_News_reliability_RfC. PackMecEng (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you for finding that, PackMecEng. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Ah, thanks! It seems to have been limited in scope and then withdrawn, so there really hasn’t been a full RS RfC since 2010. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Looks like, though the discussion that spawned that 2018 RFC had quite the participation. PackMecEng (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: Fair enough, the issue is that none of these were actually properly formatted as a RfC, though the 237 and 257 Archive discussions are substantial, I apologise for not checking thoroughly. By formatting this as a proper RfC, hopefully we can end the endless cyclical discussions about Fox News. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also, even the Daily Mail being depreciated has not stopped endless discussions about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think we need to keep in mind that the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources is editorial oversight. Fox News does fact checking like any other major news organization, but the end result is always disputable on significance and implications (just like CNNs or MSNBC's reporting). News organisations create narratives that often times are not real or are exaggerated (for example ideas like government collision or broad racism or social justice are not perceived in the same way by these organizations). But keep in mind that "truth" and "facts" on events that come out of any news organization will carry bias since they tend to interpret little facts like a case of police brutality and then extrapolate it to abstractions like racism or harassment and so on. When it comes to these mega interpretations, there is very little truth since there is no such thing as an organization that determines the truth of an interpretation. If Fox News has been discussed multiple times back to back recently then this is a closed debate.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• There is always a comment that we are talking about Fox news anchors “as separate from their cable pundits”. Firstly, the latter is what everyone watches and thinks of as Fox News. But there is another point we keep avoiding (at least as far as I’ve seen); and that is Fox broadcast versus the Fox website. The Fox website is cited heavily in WP. But, the site is embarrassing to read. The main stories are nearly always political attacks. If there is no news, they will go back and run stories about Benghazi and Lewinsky. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Let's not make this about one topic, and whether a RS believes it 100% or not, or whether or not they choose to publish opposing views. That does not make them unreliable - it makes them opposition to one POV. We need diversity - not a single POV - and attempting to eliminate all opposition to a single scientific belief when there are others is censorship. This isn't a case of the world is round, not yet, anyway, so we give DUE to prevailing science theory and also include what the opposition believes (if it is also based on scientific theory). Science can factually and steadfastly state a lot of things as fact, just not questionable predictions which deserve mention. As long as there is scientific controversy, we include it - we don't have to believe it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The references here have been moved to #References (Fox News), as the {{reflist-talk}} template captures all references above the template, including ones added in newer comments. Atsme's comment below was made when the references template looked like this: Special:Diff/961474909 § Discussion (Fox News). The {{reflist-talk}} template was originally in the bottom of the Responses section, then moved to the bottom of this Discussion section, and now finally to its own References section. — Newslinger talk 05:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  The references above are either not reliable or not up-to-date (WP:RECENTISM) if they say Fox didn't retract the Seth Rich story - (and that is part of the reason this RfC needs an experienced closer who is not politically biased). See the NYTimes article which states: Fox News on Tuesday retracted a story linking the murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member with the email hacks that aided President Trump’s campaign, effectively quashing a conspiracy theory that had taken hold across the right-wing news media. It goes on to say (most importantly) that: "it also underscored a schism between the network’s news-gathering operation and one of its biggest stars: the conservative commentator Sean Hannity". Again, the news portion of FOX is a reliable source but like other cable news, the pundits are opinion. Oh, and The Washington Times did apologize and retract per this Vox article. I find the allegations that Fox News did something irreversibly wrong to be very disconcerting, and I do hope the closer of this RfC takes those misrepresentations into consideration. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The elephant in the room is that we always are coming back to Fox NEws because editors on all sides willing ignore NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM, rushing to put in breaking stories and commentary, or what I've seen called "hyperjournalism" (its gotten worse with how we've covered COVID) We can be up to date, but our up to the minute coverage should stick to bare facts and have nearly no coverage of anything controversial until that story has had a chance to go through the news cycle a few times (eg like the Rich story, or as an opposite example, the Covington MAGA hat kid from last year which has ended with egg on the WaPost and others' faces) We shouldn't be including any commentary from journalists or experts unless its actually part of the story (eg Trump's comments on mail-in ballots leading to Twitter's fact check leading to Trumps EO on Section 230 fully qualifies in the article on Section 230). But we have both new and experienced editors going around rushing to fill these in as soon as they happen. Now, I agree that short term, if I was pulling info from NYTimes in the short term compared to Fox News, I'd have less a concern, but if we were properly waiting until the "long term" (a few news cycles out), it is much much easier to realize that we can treat Fox News (the news desk, not the pundits) as an RS, but that with information from the multiple news cycles, we have a way to apply UNDUE appropriate to know if actually need to include them. Most of that time, that is "no", as they are usually repeating the same basic story from other good sources. This is in contrast to Daily Mail or Breitbart that under the same conditions, we'd have NOTHING usable because we simply outright cannot trust their material. This is how we can justify Fox as an RS but still respect that it's probably not going to be used often due to UNDUE, but we need more editors aware that respecting the principles of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM will avoid having Fox being pushed as hard as a source (since ideally, we won't be seeing as much liberal opinion as quickly as possible either). --Masem (t) 19:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, that's a very good point. Guy (help!) 12:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  With all due respect to Masem, I would have equal concern over the coverage by the NYTimes considering their spin, mistakes and bad judgment calls when publishing material from anonymous sources that turned out to not be accurate throughout the left's Russian collusion conspiracy theory that was promoted by MSM based on the Steele dossier and false information provided to the FISA court. We should have waited per WP:RECENTISM. We cannot put 100% of our trust in online headlines and the instant news that follows those headlines, regardless of who is publishing it. The NYTimes' own executive editor brought to light the "unmistakeable anti-Trump" coverage. Perhaps WP editors who are anti-Trump themselves do not see anything wrong with the NYTimes being anti-Trump, and therein the problem lies. It is unequivocal bias, the same as it was when the right disliked Obama because it is politically motivated partisanship. In my Signpost Op-Ed this month, I added a link to the discussion with Ted Koppel who did an excellent job explaining the problem. It is real, and it does exist in internet, cable, broadcast and print political news media because we are dealing with a different era in journalism. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I don't disagree that RECENTISM should apply equally to all sources and better to wait to add to judge when we have a better concept of the full picture, have most corrections in place, etc. For example, apparently the NYTimes took the analysis of Bolivia's elections possible fraud at face value that lead to Morales' loss (NYTimes was not the only thing going on). Now obviously, WP wasn't a part of that, but I mean, that situation or the MAGA Hat cases are examples that our most trusted sources can still be wrong in the short term. But were I to bet on which source would be less wrong in the short term, between the NYTimes and Fox? My money is on NYTimes. --Masem (t) 22:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Hemiauchenia: This edit has had this effect because it has taken the RfC statement beyond the bounds of brevity. Please amend the statement (not necessarily that line) to be less verbose, so that it will once again be listed on the RfC boards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Sorry about that, is the amended version better below the word limit? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Yes, it's displaying properly now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References (Fox News)

References

Is Flix Patrol reliable?

Flix Patrol has been spammed on The King: Eternal Monarch by fans that claim it is an achievement to be ranking #15 on Netflix by Flix Patrol. Flix Patrol is a website that lists VOD charts and it was removed multiple time from the article by other editors claiming it is unreliable, but fans keep adding it again. Personally, I see Flix Patrol as not an official chart for Netflix and it is unreliable as the data fluctuates based on what is being watched now. So, what do you think? Is it reliable and should be used as a source? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, can't see any evidence that it is reliable such as a list of staff or information on who runs the site - it seems to be faceless. It claims the data is supplied by The Movie Database. I'd say its unreliable, plus it's also problematic as it updates its lists every day which could be mirrored on Wikipedia by fans of the site, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Are Vijay K Jain self-published books reliable sources for Jainism?

See academicroom.com/users/vikalpprinters (raw url to get around blacklist) which gives details about him. Trained in electronic engineering and business management, he's taught and written several books on the latter. He's also written books such as Ācārya Kundakunda’s Pravacanasāra – Essence of the Doctrine and Ācārya Samantabhadra’s Āptamīmāmsā (Devāgamastotra) – Deep Reflection On The Omniscient Lord published by Vikalp printers of which he's the CEO (all in the link). We use him in a very large number of articles mainly relating to Jainism.[94] Doug Weller talk 11:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

thediplomat.com

Over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 a user has challenged thediplomat.com as "a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit" [[95]] so is this [[96]] an RS for "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession".?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable The Diplomat is a reputable current affairs magazine. The user is banned from the article in question for disruptive editing. The deleted tweet has been covered in other outlets, see. this story in the Straits Times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: and why quotation marks are used here by ABC Online if it is an official twitter account of the Donetsk People's Republic?? (:

On Thursday a Twitter account for the "Donetsk People's Republic" issued several posts claiming to have seized a missile system from the Ukrainian army.

The official Twitter account has a special mark. And I don't see one. So everyone could create this account, right? That is why I would like to see a proof of the ownership but not these propagandist publications on the media and a picture of the "seized Buk launcher on 29 June 2014" which was posted in 2011 [97]. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that The Diplomat has come up before, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#The_Diplomat Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Well, let's just consider this publication of the Diplomat to lack reliability? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Seems to meet our usual standards, remember bias is not a criteria (assuming they are). Nor am I seeing any evidence they are not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, they also walk pretty far from the traditional line of "American propaganda bullshit” if thats the concern, I have found them to be one of the most if not the most even handed english language publication covering the indo-pacific. Ownership is Japanese and the majority of staff is non-American. Just a note that anything from the section “The Debate” is either comment or opinion and should be treated thusly although that should be pretty obvious. There are three internal degrees of quality but given that all are over Wikipedia’s bar for reliability I don’t think there is much to be gained from delving into that as it isn’t relevant to the problem at hand. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Also the author of that piece, Ankit Panda, is one of the most respected security analysts of his generation (pretty much everyone has published him) as well as an editor at The Diplomat. I don’t think there is a legitimate objection being made here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, but the editor has been topic banned anyway. Guy (help!) 23:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Probably reliable however as I noted on the talk page, I don't think we should be using that particular article if possible. It seems to be a late breaking news piece since it notes it may be updated. I assume that is no longer the case, however such pieces should always be used with care since the level of fact checking can be more limited. And there is a particular issue with this piece which raises concern. It mentions a tweet and links to a screenshot of that tweet on Twitter. There is no doubt that the tweet is real, and the screenshot very likely is as well. However there's strong indications the screenshot is a machine translation of the original tweet in Russian. While machine translations have their uses, they need to be used with care. It's unclear why the article linked to a machine translation of the tweet and yet gave no indication that it was a machine translation (and nor does the tweet they linked to). Does this mean the source relied exclusively machine translation? Did they even know it was a machine translation? Given they didn't mention the machine translation issue at all, we don't know. While it may be acceptable for a source to rely on a machine translation, it seems quite questionable for a source to rely solely on a machine translation and not mention that is what they were going by. IMO this is likely a good example where we need to remember that just because a source is generally reliable, doesn't mean it always is. If there is ample evidence for problems with a particular article, we have to carefully consider whether we should use it or instead rely on other sources for which don't have that problem. It's not clear to me there's anything that the source claims which isn't backed up by other sources, so there is probably no reason to use that particular article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we “if possible” always be looking to upgrade dated journalistic sources to more current academic ones? Like you said I can’t imagine its too hard to find this piece of information in the ocean of scholarly work published about the incident in the last six years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

HIV & AIDS In Africa

At Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, WhatamIdoing suggested four books that he thought were relevant and helpful. One was Jacquineau, Azetsop (2016-09-15). HIV & AIDS In Africa: Christian Reflection, Public Health, Social Transformation. Orbis Books. ISBN 978-1-60833-671-5.. AlmostFrancis disputes its reliability because Orbis Books is "unabashedly religious and Marxist," and because several of the chapters are written by Catholic priests. He has removed all content attributed to it, including secondary citations to pre-existing content. In general, is this book reliable for this article? Are chapters written by expert priests reliable? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see wp:undue issues with this, and it can be argued to not exactly be third party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Could you elaborate on the undue issue, please? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said its not exactly third party, thus one can argue it represents a very narrow and biased viewpoint. One can go as far as to say self serving and promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Or not. I assume you haven't read it? One of the sentences blanked from the article is this: In early days of AIDS, discriminatory views of political leaders were supported by religious leaders, including Catholic clergy, hampering the response and worsening the pandemic in some parts of Africa. That's cited to the director of the African Jesuit Historical Institute, who has a PhD in African political history from Oxford. I would not consider that a self-serving statement, and I bet nobody else would, either.

Given that this article is "Named organization and subject", it would be WP:UNDUE to omit everything published by anyone related to that organization, but that is a subject for a different noticeboard. The question for RSN is whether this source is reliable enough to support this statement. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Self serving and "serving that version of my organisation" are not the same thing. It promotes a specific opinion, one that may not be independent of the publishers agenda, hence why I said this is more a case of undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The same claim could be made with greater justice of basically any newspaper. I assume that you don't think that major newspapers regularly publish things that their publishers disagree with? Hearst would be rolling in his grave. WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with whether publishers choose to publish authors whose views are congenial to their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, but it does if those views are only represented by that one source (it is after all what it means, an undue opinion). Yes (by the way) I would and have said that if an opinion only appears in one newspaper then it might well be undue to mention it).Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Before we get to in the weeds on that quote, which is why this should all be on the talk page, it was also going to be a two sentence section where the second one was promotional. The bigger issue was that the page cited doesn't seem to be in the source, page 522 out of 424.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats wp:v, not RS. But its a valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't bring it here :) AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I cited "location" 522, not "page" 522, because I cited the Kindle version of the book. I also said I'm not sure how to cite a Kindle, so if you have some advice I would be obliged. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Add a bookmark on the kindle which you can then view the page number. Alternatively you can search for the quote you are using on the google books page, which will return the page number, though you may not be able to view the page itself. I recommend the search because no one wants to be forced to use the kindle.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, The source was also used as a secondary source to further support existing content. While admittedly I only skimmed the chapters that didn't seem directly relevant, and while I haven't worked my way through the entire book yet, I haven't seen anything that looked like a fringe position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would still consider it possibly undue,. It doers not have to be fringe. If there are other sources just use those. My concearn would be this on its own.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I agree. Exactly the kind of source we should steer clear of in a controversial area like this. Guy (help!) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what RS has to do with this as it is mostly a Due Weight issue. It is a weak source for two reasons. One the publisher follows liberation theology and is an imprint of a Catholic order which has a missionary focus. The Chapters added so far were not written by experts but by Catholic priests, Jesuits I believe. I am not sure where the "expert" part came for the priests, though?AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably when they get PhDs from Oxford, is my guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Being a priest or a Jesuit does not preclude being an expert... I agree that this is more a due weight issue though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I get for trying to be brief. One priest was a director of a what looks like a Jesuit archival institute, which does produce a journal, who does not seem to produce much if any scholarship. Unless everyone with a DPhil is an expert then he would not be. The other priest "taught" at a number of schools but mostly just seems to contribute to various church magazines, though again he does have a Ph.D. Too be fair some of the other priests in the book do publish, seem to have actual academic jobs, and might fit under expert. But this should be decided on a DUE basis at the actual talk page. For all I know I just missed where these two priests have shown expertise. AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:V's only definition of expert is anyone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The PhDs are optional under our rules. Mkenda certainly qualifies, as Routledge (as in, "the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences") tapped him to write a chapter in ISBN 9781134505777.

Your edit summary, when you blanked this, said that you thought the source was WP:QUESTIONABLE, not that you thought it was UNDUE. UNDUE would mean that you thought there was too much in the article from priests writing that their organizations were discriminating against PWA. If you're no longer concerned that the source is unreliable for the stated claim, and you don't believe that there is too much criticism about discrimination against PWA, then maybe you'd like to go restore that sentence and its citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is dishonest to say that I said it was WP:QUESTIONABLE when I in no way tied myself to that wikilink. Unless you are arguing that "questionable" doesn't have a understood English meaning, I ask you too strike your comment and not misquote me again. The rest of your comment is a strawman argument and belongs on the talk page anyway.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You have made more than 500 edits at this point. If you use jargon, we're going to assume that you're doing it on purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Dishonesty is its own punishment. Everyone can look at the diffs if they want and see that you did not accurately portray what I wrote. So I guess you are arguing that questionable does not have English meaning and can only be understood as jargon.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, You said "this source seems questionable", which is why I brought it here. You didn't say anything about due weight. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Oxford University does not award PhDs and never has. Anyone claiming to "get PhDs from Oxford" should be treated with the utmost derision. I also agree that any self-published book by a POV source connected with the book's and the article's subject should not be considered reliable, nor consideration of it due. Having purportedly got a (probably theological) doctorate does not make a priest an impartial expert on the failings of the church to which he belongs. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference between a PhD and a DPhil is purely semantic --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guerillero. The "DPhil" is in history, not theology. And Wikipedia does not require sources to be impartial; see WP:BIASED. Excluding everything written by historians who also happen to be Catholic priests is its own kind of WP:DUE (and surely we'd rather use a book written by an African historian–priest than a newsletter written by a journalist for a local diocese?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The DPhil was for history. Thesis was on the effects of state policy in Tanzania on the Chaggas(sp?) people. Of course it was from the Jesuit private hall :) , still oxford is oxford so pretty sure we can trust them AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Gnews.org - deprecate?

• gnews.org  

See Guo Wengui#GNews. Basically it seems to be a mouthpiece for Guo (as "Miles Guo) and Steve Bannon (and friends). At the moment, besides a link in Guo's article, it's used in 4 articles and a draft. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure about a deprecation RfC, given the limited use, but I see no indication at all that this is a reliable source. Guy (help!) 10:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator

What do people think about the reliability of The Spectator? It only appears to have been discussed once before, regarding issues around BLP. For those not familiar, The Spectator is a right-wing British magazine founded in 1828, having been previously edited by now Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It has been cited over 3000 times according to spectator.co.uk  . As much of what is written in The Spectator is opinion, I think all statements should be attributed per WP:NEWSBLOG. I think The Spectator can be considered reliable for cultural coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is mostly opinion and I would attribute on that basis. It's not quite as bad as Quadrant imo, but it does promote climate change denial[98][99] and publishes columns with questionable interpretation of the science on the origins of homosexuality[100]. I would avoid for anything science-based and I would be skeptical of their Brexit coverage as well, but it should be OK for culture reviews and attributed opinion. buidhe 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oh hell no. Not reliable for any claim of fact, possibly usable for attributed opinion but not to establish the significance of that opinion. Guy (help!) 23:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator isn't exactly my cup of tea either. While I absolutely wouldn't cite it for any scientific claim, I thought its attributed opinion on Who's Who (UK) (considering the suprising dearth of coverage on the publication), cowritten by Michael Crick, was usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Michael Crick has sufficient stature that I would probably agree. Guy (help!) 09:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• It publishes a very wide range of opinion pieces, with regular and occasional columnists covering a remarkably wide range of views from centre left to raving right wing, with a famously light editorial touch and almost all pieces clearly attributed to their author rather than the magazine. Attribute to the author as opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Spectator is the world's oldest weekly magazine. It therefore has a long history in which it has had many famous editors, writers and political positions. Currently it has the same proprietor as the Daily Telegraph and so it's rather like The Observer – the world's oldest Sunday newspaper which is now part of the Guardian group. The position of these periodicals on current affairs is unimportant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I often root through old sources to find material for our articles. For example, yesterday I dug up a 19th century map of Timbuctoo to answer a question about current geography. Sources like The Spectator, with their long history and rich archive, are vital for work on topics such as people and places in London. As with all sources, one has to be careful but so it goes. The Lancet is the world's oldest medical journal but recently had to retract a paper which was based on fabricated data. Caveat lector. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, but The Lancet doesn't publish political op-ed with minmal prior review, which is the Spectator's main game. An occasional retraction is one of the things that tends to prove the reliability of a scientific journal. The Lancet also published Wakefield's fraud. Guy (help!) 12:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  The Lancet does publish op-eds such as its attack on the Royal Society. It's interesting to note that that editor, Andrew Horton, previously wrote for The Observer. The usage of all such sources depends on the context and the claim and so the idea that this is a simple binary matter is facile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, yes, and they are marked as such. We don't accept these as MEDRS, but attribute them as commentary where relevant. I recall several such from Fiona Godlee. But peer-reviewed papers in The Lancet are presumptively reliable, as is reporting (rather than editorial) in The Financial Times. But The Spectator mainly does opinion. Guy (help!) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Broadcast vs online news apps

Is there a difference in reliability between the televised reporting of various broadcasted media outlets (whether CNN/Fox/ABC/CBS/NBC/BBC etc) and their online (written) app based reporting? From my experience, the online reports seem to be drastically condensed versions of what appears on screen, with the added addition of click-bait headlines, and that makes me think that there might be a valid distinction (to the detriment of the web versions). Note that I am not looking for discussion of differences between the various outlets (BBC vs CBS for example), but for discussion of differences between versions put out by the SAME outlet (ABC broadcast vs ABC online). Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t think we have the same issue between printed editions of newspapers and their online editions, but I could be wrong, so feel free to comment on that as well). Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is an issue of editorial identity for newspapers, at least in the UK. For instance, The Guardian and The Observer are totally separate newspapers in print with different editoral control, their content is treated the same as part of theguardian.com website. The same can be said for The Times and The Sunday Times and the (dreaded) Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• On the other hand, videos and cable news is much more difficult to WP:VERIFY than a printed article, and more editors can check the online than print versions of a newspaper. Citing a hourlong video without providing timestamp, for instance, is not reasonably verifiable. buidhe 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I feel that in general anything written serves our purposes better than audio or video, its much harder to check/search audio and video and unless there is a transcript much of whats said is subjective. If a news organization said one thing on the air and another in print I’d defer to the statement in print almost every time. The wide range of news apps makes a universal judgement hard though, for example I’ve found CNN’s app and online written reporting to be better and more in depth than their on-air reporting while the CBS app tends to be worse than their broadcasts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Ad Fontes chart draws a distinction between CNN the news channel and website, and CNN cable. I suspect this would be hard to discuss without examples. Guy (help!) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Each case would have to be judged on its merits. One thing I notice about broadcasts on channels such as the BBC is that the automated subtitles are ludicrous - routinely mispelling or misunderstanding the speech. I'd like to know how accurate the sign language is too as I get the impression that a lot may be lost in translation. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Andrew. The Ad Fontes chart (founded by a patent attorney, not a media expert) and all the other media bias charts have big holes in them. We should not be referring editors to any particular chart. See the CJR write-up about measuring media bias. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church - secondary or primary?

• Catechism of the Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (fulltext online here)
• Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NightHeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WT:CATHOLIC#AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522
• Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church a secondary or primary source? I answer that, the CCC is a secondary source, because it summaries primary sources, such as: the Bible, Church documents, the writings of theologians. All these primary sources are footnoted and referenced in the Catechism, which is a compilation of beliefs in one place.
• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. There is no possibility that this description, in WP:PRIMARY, can apply to the Catechism. Elizium23 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Elizium23, for what? It's a primary source for the beliefs of the Catholic church, and it's written from an in-universe perspective so can't be used to state that any particular Biblical narrative is true, as such. Guy (help!) 23:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, actually no. The CCC is a collection of magisterial statements expressed in summary style. From an in-universe perspective, it is not a teaching document but a summary of other teaching documents that have been issued before it. See this random selection, and note how all but the lead paragraphs have one or more citations to something else. From a primary->secondary->tertiary source hierarchy it is much closer to a tertiary source than a primary source since theoretically it is written in the same style as Wikipedia and is summarizing both primary and secondary sourcing, albeit under a committee headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It doesn't really provide analysis of anything or critical commentary, so I wouldn't call it secondary in a true sense either. Anyway, we should not be citing tertiary sources if we can help it. If the CCC is citing a primary source where directly quoting the position of the Catholic Church, Bible, or saint who said it is ideal, then just directly quote the primary. If it is citing a commentary or academic work, cite the commentary or academic work.

  The worst part about Catholic articles on Wikipedia is that the CCC and Catholic Encyclopedia of 1901 are both free and online. Both can be good resources, but really aren't ideal to cite if you have something better. That is to say, CCC and CE aren't written by nutjobs but they also aren't an academic book or paper, and in the case of CE, it is very outdated. The rest of the free and online stuff is even worse (read, written by nutjobs.)

  There is substantial academic work on Catholic theology and history and if it all possible, that should be cited. CCC can be used as a resource to find actual primary sources if a direct quote is desirable, and sometimes as a resource to find secondary sources, but unless there is a good reason to cite it, it doesn't make much sense to use in an encyclopedia. It is the theological equivalent of an encyclopedia. It isn't the source, it is the summary of sourcing. You shouldn't be citing the summary of sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, my view is that we should be sticking with independent scholarship for all religious articles. It's not just catholicism where editors introduce their own beliefs based on bible passages or church proclamations. There is a mountain of decent scholarship on virtually every facet of most religions, and where that scholarship does not exist I would question whether it's encyclopaedic anyway.

  Example: can you trust a catholic source to be objective about Joseph Ratzinger and his role in covering up sexual abuse? You get sedevacantists who hate everything the Vatican has done from Vatican II onwards, and defenders. Very little else from the in-universe sources. With Francis you get militant trads who hate his tolerance, and adoration, and not much in between (I think he will go down in history as a great Pope, but what do I know). Guy (help!) 08:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, the CCC wouldn’t be particularly useful at discussing that. It’d be useful for clarifying what the Catholic Church views as it’s position on some theology when properly attributed and cited and where secondary sources disagree, but overall there are much better sources even for that. Like I said, it wasn’t written for nuance and the authors wrote it as a tertiary source, not primary or secondary, so what it gives you isn’t really much. I’d agree with ElKevbo below and you that people use it as primary. Also agree on the rest of the online Catholic crap, we have way too much of it on here and I try to clean it when I see it. Disagree that “Catholic sourcing” can’t be objective if you’re talking about academic journal articles and the like. For those depending on the context you’d want attribution, but if they’re from a respected academic institution (i.e. Fordham, Georgetown, etc.) it should be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• An interesting case... For statements as to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, it is primary... yet also highly reliable. For statements as to the historical accuracy of a biblical story, it would be secondary (or perhaps even tertiary)... yet highly unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Primary for the churches beliefs. It doesn't summarize or analyze the underlying documents, but instead uses them to evidence a belief system. The "event" is creating a book for the catholic belief system and authors are directly doing that. Its a bit like an appellate decision. Sure they cite prior work but the decision itself is a primary source on the proper reasoning for the case. Apepllate decisions are also questionably fact checked, as well :)AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Using prior documents as evidence = secondary source. That's what a meta-analysis does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• See my long comment to guy above. The CCC doesn't really fit neatly into any of the categories we usually have on Wikipedia, but it is closest to a tertiary source. WP:TERTIARY would apply here. It summarizes primary and secondary sourcing without giving critical analysis and without adding additional primary source material on beliefs. The best use of it would honestly be finding primary sources to give full quotes from if those are needed (ex. a biography of a saint where you want to directly quote the saint, and the CCC has a listing of important doctrinal statements; directly quoting Lumen gentium not to analyze it, but giving an idea of the style of writing and other appropriate uses of direct quotation of a primary source document.)
  The other potential use per TERTIARY would be when you have two secondary sources disagreeing on what the Catholic Church believes. It would be a useful summary in those cases in that it is the official summary of how the Catholic Church reads its own teaching documents, so it could be used in combination with secondary source authors in due weight. Maybe a sentence. It must always be cited in text if used in these cases, though, so the reader knows the source and can give it proper weight according to their own judgement.
  Finally, please use something else if at all possible. The Catholic Church, probably more than any other religious institution, has many academic faculties of theology and history of theology if you want to cite secondary sources on Catholic theology. There are also many atheists and non-Catholics who work at these schools who publish in the field, as well as scholars at secular universities that have written substantial amounts. There really is no reason to use the easily available free source if you can get access to a database like JSTOR or go to a research library. If you can't, let me know and I'll try to see if I can find sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• The context for User:Elizium23's opening of this thread is that at WP:AN [101] I raised the question of how best to handle a series of articles created by User:Oct13 (most recently Hell in Catholicism and Catholic theodicy) that are sourced not to secondary sources but only to the Catechism and other official documents of the Church. Elizium23 disagreed with my characterization of the Catechism as not a secondary source, and we've been debating this at the WP:WikiProject Catholicism talk page. I argued that writing an article using only the Catechism and other Church documents as sources would be like writing an article on Brown v Board of Education using only the actual decision and related US Supreme Court decisions with no use of the secondary literature. NightHeron (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, in that context, it'd likely be best to cite some of Hans Urs von Balthasar's work on conceptions of Hell (Dare We Hope [...] is largely considered the definitive Catholic work on soteriology of the 20th century even if he is arguing his own point of view as well. He gives fairly substantial analysis of the history of belief in Hell as well. All subject to DUE, of course.) There's also the many historians of Catholic theology that you can cite. The CCC is probably not the best thing to cite on such a complex subject... it doesn't really do complexity, and wasn't designed to do so. Not so much relevant to this discussion, but pointing out my fact that for virtually anything, there is a better source than the CCC. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• In many contexts, this document is a primary source for the church's theological opinions, beliefs, and practices. Like many documents, whether it is primary, secondary, or even tertiary depends closely on how it's being used but I think that it would most often be used like a primary source as described above by TonyBallioni, NightHeron, and others. It definitely meets our criteria for reliability but should be used with caution as it often requires or begs for interpretation and context. ElKevbo (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ElKevbo, I think this is probably a good way of explaining it. The explanation I gave above (that it is tertiary) is probably the way it was intended by its authors and what it is from a purely technical perspective. Because most of the people who edit Wikipedia don't have any formal training in Catholic theology or history, they use it as primary often not realizing that all it is intending to do is summarize what the committee that compiled it saw as the relevant doctrinal texts, and that if you need nuance you need to look at the text i.e. people use it as primary, even if they really should be using it as tertiary to get the value the compilers intended. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand that but I stand by what I wrote above. Regardless of how it is developed, the manner in which it is used by the Catholic Church makes it a primary source for the church's beliefs and practices. I would state the same thing about other similar documents written and approved by other organizations that are official statements about the organization e.g., corporate strategic plans, organizational manuals. It's how the document is used, not how it's written, that determines whether it's primary, secondary, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I was actually agreeing for the most part. I think you discount the nature of the actual source itself more than I do, but people here and in other places do use it as primary. I'd dispute that the Catholic Church uses it in such a way at the episcopal and academic levels, but you'd probably be right amongst many lay organizations and even priests. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• It would depend on the context, but note that primary sources are not forbidden; they merely require appropriate caution with use. Certainly any danger of bias being introduced by using the Catechism as a source can be cured by pointing out wherever it is used as a source that it reflects the views of the Catholic Church. BD2412 T 02:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, yes, the issue of primary sources is usually one of NPOV / UNDUE not RS. There is an ongoing problem with editors assuming that CPOV (Catholic point of view) and NPOV are the same thing. Guy (help!) 10:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  We also have an ongoing problem with editors assuming the opposite (i.e., that citing nothing produced by any religious group is NPOV). This is a difficult area for editors who identify deeply with their religious/atheistic POVs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Primary and should be treated per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. The idea that it qualifies as some discursive scholarly enterprise is ludicrous. No different to any other religion's fatwahs. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony above. It is primary for the opinions of the church and secondary/tertiary for summaries of existing mainstream Catholic theology. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is Primary, per TonyB and JzG -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think TonyBallioni has it exactly right: Quit worrying about how to shoehorn it into a historiography classification (that is much more complicated than it sounds) and start thinking about how to (not) use it to write a good article. Historiography has as much to do with how you use it as it does with the document's inherent characteristics. There may be some point that's reasonable to cite, and there may be some phrase that's worth quoting, but please worry more about writing a good article than about following the rules for once. That set of rules is not going to help you very much in this instance. If you can get a better source – BTW, Jstor's available for free to experienced editors in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library – then please use that instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ettoday.net

• ettoday.net  

This site was linked in a couple of articles as Epoch Times, but it's not an Epoch Times domain (maybe it was syndicated). Looking at the site through Google Translate, it appears to be the Higashimori New Media Holding Co., Ltd - new media being in my experience largely a synonym for ad-riddled clickbait, which certainly looks to be the case here.

Is it just designed for a completely different audience, or is it as crappy as it looks? Guy (help!) 08:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• From a quick look, the site seems not to be affiliated with Epoch Times, even if the names are similar. The articles on ETtoday are still not very reliable though, most are poorly sourced and have clickbait headlines like "Nine Children Born! 29-Year-Old Man Complained That his Wife Was Sick and Could Not Give Birth. A Second Later, She Was Pregnant Again". The political reporting on ETtoday is not nearly as partisan as what I would expect from Epoch Times, which is somewhat good I suppose. For their political stories, ETtoday mostly focuses on politics in Taiwan, with fewer conspiracy theories and self-supporting "exposés" than Epoch Times has.

(I suppose there is a chance that the site could be a minor Epoch Times offshoot, and if proof could be found supporting that, I would be glad to change my assessment) K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 12:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that Higashimori is a Japanese word and the news title translation is horribly wrong. Goes on to say how we shouldn't rely on Google Translate too much. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Guidance note on "attributed opinion" sources

There are a number of sources that are listed in WP:RSP as usable for attributed opinions but considered biased or opinionated. That leads to whats eem to me to be misunderstandings: citations to opinion pieces by political commentators on articles not related to either the commentator or the source, and where the commentator may have an opinion, but has no obvious expertise.

I would like to see a guidance note along the lines of:

• Biased / opinionated sources should not be used as primary sources but may be cited where (a) the author is a noted expert in a relevant field or (b) the commentary is notable, as established by mentions in reliable independent sources.

Opinions are, famously, like arseholes: everybody has one. For any contentious topic I can find a left-wing blowhard who will excoriate the right wing view, and a right-wing blowhard who will excoriate the left, and including either tells us pretty much nothing about the subject itself, but only acts as a primary source for the fact that it's a political hot button. The root of the iossue appears to be the (mis)understanding that because X source may be usable for opinion, so opinions in X source are acceptable - the usual confusion of may and should, in other words.

There are examples of valid uses of primary opinion sources. See the discussion of #The Spectator above. A piece by Michael Crick, who is known primarily as a journalist and not as a rabble-rouser - this should be fine. It's not so much an opinion piece as a work of investigative journalism. Or maybe this, by Roger Morris (American writer), on the Plame / Rice business. That seems OK, it's not mere opinion and the writer is an expert (though I'd prefer a better source). But random opinions by non-experts primary sourced to opinionated publications seems like a bad idea. Guy (help!) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"random opinions by non-experts primary sourced to opinionated publications" are typical practice for book reviews and TV reviews, etc. If this were implemented strictly it would make a lot of books, TV shows, movies, etc. non-notable and require deleting their articles. I think this sort of restriction could be useful but it should be better targeted. buidhe 12:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, you mean we'd exclude book reviews written by people who are not professional book reviewers? OK. And why would that be bad? Guy (help!) 12:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you determine if a particular writer is a "professional book reviewer" if, for example, they are the author of a book review in the Spectator? buidhe 12:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, are they known for book reviews, or for something else? Example: a book review of a biography of Boris Johnson in the TLS will carry more weight than one written by Michael Gove in the Spectator. Guy (help!) 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG What if the review of a book is by a notable person not notable for book reviews in a notable but "reliable" publication? So, how would Boris Johnson's review of the 4th edition of The Oxford Classical Dictionary in The Telegraph fit? Both Johnson and the Telegraph are notable, but one is allowable as a reliable source but the other is ... opinionated by definition and possibly therefore not. This is especially interesting because while often perceived as competent in the classics, Johnson is not a classicist, and while I presume the review was a review proper and not a reference in his opinion column, The Telegraph printed his words as both politician and hired "journalist". GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I don't know. Guy (help!) 16:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG Sorry, pseudo-rhetorical question. GPinkerton (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, heh, we can all get meta sometimes :-) Guy (help!) 18:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• We already have guidance on this... see WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Blueboar, and that is routinely ignored because "but this is fine for attributed opinion" is asserted to be a complete rebuttal to "nobody other than the original source has discussed it". Guy (help!) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  This seems a bit like a context matters sort of thing but it would be helpful if we had some actual examples from articles to look at. I'm trying to invent a hypothetical for discussion sake so forgive me if I miss something. I think one example might be a case where the opinion is of someone who is somehow involved. Perhaps there is a small protest because someone wants to put up some sort of controversial statue on their property. Perhaps we have interviews in RSs with the neighbors but the property owner only issues a statement refuting claims about them on their personal blog. They aren't an expert, in general they aren't notable but for direct involvement. Would that be never OK, sometimes OK (assuming no FRINGE etc type issues), always OK?

Another hypothetical, we have some speech event that is disrupted. The disruption is covered by a few RSs but lets assume those sources largely lean North (trying to avoid R/L) and they mention some of the Northern leaning commentators who condemn the other side. However, some of the Southern leaning commentators point out issues with the Northern view. Let's assume all of these sources are at least in our RSP yellow to green band. Do we include them as attributed opinions because the publications are notable (things like HuffPo, Reason, VOX, National Review etc)? Springee (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, good question. In my view, an editorial in the print edition of the New York Times is pretty much by definition significant, while a contributed opinion on HuffPo generally is not unless there are third party sources that call it significant. Guy (help!) 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Let’s explore this further.... WHY is an opinion piece in NYT significant, but one in HuffPo not significant? Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, it's the bar to publication. An NYT editorial speaks for the Times in a print edition that costs money to produce. A HuffPo opinion piece costs nothing to produce and is not taken as being the voice of HuffPo. The publisher vests very little in the content, whereas a bad NYT editorial can cause serious backlash. You can see that with the blowback WSJ gets about climate change denialism in its editorials. Guy (help!) 20:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So... an opinion in printed paper format is more significant than an opinion in digital format? Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a timeliness factor of UNDUE that needs to come into play here. *insert my usual rant on RECENTISM here* When the topic's content has gotten to a stable point (a controversy has died down, an event is months in the past, etc.) , that's when it is reasonable to start to figure out the right commentary to include, and that's when a statement like this may be important , because now we can judge the big picture of opinions (RS or not) and figure out how to frame it, and that may make it obvious when we need to pull an opinion or commentary from the biased sources on this lists that are from experts that make sense in light of the full UNDUE picture. Just that that UNDUE picture is near impossible to see while the topic is still developing and thus best not to try to reach to these sources just yet. --Masem (t) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mentioned what I am suggesting elsewhere, but I think this slots in nicely if we also extend this to include deprecated sources and which are assumed that the person writing has control on what they are writing in that source (not opinions relayed through a different by-line writer) Namely this gets to things like critics reviews in the Daily Mail and other British tabloids for television and film; many are notable critics and their work in the DM and other UK tabloids is their own, and their voice for British films and television is generally of DUE weight in that field. --Masem (t) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• While I am sympathetic to this approach when it comes to pseudoscience, I admit that I'm not convinced that it works in general because not all areas of academia use the scientific method. For those that don't, treating academia as if it has no inherent bias may not work in terms of NPOV. In the example below, I don't think that you're distinguishing between opposition based on being pro-conversion therapy and opposition based on anti-censorship (which is not a science question). It would be perfectly possible to believe that conversion therapy is dangeous pseudoscience but also oppose censorship of it. buidhe 09:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  On this point the question is not one of censorship but the free market. Critics of Amazon in that example are opposing not censorship (done by governments) but free market capitalism, where sellers may choose to sell or not sell whatever they please. Criticism here appears to be directed at a business decision, not an act of censorship! GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Example

From Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality:

Gwen Aviles of NBC News reported in July 2019 that Amazon had withdrawn Nicolosi's books, which she described as "some of the most well-known works about conversion therapy", from sale following a campaign by gay rights activists. Amazon's decision received criticism from some commentators. In The American Conservative, the journalist Rod Dreher decried it as a step toward censorship. He noted that Amazon continued to sell other books that were controversial or could be considered dangerous or unscientific. In The Daily Signal, Joseph Nicolosi Jr. defended his father's books, and said that one man credited Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality with saving his marriage. On Townhall, Robert Knight described Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books as a form of censorship. Daniel Newhauser of Vice News reported that a group of Republican members of the United States House of Representatives was campaigning to reverse Amazon's decision, which they considered a form of censorship.

However, other commentators supported Amazon's decision. Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner observed that Nicolosi's books, as well as books by authors who considered themselves ex-gay, were controversial. While he considered the criticism that Amazon's decision to stop selling them had received understandable, he nevertheless believed the decision correct, describing Nicolosi's work as "harmful pseudoscience". He noted that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was still available from its publisher. In a Newsweek article, journalist Kashmira Gander interviewed physician Natasha Bhuyan, who voiced her support for Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books, noting that the books involve approaches rejected by every mainstream medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychological Association. Daniel Reynolds reported in The Advocate in February 2019 that the gay writer Damian Barr had criticized Amazon for selling the books, arguing that they were discredited and harmful. Aviles dismissed conversion therapy as "pseudoscientific".

Kelly Burke of Australia's Seven News reported that despite the withdrawal from sale of the books by Amazon in the United States, they "remained available on Amazon's Australian site until 7NEWS.com.au approached the company for comment, after which they were hastily removed." Jordan Hirst of QNews reported that, following Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books, gay rights organization Equality Australia was "petitioning Australian retailers to follow suit." Burke and Hirst both noted that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was still available for sale from booksellers such as Dymocks.

---

References

References

• Aviles, Gwen (July 4, 2019). "Amazon removes controversial books by 'father of conversion therapy'". NBC News. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Burke, Kelly (July 31, 2019). "Amazon heeds LGBTQ call and removes gay conversion therapy books from shelves". Seven News. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Dreher, Rod (July 3, 2019). "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern". The American Conservative. Retrieved 5 July 2019.
• Gander, Kashmira (July 24, 2019). "'Outright abuse of children': Doctor warns Amazon not to sell 'extremely dangerous' books on gay conversion therapy". Newsweek. Retrieved 29 July 2019.
• Hirst, Jordan (August 1, 2019). "Australian booksellers petitioned to pull 'conversion therapy' titles". QNews. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Human Rights Campaign. "Policy and Position Statements on Conversion Therapy". Retrieved 24 April 2020.
• Knight, Robert (July 16, 2019). "How Democracy Dies in Darkness". Townhall. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
• Newhauser, Daniel (July 20, 2019). "Exclusive: House Republicans are pressuring Amazon to sell books on gay conversion therapy". Vice News. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
• Nicolosi Jr., Joseph (July 10, 2019). "Amazon Just Banned My Dad's Therapy Books, Caving to LGBT Activists". The Daily Signal. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Polumbo, Brad (July 10, 2019). "The complicated case of Amazon banning books promoting gay conversion therapy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
• Potok, Mark (May 25, 2016). "QUACKS: 'Conversion Therapists,' the Anti-LGBT Right, and the Demonization of Homosexuality". Website of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
• Reno, R. R. (October 2019). "The Virtue of Prudence". First Things (296).
• Reynolds, Daniel (February 14, 2019). "Gay Author Slams Amazon for Selling Conversion Therapy Books". The Advocate. Retrieved 4 August 2019.

---

Of these, Dreher, Hirst, Knight, possibly Newhauser, Nicolosi, Jr., Reno and Reynolds seem to be opinion, with Reynolds reporting Damian Barr as close to primary as makes no real odds.

1. Dreher (The American Conservative , , biased opinion-by-attribution): No. Dreher's only expertise in this area is being against gay marriage, the headline references the "homintern", a reference to the long debunked "gay agenda", and TAC is about fighting the class war, not analysing the merits of books making bogus medical claims.
2. Hirst (QNews, not on RSP): I'd say no, this is an activist source and I don't immediately see anything there that's not covered in a more reliable one.
3. Knight (Townhall, , attributed opinion only, may be unreliable for fact): No. "Tyranny can arrive fast in the form of tanks and jackboots. Or it can come gradually, snuffing out liberty and replacing it with fear. The latter is what we’re facing today, as cultural Marxists advance their doctrines and silence any dissension." This is nowhere close to a serious analysis of one retailer removing a book that advocates a practice denounced by the medical profession as dangerous.
4. Newhauser (Vice News, no consensus): it reads as news not opinion but I'd lean no anyway on the basis that (a) Vice is crappy and (b) it appears redundant to better sources.
5. Nicolosi, Jr (The Daily Signal, not on RSP): No, because he has a dog in the fight - in fact he practically is the dog, it was his father's book and he still performs conversion therapy.
6. Polumbo (Washington Examiner, , partisan, avoid for exceptional claims, opinion to be attributed): No. Washington Examiner is a terrible source and "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wants to be the arbiter of acceptable thought" again misses the point that more reliable sources bring out, i.e. that conversion therapy is dangerous nonsense.
7. Reno (First Things, not on RSP): No. This was included solely because I challenged Dreher on the basis of UNDUE and this appears to be the only article anyone could find that mentioned it in order to claim "third party coverage". Its relevant content in full: "Amazon has removed from its list of books for sale the work of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. His crime? Writing about techniques of “conversion therapy,” designed to help those who do not wish to identify as homosexual. As Rod ­Dreher points out, Amazon sells Hitler’s Mein Kampf, apologias for Stalin’s crimes, books by the white supremacist David Duke, a translation of The SS Leadership Guide, and countless other rebarbative titles. But something that casts doubt on today’s sexual ideologies? That’s beyond the pale. Amazon’s action demonstrates the singular power of LGBT activists to “unperson” a person." Again, completely missing the actual point, and appears to be essentially a blog post.
8. Reynolds (The Advocate, not on RSP): No. It's a more sensationalised version of stuff covered better in Aviles and Gander.

HRC and SPLC are in a different category.

1. HRC (not on RSP): I would not include statements from campaign groups unless a third party notes them - there are too many campaign groups, you can find one to say pretty much anything you like, though I guess HRC is better than most.
2. SPLC ( reliable for hate groups and extremism): No. This one really; has a dog in the fight. They represented plaintiffs in Ferguson v. JONAH.

Reliable and secondary

1. Aviles (NBC News, Reliable)
2. Burke (news.com.au - not on RSP as far as I can tell)
3. Gander (Newsweek, Reliable)

Of course, the noticeable thing here is that the contentious opinion pieces all oppose Amazon's withdrawal of the book, whereas the reliable sources, even when reporting the Republican backlash, take the time to explain the status of conversion therapy and the concerns that underlay the campaign. Balanced coverage. This isn't about conservative v. liberal, it's about including one-sided primary sourced opinion pieces, with the apparent intent to "balance" reliable sources which come down on the side of not selling dangerous pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, in text attribution is often overused. Here's a couple of examples from Political correctness#Conservative political correctness, Krugman and Nowrasteh would maybe meet the requirement for notable opinion, the others not so much. fiveby(zero) 20:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG Why does this egregious article still exist? It's shot through with FreeKnowledgeCreator's inherent bias. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, Krugman, for sure - a Nobel laureate with a column in the NYT. Nowrasteh? He appears to be notable solely as part of the walled garden of conservative think-tanks. And the others, I agree. We should use secondary sources, and if none exist then it's probably not significant. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going by your (b) criteria, as both those columns seemed to be mentioned in other RS. In both cases it might be possible to have more than the quote, have actual text in WP voice adding context. Or maybe not, as you say: may should not be taken as should and there mustn't be any guidance that mandates or unduly encourages inclusion. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

.xyz TLD

For information, the .xyz domain is now blacklisted due to spamming (it's not unprecedented, .guru is also blacklisted). A review of current links showed no other domains of any obvious merit. Alphabet's domain abc.xyz is whitelisted. Guy (help!) 15:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Is iharare.com reliable for claims about George Floyd?

"iHarare Media" (Harare is the capital of Zimbabwe) is Zimbabwe's newspaper - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Zimbabwe

There is a misunderstanding between users and admins - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd#George_Floyd_a_film_actor . Particularly about this article - about "George Floyd" - https://iharare.com/george-floyd-was-a-porn-star/

The newspaper clearly is a 3rd party (not interested in the USA's politics etc...). The newspaper gives enough evidence to prove their facts.

The admins refuse to add this information to the page about George Floyd because in their opinion the source is not reliable.

I don't see any problem with the source because it's provided videos, footage, screens, etc.

Please, give your opinion - do you agree or not. Thank you.

iharare.com describes itself as "Zimbabwe's Loudest Internet Newspaper" The story has no byline, only "guest editor". The photographic evidence and links do seem to back up that he at least appeared on an episode of thehabibshow.com, which describes itself as "the wildest ghetto hood porn reality site on the net", but there is no definitive evidence in the article that George Floyd actually worked as a pornographic actor. The two questions I have are: Is iharare.com reliable for claims about living or recently deceased persons (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy). Does the claims made in Iharare.com constitute due weight (See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight for guidance). I think the answer to both questions is no. The claim has not been covered by other more reliable sources and therefore should not be included at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Per @El C: on the relevant talk page unless it receives widespread mention by reliable sources, I am deeming this addition to be a BLP violation. Since a mention in "Zimbabwe's Loudest Internet Newspaper" does not constitute "widespread mention by reliable sources", the answer to the question about whether iharare.com is reliable or not would appear to be largely irrelevant. FDW777 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is not relevant and not covered widely by reliable sources, and therefore should not be included. I simply wanted to give a proper explanation to the Maksimiuk, who is obviously a new user who is unfamiliar with our rigorous sourcing guidelines. There's no need to WP:BITE newscomers who seem to be engaging in good faith. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

One man's newcomer engaging in good faith is another man's single purpose account who is seemingly fixated on adding a single piece of information to the George Floyd article. FDW777 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I probably didn't check their edit history closely enough. I find that all new editors including ones that turn out to be great editors tend to act in ways that seem irrational to experienced editors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

iharare.com   has been cited 16 times on Wikipedia, mostly about Zimbabwe related topics, is it worth systematically removing them? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not a reliability question. It is fairly easy to verify the information in question. The question here is whether it is relevant when most media ignore this aspect. Wikipedia is not in the business of shock news.--Eostrix (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Red Pill Movie

There's a discussion going on about this film, The Red Pill at the Manosphere article. I think the film is one sided, dishonest and begging the question. Having shared my opinion of the film, I'd like to know what other editors think, is this a reliable source for the manosphere or men's rights movement articles? Official site here: [102] Reviews here: [103] Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not except for attributed opinion of people who are filmed. We should avoid citing films anyway as they are difficult to verify. buidhe 00:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable per my comments at the manosphere talk page. To repeat them here, the film been criticized for lack of accuracy: From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.” ([104]), and there is no indication it meets requirements at WP:RS that it be recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well I don't think that's a fair counter argument to say the doc 'misunderstand the terms'...it presents a challenge to the meaning of those terms, yes, but a debate cant really be dismissed as misunderstanding if the arguments are coherent enough. I'd say enough factual basis supports the doc to say it has merit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.150.142 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am simply presenting one (of quite a few) sources that have taken issue with the accuracy of the film; it is not my criticism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I'm familiar with the documentary mostly due to the author's TED talk. I suspect there is a lot of good information in it. However, I think it counts as basically self published. As such it can't be treated as a RS. A third party RS can reference it if it makes an important point and that would possibly make it DUE for inclusion but by itself, not a RS. Springee (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• reliable The film interviews multiple feminists and doesn't treat them any differently to the MRAs, so it's hard to say it's biased. If anything, she started off being very biased against the MRAs by her own admission. We should not trust sources attacking the film for biased reasons. For example, The LA Times is known to be a very feminist outlet - so of course it would object to feminism being criticised. The point of the film is to actually investigate the movement - something very few people seem to do. If we are going to discard the film, then we also need to discard all other opinion pieces about the movement. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Can you expand on how the film actually meets the policy requirements at WP:RS? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Certainly. The film is published by a reputable mass-media company known as Gravitas Ventures, which is a part of Red Arrow Studios. It has also been vouched for by The Daily Telegraph, and Heat Street; the latter of which wrote an interesting piece on the reaction to the film. It may challenge the ideology of some commentators, but it is a valid and valuable source regarding what MRAs believe; it should be treated as a character study on the movement, at the very least. Especially since we now know that several of its most famous detractors didn't actually watch it before attacking it. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

We have no evidence that documentaries from Gravitas should be regarded as reliable sources. This film appears to be more entertainment than journalism, and certainly not scholarly in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources on these men's movements seem sparse, if I'm honest. Major news outlets seem to conflate the names of entirely different groups - as if they were basically factions of the same thing, or all in it together. As far as sources go, this is actually the most accurate one I've ever seen outside of that article I linked above. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Orangemike on the lack of support for Gravitas being a publisher that make its documentaries RSes. As for the sparsity of sourcing that you're claiming, that's absolutely not the case. I just listed off for you eight separate, peer-reviewed papers that are currently in use at the manosphere article, and that's not even counting the book sources. I added most of those myself, and I only have access to two academic databases; there are far more out there that others who have broader access could add. We absolutely do not need to resort to poor quality documentaries due to lack of other quality sourcing; there is plenty. You have claimed that this is "actually the most accurate [source] you've seen", which seems to mean it fits your own opinions on the MRM, not that it in any way meets the requirements of WP:RS. You have also just discounted one of the academic sources as "biased" because it does not match your own definition of the MRM, despite it being a peer-reviewed paper by a professor of sociology. I'm not sure you are in a good position to be determining the reliability of sources in this topic area at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, of your eight peer-reviewed papers only two are relevant and the only one I was able to read featured multiple misconceptions and ideological statements about men's rights groups and what they want. This should not be surprising as these are Gender Studies journals you linked to - which are absolutely notorious for the poor quality of their work. The whole field has been disenfranchised in at least one country because of it. There was a prank a little while ago where some academics managed to get prominent Gender Studies journals to print Mein Kamph by changing 'Jews' to 'men' and 'Aryans' to 'women'. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You wrote on the manosphere talk page that "Only two of those even mention the men's rights movement", which I assume is what you're referring to here when you mention only two of the journals being relevant. I'll copy what I said there: Well, this article is about the manosphere, not just the men's rights movement. Some of these sources focus on the MRM, some on other manosphere groups, and some on the manosphere as a whole. I'm not sure where your claim that only two of these sources mention the MRM is coming from, unless you're only reading the titles—I'm pretty sure that every single one of these papers discusses the MRM in some capacity.

If you really want to start a discussion that gender studies journals are wholly unreliable, you can start another discussion here at WP:RSN; I look forward to replying there to that absurd claim. Otherwise we will continue to follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I will note that the journal you're referring to with your mention of the Grievance studies affair is not among the academic sources used in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please list what information that is being considered for inclusion if this is accepted as an RS in this situation? Arkon (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Information included is: who the men's rights movement are, the issues they are campaigning about, and the opposition they face. It's a good basic intro to what they say. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Too vague for me to give a good opinion. Arkon (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think the film is fine for attributed opinions and views of the films subjects, per WP:RSSELF and WP:ABOUTSELF, as long as those claims are not contentious. As far as I can see from the talkpage, the usage seems to be hypothetical. Can specific examples of sentences of where you would like to use the source be given? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  As TiggyTheTerrible has said above, I believe they wish to reframe the entire article and the definitions of the "manosphere", "men's rights movement", etc. based on that documentary (which would contravene every other source in the article). This is what they did in their first edit to the page: [105]. As of yet TiggyTheTerrible has not been able to find a reliable source supporting their point of view, and so is trying to get this documentary accepted as a reliable source to rebut the much higher-quality sources used in the article's current form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not in Wikivoice, no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  (Conversation about the scholarly sources moved to Talk:Manosphere#Scholarly sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

• Reliable Personally I think the documentary is rather surprisingly well done; it DID make me see the men's rights sphere in a different light- I still do think there are many flaws to be said, but I think the arguments were decent enough and well enough sourced. I watched it about a year ago, I remember jumping on google (lol and wiki) to fact check some of the things presented, and was surprised to see how much was true. I don't think it's all that one sided, nor dishonest. As for 'begging the question, I wouldn't agree...it used a lot of statistics and references to laws/government programs...one might disagree with the interpretation, but that's hardly assuming the truth of the conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.150.142 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — 76.109.150.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Attribute, do not use as proposed. It is certainly not more reliable than scholarly sources, and should 100% not be used for what TiggyTheTerrible is proposing, but it’s not plain wrong to the degree that it can not be used at all. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Martindale-Hubbell (lawyers.com, nolo.com, martindale.com)

Sources discussed:

• Martindale-Hubbell
• martindale.com
• lawyers.com
• nolo.com
• https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/
• https://www.martindale.com/marketyourfirm/profiles/

Note: I had to remove the links to lawyers.com and nolo.com because they are on the blacklist. Should we add martindale.com to that list?

Edit which brought this to my attention:[106]

Are the ratings reliable? It looks like you can buy yourself a spot on the lists. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nolo.com has been discussed several times before, most recently this April, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Nolo.com Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_223#Nolo.com Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• nolo was spammed, not sure about the others - but it would not surprise me. We whitelisted nolo's legal encyclopaedia, there may also be content on Martindale that would qualify as reliable, but the peer-ratings are promotional. Isn't lawyers.com a storefront? Its /legal-info microsite purports to be a reference but most of it is pitches, and there's a gratingly chirpy "Hi, can we find you a lawyer?" chatbot. Guy (help!) 13:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lawyers.com is a storefront owned by Martindale-Hubbell. Go to the bottom of the lawyers.com main page and click on the "Legal Professionals; Build Your Business" link.

Martindale-Hubbell is owned by Internet Brands, which had a legal dispute with the WMF.[107]

I say we blacklist martindale.com (whitelisting anything worth keeping) and put together a comprehensive list of all site owned by internet brands. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting that they have been around since the 1800s. It seems lots of attorneys rely on it as a reliable rating system, unlike any other rating system. Maybe we shouldn't write them off so quickly because they were bought up by an Internet Brand company that evidently doesn't like Wikimedia.

The rating doesn't cost anything from what I can tell, but requires you to nominate yourself and give a list of at least 18 "attorneys or judges familiar with your legal ability in mind that you would like to nominate."3 Steps to Getting a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating Those peers are contacted and asked for information about you.

Just google "martindale-hubbell ratings reliable -martindale.com" to see what the lawyers think about it.

https://www.forthepeople.com/attorneys/peter-byron-gee-jr/

https://www.nejamelaw.com/nejamelaw-ratings.html

https://vanarellilaw.com/highest-attorney-rating/

https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/how-to-choose-a-lawyer/

https://www.mijs.com/congratulations-partners-earned-av-preeminent-rating-martindale-hubbell/

Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lawyers who have a martindale-hubbell rating are not a reliable source for how reliable martindale-hubbell ratings are. The conflict of interest is obvious.

• How LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel are Running a Lawyer Ratings Scam
• Martindale-Hubbell ups the ante: Price tag for lawyer to display rating online goes from $50 to $599
• Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings: Pay-to-Play or a Ransom Demand??
• Are Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com Dead? Why Every Martindale Client Should Care
• Martindale Hubbell: Another Legal Icon Bites the Dust. But It Was Once Worth Its Weight in Gold (and Held for Ransom)
• Does Martindale-Hubbell, as we knew it, still exist?
• Who Cares About Martindale-Hubbell?

"Lawyer awards aren’t a new thing: anyone remember Martindale Hubbell? Sure, they’re about as relevant as Pogs nowadays, but at one point, an AV-Rating was something to brag about. Was it something more than a vanity placard or was it simply an earlier incarnation of these arguably worthless awards? I recently contacted Martindale to find out. And the selection process surprised me: submit a list of eighteen references (from outside your firm) to vouch for your abilities as an attorney. That’s it. Have 18 friends."[108]

"I am deeply disgusted to report that the good name of LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel is officially worthless. This institution which has built its reputation on providing accurate information to lawyers and the general public about lawyers is now nothing more than a marketing organization. Their ratings can not be trusted. How do I know? Simple, they recently rated me as an outstanding lawyer as rated by my clients.

I haven’t had clients since July 2000. And unless my three partners are secretly spending time rating my services (they aren’t) then this is complete and utter bullshit. So beware consumers and fellow attorneys: these ratings are nothing more than a scam to sell expensive plaques and foist the “ratings” on a public who might be looking for competent legal counsel."[109]

"Let’s just say that I think it’s a really, really, REALLY bad idea [ for Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review Ratings program] to start everyone off as an AV 5.0 and (potentially) re-review them DOWN over a 10-year period".[110]

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal website by teacher as source for Society of Merchant Venturers

This source is being used to source statements in the lede for Society of Merchant Venturers. While the site is not online anymore, from the archive it appears that it was created by a Bristol schoolteacher (based on a LinkedIn profile I found). I found what I felt was a suitable replacement, but another user contends that the Flocs source should be included. Additional opinions sought. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Eye Wales

A number of issues have recently arisen around the creation of an article on a blog called The Eye Wales, which has since been reverted after it was a WP:ADVERT. It now exists as a page about its author Phil Parry. The Eye says it dedicates itself to investigative journalism, mainly targeted at the Welsh concept of the Crachach and the existence of a Welsh media and high society elite. That is fine, but I am hoping to gather some opinions on whether the content of The Eye Wales is sufficiently reputable to make it suitable for citing, especially where it tends to be used on articles about fringe political topics on articles. Parry has journalistic credibility, he is a former BBC Wales and HTV (now ITV Wales) journalist, but has been freelance since leaving the BBC in 2010, and now seems to engage in writing on articles including the activities of anonymous users in the Nation.Cymru comment section, he relies on Pepe the Frog memes, and seems quite fascinated with Carol Vorderman's bottom. I'm not sure the website as it currently stands should be cited as heavily as users like Martin Clintergate (talk · contribs) currently do. Llemiles (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like WP:RSSELF and WP:BLOGS cover this. I can't find any coverage of it online, apart from a passing mention in a Western Mail article [111]. Capewearer (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Nerd Reactor

I requested an edit to a semi-protected article, and my request is being moderated and reviewed by user SNUGGUMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SNUGGUMS). SNUGGUMS wanted me to provide a reliable source for my requested edit. I provided the following news article as a source: http://nerdreactor.com/2017/10/26/lindsey-stirling-and-mark-ballas-earn-a-perfect-score-in-dancing-with-the-stars/. SNUGGUMS wanted me to seek your input on the reliability of Nerd Reactor as a news publication. What do you think? Could Nerd Reactor be considered a reliable enough reference to implement an edit on a semi-protected article? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prepare2getstarbucks (talk • contribs)

Seems like a somewhat obscure blog; I don't think it's sufficient for the context you're proposing it for, but then again the rest of that article's sourcing is a bit suspect. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Wrestling II: Sex offender or not? (RfC)

• Go to RfC

Heyo editors! There's recently been an edit dispute over a highly controversial topic regarding the recently-deceased Mr. Wrestling II where editors have been both claiming and refuting that the wrestler was a registered sex offender, sources and all.

This could get heated very quickly, and I encourage all readers to come to a consensus on this issue at the RfC. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 09:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of extended quotation solely from Daily Mail on Death of Keith Blakelock

Death of Keith Blakelock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock for discussion of deleting or keeping an extended quotation sourced solely to the DM, including a claim that noting the DM's habit of fabricating quotes is a serious BLP violation, It's a BLP violation because you're alleging of the reporter with the byline that he makes things up. - so, more eyes would be welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)