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

RfC: YouTube

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.

---

Should YouTube 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 (EDIT: Youtube is already subject to a XLinkBot filter) (Per the IMDb and Facebook discussions) to discourage misuse? YouTube is currently cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per YouTube.com  . YouTube is currently described at RS/P as:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (YouTube)

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

• Support edit filter These filters are intended to reduce misuse by inexperienced and new users, and are not a total blanket ban on YouTube use. Obviously per the RSP entry, videos by news organisations and similar are fine, but many other uses of YouTube are problematic, and are likely added by inexperienced users unfamilar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Adding these filters will discourage problematic additions of YouTube links to articles, while more experienced users can add YouTube links with discretion. EDIT: It's worth noting that any edit filter for YouTube would likely be a custom edit filter rather than the standard depreciated source filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 170,000 should have been the flag to stop this. Of course we're not going to have a warn filter for YouTube or deprecate it. We link it all the time. It's not a source, it's a platform, and it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources. See for example Killing of George Floyd which links to half a dozen videos or more. This deprecation thing at RSN is going too far. I find the growth of RSP in 2020 to be alarming. YouTube shouldn't even be listed at RSP. It's like listing "television" or "paper" at RSP. It's a medium not a publisher or author. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I explicitly did not mention the word "depreciation" because it was not meant as one. One could make the same argument for Facebook, which there was consensus to add a warn edit filter for. Obviously the citations to YouTube videos for George Floyd are acceptable, but they should be added with discretion, which presumably many of the over 170,000 added links were not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would make the same exact argument for Facebook and Twitter, neither of which should be listed at RSP because both are platforms. You might not have used the word "deprecation" but a warn filter is a very obvious step in that direction. These RSN evaluations of publishers outside of actual content disputes are inappropriate. It's just not right for a small group of self selected editors to assume the role of a publisher review committee. As an editor, I'm not going to start making time to vote on the general reliability of every source under the sun. Personally, I do not recognize any of these RSN "generally reliable"/"deprecate"/"filter" threads as representing anything other than local consensus (with the exception of those that were properly widely advertised, such as Fox News). This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not the Publisher Review Noticeboard. We should only be discussing specific sources--that means individual works used to cite a statement in an article--and only in the context of the specific instances in which they are used. RSP should only list true perennials--meaning publishers whose sources are often discussed at RSN. Platforms like YouTube and media like social media shouldn't be discussed here at all, and shouldn't be listed at RSP. Deprecation and edit filters should be extremely rare steps that only happen with policy-level consensus, eg Daily Mail. I just don't recognize the validity of a dozen editors saying "not reliable" and then it's red at RSP and suddenly a hundred thousand editors are barred from using it. Sorry, that's just not valid process, and I feel like it's getting out of control on this board this year. At a minimum, warn filter proposals should be advertised at CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I added this to CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot Those are completely reasonable measures, though I would have definitely opposed a blanket ban. --

tronvillain (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Abuse filter and XLinkBot: Youtube is just not a reliable source to be used here. [Voter: ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} Time: 04:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)]
  • It’s not a source at all, it’s a platform for thousands of sources with a range from undeniably reliable to mind boggling bad. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Even WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Youtube is used by many expert sources and blanket measures such as filters and XLkinkBot are indiscriminate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: "YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? As I stated previously, experienced editors are not affected by XlinkBot, and the edit filter is likely to be a custom one not simply the same as the depreciated sources filter. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Lindsay Ellis, Nicholas Moran, PBS Spacetime, PBS Eons CGP Grey, Baumgartner Restoration, Caitlin Doughty, Alton Brown, etc., etc., etc., Need I continue? those are just from the first page of my recommendations. "not likely to be" is not reassuring and even IP editors are allowed to link to actual experts on YouTube by policy. This just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is CGP Grey an expert in? I think his videos are interesting, but his "Americapox" video has recieved criticism for paralleling Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel which has been heavily criticised by historians. I don't see how he can be classified as an "expert" as he has no credentials in any of the topics he makes videos on. I don't see why PBS videos should be cited for facts either, they're again interesting, but they are not subject matter experts themselves and Wikipedia should cite the underlying source material. Nicholas Moran has no actual credentials as a historian either per this Military Times article. Lindsay Ellis is a media critic with a film school degree and therefore the question of citation is one of WP:DUE rather than of reliability. As for Alton Brown and Ask a Mortician, I think there are likely to be better sources for the information in that these would be relevant to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. PBS Spacetime is hosted by an astrophysicist, PBS Eons by the Curator of Collections for the Museum of the Rockies. Moran is a Lt. Col in the US Army and paid for his historical research which makes him a working historian despite whatever Military Times wants to say, and you implicitly recognize the credentials of Ellis, Doughty, Brown. Don't like those? How about an Oxford PhD in astrophysics or Baylor College of Medicine or the Harvard School of Public Health or a professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh or Freakin' NASA, for pete's sake. "I think there are likely better sources" is pure speculation and this speculation and over-generalizing applies to the entire RfC; rather than actually examining the sources, like we're supposed to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot. CGP Grey is an educator, "What exactly" he is an expert in is...education. What are his videos? As it so happens, education. I find it richly ironic that a Reddit thread was cited for source criticism on RSN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think CGP Grey videos are unusable as sources. YouTube is WP:SELFPUBLISHed; being considered an expert sufficient to pass that policy requires more than just a breezy "oh he's a professional X." The requirement is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does he meet that standard? Beyond that, his videos generally summarize part of a particular published work (which he cites at the end), so you could just cite that work directly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently CGPGrey being an "educator" makes him a subject matter expert on everything? WP:SPS states:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

(emphasis not mine). CGP has no relevant expertise on the vast majority of topics he covers, and therefore isn't a subject matter expert. The specific reddit thread I brought up was from r/AskHistorians, which is notable enought to have its own wikipedia article and largely staffed by subject matter experts. As for the PBS stuff, it consists of simplified explanations for laymen and the production of web television like the PBS Digital Studios involves staff who are not subject matter experts, like researchers and script writers, who may introduce errors. Per WP:SPS again:

Exercise caution when using [self published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources

For what it covers we should be citing higher quality sources like review papers or high quality secondary sources like Quanta Magazine, the same principle applies to other creators you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I've stricken Grey because it's clear that channel is becoming a distraction. (Although I think from context you meant "...are usable as sources.") That doesn't refute any of the other 12 creators I linked and if I were so inclined I could find hundreds or thousands of Youtube creators that incontestably comply with the SPS requirements and clearly support the claim I made earlier about "many experts". The point is that blanket lumping these in with bad sources just because they exist on the same platform as BTS fanvids and 9/11 conspiracy nonsense (or whatever) doesn't actually comply with the RS policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) EC This is nit-picking at its nittiest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? WHO NIH NASA Nature BBC Smithsonian Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, respectively 1525, 639, 4932, 72, 11944 and 2890 videos. That is a exceedingly minor fraction of the material on YouTube (I thought I saw 1.3 billion video's on YouTube, but that was a wrong number, I now found 7 billion in 2017, of which these 6 channels would only make 0.0003% of the material, but now it is 2020). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we have to analyse on a case-by-case basis, but I dare to say that 99.9% of the material on YouTube will not be suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dirk Beetstra, except that he doesn't go far enough. 99.9% of the material on the Internet is not suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. I'm sure you all agree? So we should put in an edit filter for anyone adding any Internet reference whatsoever. Not ban use of the Internet, mind, just, you know, a warning. For experts only. Keep the others on their toes. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, :-) a nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but totally missing the point. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot A good way to caution editors without banning or "deprecating" YouTube. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with everything Levivich wrote. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as overreach, there are many good sources in the official channels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. YouTube is a self-published source in almost every case, and the majority of citations are of the form "X said Y on YouTube, source, X saying Y on YouTube". This is always a terrible idea and a warn filter is entirely appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is, hopefully, a well-meaning solution in search of a problem. Over time YouTube has increasingly worked to reduce all manner of fraud and corruption it faces worldwide. Meanwhile it’s used by more and more entities as an official news outlet for their views. Let’s find actual problems first then get creative in addressing those. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because, as Levivich noted, YouTube is a platform not a source. ¶ Of course, if we required editors to create an account ....  Self-trout   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, my concerns are echoed by many editors above, YouTube is a platform, not a source, it is home to many official news stations and professionals whose channels are perfectly good sources and who use it to widen their appeal. Also, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist, in my experience when YouTube is sourced it is either to a reliable source which just so happens to be on the platform, as a WP:PRIMARY source, or as blatant self-promotion. The last instance is the only problematic one, and putting an edit filter on YouTube will not stop them in the slightest. Even if these problems do occasionally pop up, this is a massive overreaction to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as stated by many editors above Youtube is a publishing platform like a book, radio, television, etc. Editors should not be seeing warnings if they should be allowed to use Voice of America, France 24, or the BBC. As Levivich has stated above, this board and its perennial sources list has begun to overstep its purpose in the wikipedia community. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. YouTube is a platform. It's not a source, and YouTube videos are not intrinsically unreliable as sources. Increasingly, good reliable-source information is from video (e.g., news or newscast video) rather than print these days, so an edit warning is overkill in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a slightly parallel discussion on WT:V about what actually is a "self-published source" and in alignment with "opposes" here and discussion there, YouTube is not the publisher in these videos - it is the person that prepares and uploads the video that is "publishing" it and that's where the self-publishing needs to be addressed. For example CNN and other media sources have videos uploaded, which clearly have been through news desk editors, so these are published, but not self-published, and thus 100% fair game as a reliable source. On the other hand, CoolGuy99 talking about his favorite Pokemon would be a self-made video and self-published. While the majority of videos on YouTube are probably in this latter category, a good chuck are competely valid sources and thus using an edit filter is a bad idea. --Masem (t) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot. I don't think Youtube can be RS, yes we can watch and listen to a historian's lecture there, but it's not paper. Where are reviews here? Some editorial hierarchy and control exist in the newspapers, while on YouTube it is mostly non-existent. If we consider a local TV news or CNN presented on Youtube as information source it is OR. Article, comment, interview etc, we can read and on these portals(CNN etc..) and use as a source. The whole world publishes some of its truth through Youtube and for controlling these informations we need an army of people. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How can it be that this NYTimes video at YouTube, this WaPo video at YouTube, or this NBC video at YouTube are not RSes, or are OR when we cite them (as we currently do in several articles including Killing of George Floyd)? They have been subject to editorial review and have been published by a reputable publisher (NYT, WaPo, and NBC, respectively). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • His last recorded(TV, etc) moments and spoken words are OR, and his last moments and spoken words in some comment from a journalist published in newspapers are RS, but even this RS can be challenged by someone on Wikipedia. Ultimately only after end of trial we will know the specific facts. After these facts are published in some newspaper or some book then it is a quality RS for Wikipedia. I see it that way. Mikola22 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Each video is narrated by a journalist and was published by "some newspaper", e.g. NYT, WaPo, and NBC. So this meets the criteria you are describing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • You see that journalist throughout video telling dozens of details and facts, but we don’t know if this details and facts are true. We'll know that in a couple of years when the trial is over. I'm talking about that. If the same is said in the article of that TV house (portal) it is RS although it is the same thing but in that case exist some visible editorial control, name of the journalist, responsible editor, date, additional confirming official sources in writing (police etc), etc. In the video reportage it may or may not be controlled, we do not know whether this information has passed editorial or the journalist has his personal conclusions. I look at the bigger picture(Youtube) and a million videos without any control, not only CNN and NBC. I'm from the Balkans, when we would start entering informations from YouTube there would be a mess on Wikipedia, and it is only for two or three countries. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 

• Oppose both - As people have said, YouTube is a hosting site, not a source in itself. The individual videos hosted on YouTube are the sources. Some are reliable, some are not. Think of it this way: with printed texts an author and publisher (which affect reliability), and we have a bookstore or library where the text can be located (which do not affect reliability). YouTube is equivalent to the bookstore or library. It is where the video can be located, but is not the author or publisher. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You raise a good point, @Blueboar:. Legally, Youtube only receives protection against civil and criminal actions specifically because it is not an author or publisher. If it is not an author or publisher, it is not a source as our policies define one, reliable or otherwise. Any discussion of Youtube as "a source" (singular) is predicated on a gross misunderstanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of the whole debate that kicked off why the US has Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because to distinguish between "distributor" like a bookstore that has no control on the content that is in the books it offers, and "publisher" which does. And I think our model that we're trying to get here is trying to get to that point as well. We want to tag things that are SPS where the person making the content is also the one that does the publishing (even if the "publisher" is a third party like Forbes.com or Amazon Book Printing services), and that we need to ignore the "distributor" like YouTube when it comes to that evaluation. (Again, tying to the ongoing WT:V discussion). There is a tiny tiny fraction of YouTube content that is made by YouTube employees (like YouTube Rewind) but that's less than 0.01% so not enough to call it an SPS. It is all on who is uploading and what relation they have to the act of publishing that content, if it has gone through what we'd usually consider appropriate for an RS w/ fact-checking. --Masem (t) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both (well, addition of the EF and retention of the XLinkBot rule). Reliable content hosted there is very much the exception rather than the rule, and other hosts should be preferred for the small portion of reliable content when available. Video citations should be avoided anyway, in my opinion, since they're hard to skim, not easily used without a fast network connection, and may not be available captioned. On the rare occasions that the only reliable source for something is only available through that Web site, and someone new needs to cite it, can make an edit request to get around the XLinkBot. (Although if something's not covered in any textual source, it probably is undue weight to be talking about it anyway.) Otherwise this should help cut down the amount of those references. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both for the same reasons as Goldenshimmer: 1) the vast majority of YouTube video are not reliable sources, and 2) even when a youtube video is published by a reputable entity, it's almost always preferable to use some other, written-down source as more verifiable and reliable. The current setup seems bitey because it reverts new users without giving them a reason. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Buidhe. I know it seems lazy to just quote the support directly above you, but it's exactly what I was going to say. I can't remember the last time I found a reference to a YouTube video that couldn't have been easily replaced with a more reliable source, a proper secondary source, or a more accessible print source. ----Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who has written a featured article with such instances, not every interview or primary source is necessarily going to have a viable substitute. And as others have mentioned, reliable sources like the New York Times and Variety Magazine are on YouTube as well. While there are usually replaceable sources outside of YouTube, this is not the case 100% of the time. Definitely not enough to go nuclear and instate an edit filter, which should only be used for sites that have no business being cited under any circumstance. Darkknight2149 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. WP:RSP is not a reliable source. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the edit filter. YouTube is sometimes usable for interviews and primary sources, so the idea of an edit filter is kind of dumb. Darkknight2149 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• A warning is fine for new editors using YouTube channels as a source. The majority of the warning's recipients will actually learn something new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Warn filter would serve as an education tool for new editors. For clarity, no appetite to depreciate as there are clear occasions when it is the correct source to use, but it clearly needs to be cited with care. Best, Darren-M talk 22:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose autoreverting (removing) youtube links: A bot cannot decide the context of a post. As an occasional editor, tried to post a youtube link to a TED talk on the Wikipedia page about the speaker. TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation, and its overall mission to research and discover “ideas worth spreading.” This youtube link was not like an official music video, for profit, or controversial hearsay, as the speaker was the subject of the Wikipedia page, the primary source. The XLinkBot reverted (removed) it. Then I posted the same content by a link containing ted.com, which was happily allowed to let stand. I posted another youtube link of a TED talk, because not all TED talks are on ted.com. This was also reverted (removed), even though I was logged into my user account, which is older than 7 days. The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot/RevertList says, "The bot does not revert when the account is older than 7 days (except when the rule is on override)". So I don't know why it was removed. This sort of discourages editing of Wikipedia pages. A more technical issue with the bot is that if you add a youtube link, and in the same edit make a minor change to another entry, say to remove some punctuation, the bot removes both entries, without showing this on the history page. Another thing is that even though ted.com is an alternative site for this content, it seemed to serve the content slower, so youtube would have been the preferred link. Lindamarcella (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • TED talks are not reliable sources in many cases. They're reliable sources for what the person says but may or may not be reliable for facts depending on the topic and whether the person is a subject matter expert. New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. What? Are you under the impression that new users don't understand the nuances of sourcing? You realize that new users aren't children or students? In many if not most cases they are scientists, researchers, professors or other professionals who already knew what a reliable source was and how to use and cite it long before they ever edited Wikipedia. Similarly, there are editors who've been here for 10 years and have less experience with sourcing than other people who aren't even editors at all. I doubt there is a connection between age of account and understanding the nuance of sourcing. Sourcing is a real world thing, not a Wikipedia only thing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have editors who determine the validity of sources and of videos. New users have to fumble around as it is, learning the acronyms, policies, guidelines, and then learning that WP:IAR is a policy. All of this is inadvertently difficult. There are many youtube videos - tours of lakes, tours of businesses, interviews...this is the 21st century and people are not going to the card catalogue and using the Dewey Decimal System to find a physical book. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Many individuals and companies have their own legit Youtube channels. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose edit filter, Support keeping it on XLinkBot (disclaimer, I am bot operator). Yes, there are MANY good sources on YouTube, many respectable publishers, news agents, libraries, repositories use this medium. Unfortunately, ALSO many people who upload material in violation of copyright do, and there are regularly copyvio links added. ALSO a lot of other people upload videos there (which is the far, far majority of the material): your personal movie of your dog is neither a source for wagging tails, nor a suitable external link on dog (I am sorry, the majority of material on youtube is not an RS for anything, and not suitable as external link). Then there is a lot of purely promotional material there (it is not so long ago that we had loads of spambots spamming links to youtube, up to a level that we had an adminbot block them). Then there are the regular cases of people who think that we are a repository of social media links. Links to youtube are needed, but should be used with care. It is good that we remind new users of those policies and guidelines. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, I totally agree with user:Levivich that youtube itself should not be on RSP. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • comment: I am just going to note here again: YouTube is not on the revertlist (neither the regular, neither the reference one) because of reasons of unreliability. It is on the revertlist because of it very often failing many other inclusion standards, including regular observations of spamming of YouTube, regular observations of linking to copyright violating material (including copyright violations of material which the original would be a reliable source) and material which is strongly discouraged in general. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We should not be going out of our way to discourage the use of videos as sources. There is nothing inherent in videos that makes them less reliable than print media. Like all potential sources, it depends on the originator of the source, not the type of source. Yes, much of the videos on YouTube are self published, but that doesn't matter. I acknowledge that inexperienced editors may use self published videos as a source, but if a user doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V, than they might use anything as a source. There's nothing about YouTube per say that warrants concern. Reliable sources can use it as a place to publish videos from their verified accounts, and non-reliable sources can use it as a place to self publish. That right there just about sums up the internet in general. Inexperienced editors are just as likely to accidentally include unreliable tabloids as a source. If anything, we should be more concerned with abuse of print sources, since in the mess of Google search results, it can be hard for an inexperienced editors to tell whether something is reliable or whether it's just a blog/tabloid. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE - There is another caution about using YouTube videos that may make a warning template appropriate... the issue of COPYRIGHT. If a specific COPY of a video is posted in violation of copyright laws, we can not link to that specific copy (although we might be able to link to a copy of that video on some OTHER YouTube channel.) This, however, has nothing to do with the reliability of the original. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Given the number of opposes for a warning, should there be a separate discussion about removing it from the Xlinkbot list? Without having given this too much thought, I think I'd oppose auto-reverting even while supporting a warning. Wouldn't many of the opposes also oppose auto-reverting? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Calliopejen1, you realize that the far majority of material on youtube is crap, spam, promotional etc. The reliable, useful material is a far minority of the material. Moreover, as I stated above, it is not too long ago that we had spambots spamming youtube (through the redirect service). People here are, imho unjustly, focussing on that little bit of good material, forgetting the spam, copyvio material and useless crap.

  I would like to see an analysis how often the bot reverts references which should not have been reverted (and how often the youtube references are actually copyvio), then I could be swayed to remove it from the revertreferences list. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that auto-reverting a new users comment is somewhat WP:BITEY as it is done with no warning, which is why I wanted to add the edit filter. However, if youtube links were enough of an issue in 2008 that they were added to the filter, they would likely be even more of an issue now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, the situation with YouTube has changed since then. E.g. most people nowadays have mobile phones with reasonably fast internet at reasonable prices so that they can stream video reasonable, in 2008 many people around the world were still using slow (expensive dial-in) internet where streaming video was not really a possibility (note, also the video size has increased since 2008, but they can be automatically downsampled). In 2008 the use of youtube by 'respectable media outlets' was minor, most was user uploads. Now it is extensively being used by BBC, NYT, etc. etc. Comparable, in 2008 advertising on YouTube was minor, now it is also extensively being used by advertising media, health fanatics, organisations with an agenda and similar. Yes, NYT and Washington Post use it, but they do not appear in List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos or List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels, nor are they even a reasonably representative number of the videos on YouTube. That will be worrisome if that is a reflection of the YouTube material that people will use as a reference on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. Pretty much all of the major news organizations that we list as reliable sources have official YouTube channels where they upload news reports to. Preventing any citing to these reliable sources' channels on Wikipedia would be absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Levivich. I'm struggling to even wrap my head around this. We could do the same thing for all videos I guess? Why just those on Youtube? Hobit (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose You can't really have a blanket ban on something like this. It needs to be delt with on a case by case basis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support While YouTube is a platform, we don't have a way to whitelist specific channels that might be reputable. Almost every use of YouTube as a citation that I've seen was in violation of WP:SPS, so I think the warn filter is not only appropriate but not enough to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. This is no different from using any other sources and links. Of course all participants must respect copyright, exercise good judgement if the link improves the page, etc. But yes, it should not be generally used as an RS to support any statements on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A blanket ban this wide, not accounting for factors as simple as news organizations not listed as "verified" on YouTube is unreasonable. 0qd (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Also, a link to a video on youtube can sometimes be the best primary source to verify something. -- œ^™ 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as there is thoughtful wording for the edit filter, noting that YouTube is platform that hosts diverse content, including unreliable non-expert self-published content (most hosted video on YouTube), reliable self-published material from expert sources, and content from traditional publishers, so the editor needs to assess whether the specific YouTube video that they're linking to is a RS for the specific WP claim that the video is being used to support: is it SPS? if so, does the creator have relevant expertise for the specific WP claim being made? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivitch and anyone else. Sturgeon's law applies to more than just YouTube, no reason to single out YouTube. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. I can't tell you how many time I've seen new users just use Youtube carelessly as a source. This is a recent discussion spawned by such behavior: Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Resolution_talk_post_ANI/EW_result/suggestion_2.VR _talk 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons provided by Levivich. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot I've seen YouTube links used way to much in the wrong ways myself. What minor legitimate uses there are the information can be gotten from better sources. For instance the New York Times own website if it's their video that someone is linking to. Most YouTube videos are also OR and primary sources. People seem to use them as sources indiscriminately though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Warning against using a source published on YouTube is akin to warning against citing a source published on the Internet. No one is actually citing YouTube itself. Just like when I am citing nytimes.com, I am not citing "The Internet", which came into existence a few decades ago. I am citing The New York Times, the newspaper with about 170 years of editorial history. When we cite a source on YouTube, we are citing a reliable publisher (e.g. NBC's Dateline) which just so happens to be using YouTube as its publishing medium. WP:SOURCES has good explanation on how to evaluate a published source. That is sufficient. No further red tape is required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There may be a case for placing restrictions on who can add links to YouTube (a type of general WP "semi-protected", used now for articles that are prone to vandalism). However, I've found links to YouTube very helpful, especially in the "External Links" section of articles, where they direct readers to, for example, authoritative talks by well-known experts in the field. In that sense they are not sources but more like further reading. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Youtube can be quite useful for interviews, vlogs, public domain film footage, and primary sources. I get that new editors misuse Youtube a lot, but this is too much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As has been strongly proven above, although it should have been common knowledge, Youtube is simply a media platform like any other; it can host unreliable or unuseable content, but it can and does host a great deal of useable reliable sources, which makes it an important academic tool for this project. Implementing a blanket warning against its use would serve to discourage and stigmatize its use which is unfair and inappropriate. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are a staggering number of legitimate usages of Youtube. I don't want to comment here on the broader ideological considerations Levivich notes, but the inaccurate warn rate would be so high as make this an absurd idea. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, well, it seems to be staggering low ... XLinkBot has a rule for reverting YouTube references (not for reliability issues, but for the other issues often encountered), which it has not used for over a year. As I said earlier, some numbers from a non-acting filter would have been helpful. (Note that I totally agree that YouTube should not be filtered for reliability). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Levivich, Eggishorn and many others above. YouTube is a platform used by both highly reliable sources and totally unreliable ones. No edit filter can reliable distingui9sh, and this will have a chilling effect on citations of valid sources hosted there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the reliability depends on the person/company publishing the video (e.g. is it a news company's official channel or a reputable educator who cites his sources? or is it just a home video with <100 views?) Félix An (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, YouTube videos can be reliable sometimes. Benjamin (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose many RS videos are now being uploaded to YouTube under official accounts for CNN, ABC News, etc. If there was a script that analyzed the YouTube video at the URL and checked for a "verified" account it could help to alert the user if it wasn't, although YouTube personalities and celebrities can also get "verified" and so that may not matter as much. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, video sometimes can be very verifiable (i.e. interviews). So a filter for the entire site would eliminate verifiable remarks by those interviewees. Note that such veriable remarks may not also exist on news sites, so there may not be an alternative for such videos. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reliability of a YouTube video is on a case-by-case basis. If the video has been published by a reputable news service, it should be treated as on par with other content from that news service. If the video is self-published it should be treated as such. YouTube is a platform, not a source in itself. An edit filter is too blunt an instrument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have said, YouTube is a platform, not a source. What matters is who is posting the video, not that they used YouTube to do such. Both proposals are overly broad and based on a fundamentally flawed premise. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, it is a platform and not a source. In addition, I disagree that the number of videos that aren't reliable to not be a relevant fact. Some of them are not meant to be seen as a source at all- similar to the fiction section in bookstores. Some of them will only get seen by a few people and nobody thinks of going to Wikipedia and trying to use them as a source. Some of them are published by reputable organizations. Youtube videos should be looked at individually and not as a group.--Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose going with what have been said, YouTube isn't a reliable source. most videos on YouTube lacks on WP:V. Youtube channels can post bias and misleaing information and get ton of views. Putting youtube links into wikipedia articles will make wikipedia unreliable and possibly more will attract more vandalism. BGzest (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube)

Don't agree with how my earlier comments were hidden away, but I think you are on to something here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I archived it to avoid prejudicing this discussion, as I felt I worded it poorly. Would you like me to add your comments to this discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to add my comments here. I think this is a better proposal. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that YouTube has been on the XLinkBot list for a very long time (prior to February 2008) so its placement in this RfC isn't necessary, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think this is important enough to say: YouTube is not a source, it doesn't produce the content available on it, which comes from all kinds of producers, some reliable, some not. If in principle you can cite a film as a source (which you can), then it is irrelevant whether it is available on YouTube, broadcast on TV, available on DVD or wherever. The validity of a video/film source is surely down to the reliability of the producer. By analogy, you can obviously cite a book, and that book may be available on Amazon, but when you cite a book you're not citing Amazon. Despite the fact that Amazon sells reliable books (and some of them can be partially read online, and some can be downloaded free), this doesn't mean that all books on that cite are reliable since they also sell self-published books written by unqualified crackpots and conspiracy theorists. The same is true of YouTube. If you want to cite a film then surely you fill in the citation template with the producer, publisher etc, and it will be considered on its merits, as would a book. In which case surely if it happens to be available on YouTube then this is a plus, right? Pi (Talk to me!) 23:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube) - reputable material

A lot of focus by the 'oppose' field above is 'it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources' (quoting the first oppose, User:Levivich, who is quoted a lot, and similar opposes are there). Note: I oppose a filter, but I think it should still be on XLinkBot due to other reasons than being 'unsuitable as a reference' (which it is not, and which is not the reason why it is on the revertlist).

But by the numbers. A number I could find (probably not reliable) is that YouTube hosts 1,300,000,000 (1.3 billion) videos. The New York Times has 9804 video's on their channel (about 0.00075%), and the Washington Post 15,870 (about 0.0012%). BBC (my guess) has about 12000 videos. Yes, I agree that there is quite some good material on YouTube, but I guess I am safe to say that good material is less than 0.1% of the material on YouTube is due to reliable sources. Except from some primary sources, the rest, containing personal videos of dogs, birthday parties, pure advertising, clickbait material, beach parties, copyvio material, etc. etc., is likely not suitable as a source, not even primary.

I do feel that above !voting is completely undue because of that. The above would have been a much fairer discussion if people would have presented an analysis of a non-acting filter for youtube references of a couple of days, and an analysis of the last 100 youtube reference reverts of XLinkBot (I found 0 in the last ~1500 reverts ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: the 1.3 billion I saw was not the total number of videos. I can't find any number for 2019 or current, I did find 7 billion in 2017 (https://www.quora.com/How-many-videos-are-on-YouTube-2017-1). You can divide the number by a factor of 5, e.g. it becomes 0.00014% for the New York Times if you take a 2017 number, the number in 2020 is probably different. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I think many Wikipedia editors have very little idea about how important maintenance of the edit filter is and how much effort goes into fighting spam and other problematic links, and I regret not providing adequate evidence based on this. Can you provide a link to the Xlinkbot feed for youtube links? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, there is no special feed, I got that from Special:Contributions/XLinkBot. If you limit to mainspace and look for 'Reverting reference addition(s) by' in the edit summary shows reverts by XLinkBot that were done because of the 'RevertReferences' list. If you then check if it is a youtube revert (further down in the edit summary) you can see what I mean. Most reference reverting is due to discogs, fandom, reddit, not youtube. If you ignore the references, you see things like diff, where the user is spamming their own YouTube channel.

That however does get convoluted because some newbies do not format references as classical references but just as inline links (see e.g. diff).

The above proposal gets even further convoluted, because people who reference to a New York Times report often link to the New York Times link that embeds the YouTube upload of the report (https://nyti.ms/2T981nS vs. youtube.com/watch?v=pdUzzXpWg8c). (In my opinion the former link should be used as it puts a context on the video ('Indian authorities say life is returning to normal in Kashmir. ...'), but then there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the latter). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the use cases is avoiding paywalls. The example I've cited repeatedly in this discussion is Killing of George Floyd, where NYT and WaPo analyses of videos are used extensively as sources. We link to the official pages at NYT and WaPo, which have the videos plus some introductory text. But those are both paywalled. However, both NYT and WaPo uploaded their videos to YouTube, where they are available for free. So our citations link to both: the paywalled official websites, and the free YouTube videos. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree to that solution as well, but I think hat many people will just link to the NYT link, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the overwhelming majority of videos on YT are not reliable sources. But that's also true for the overwhelming majority of websites. And television. And radio. Hell, go into a bookstore and the majority of books won't be reliable sources (the majority will probably be fiction!), yet we do not have filters for citing books or radio programs. Even NYTimes.com is filled with unreliable op/ed. But we don't add a filter for it. I don't see what good a warn filter for YT will do; it will only be an annoyance. Focusing on the platform is just the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how YT is different from any other platform or media. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on Levivich basically: there should not be restrictions on the use of YouTube videos broadly, but obviously editors must be assure of the channel owner, their relationship to a reliable source, and other issues related to copyright before using a video, and with all that considered, maybe <1% of the videos on YT would even qualify as usable sources. But they do qualify. Blacklisting youtube.com thus is not right, but having an edit filter that takes one or two extra steps for editors that know what they are doing , is that reasonable, to prevent editors that don't know what they are doing from adding random YT videos all the time? It would be nice to have stats to know how bad this "problem" is - how many bad YT links are added to good ones, because I'm certain that it's far less than 99:1. If for every proper YT link addition we had to deal with 2 bad ones, that's probably not a point to add an edit filter, but 10:1 would be. --Masem (t) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and Levivich:, exactly, but that is not what is done here. It is here bluntly stated by many that because there is some good stuff, there can’t be a problem. That is what I am now arguing, we ignore the point that we may have 25 bad insertions for each good one. We may have 25 good additions for 1 bad one. Even if it is a ratio of, non negotiable, bad copyvios to good links of 1:1 we here say: we don’t care, there is good stuff. We don’t know, so the plain argument ‘but there is good material’ wins.

I have done these stats once for XLinkBot for one site, likely youtube, on the external links. I don’t recall numbers, but I remember that 20% were copyvio.

This RfC feels to me like a poison test ... it can’t be bad, we have one survivor. We need numbers. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, data > opinion, especially my opinion. :-D Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, for reverting references we don't have anything to go by, XLinkBot did not revert any youtube links that were properly used as references (i.e., within ref-tags) for over a year. For the other things, it reverted a youtube spammer just yesterday (Special:Contributions/Weeble69), and one 4 days ago (Special:Contributions/Anjyog), and someone promoting himself 5 days ago (Special:Contributions/Pakkepunjabi). I know that there it sometimes reverts youtube links which were meant to be a reference (new editor not knowing how we format references; see e.g. diff), but the number of times that happens does likely not outweigh the number of spammers that get reverted, the number of questionable linkfarms in external links, marginally related youtube links, and copyright violations. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 23 July 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.

RfC: PressTV

What is the reliability of PressTV?

• 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?

(t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PressTV)

• 4 Iranian propaganda outlet (similar to the deprecated HispanTV — see discussion), repeatedly publishes conspiracy theories and other blatant lies. Indeed, the deprecation of all channels of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting should be considered. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If we deprecate all Iranian state channels, then isn't that basically banning all viewpoints of the Iranian government and its supporters from Wikipedia? The POV of the Iranian government need not be treated as fact, but should be given due consideration on Iran-related topics per WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I saw your vote above to give option 1 to MEMRI. Does MEMRI not routinely publish conspiracy theories and extremist content? For example consider this article from MEMRI and this from Press TV.VR _talk 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that MEMRI is just providing a translation and does not vouch for the truth value of everything it translates. Similarly, non-conspiracy outlets sometimes report on faleshoods and conspiracy theories without stating that they are factual. PressTV on the other hand is actually promoting a conspiracy theory as fact. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe I'm talking about how they would be used here. The current PressTV guideline requires attribution, and does not consider PressTV as a source of fact. How is maintaining this statusquo worse than allowing MEMRI as a source? Both allowing MEMRI as a source and allowing PressTV as a source with attribution have the exact same consequences for wikipedia.VR _talk 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe MEMRI does produce original reporting, thats actually the vast majority of what they produce. Just go to their home page [1] and look. MEMRI and PressTV are extremely similar in their unreliability, not so much in most other ways. They are in the same class of source, I consider them both deprecation worthy for publishing disinformation with few upsides to their use. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and holocaust denial 1 2 3 recently claiming that “Zionist elements developed a deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran" 4 Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments about Press TV representing the sole mouthpiece of the Iranian govt are convincing. Russia has TASS, which in the 2019 RfC was found to be usable as as source of the Russian govt's views. Iran has other news agencies including Islamic Republic News Agency, AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA), Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency and Iran Press some of which have also recieved similar criticsm over antisemtism like Press TV, like Mehr News Agency. Ultimately, we shouldn't be citing a source that publishes stories like Two-thirds of UK adults dispute number of Holocaust victims: Study when there are less odious alternatives. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Then you need to take a look at this survey by Holocaust Memorial Day (UK). Just to tell you how this appeared. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Press TV report states:

More than 65 percent of adults in Britain believe that the Holocaust, the alleged genocide of Jews during the Second World War, has not taken place in the way that historians claim, a new study shows

While the actual text of the study states:

It shows that 64% of people polled either do not know how many Jews were murdered or grossly underestimate the number

Press TV's wording is a gross distortion of what the study was actually says, some other quotes from the article:

According to some historians, around six million Europeans were killed by the Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945.

Many in the UK and other European countries have constantly rejected claims that around two-thirds of European Jews were killed by the Nazi Germany during the Second World War, saying Holocaust was a historic fabrication which helped Israel occupy Palestine under the banner of protection of Jews.

Under immense pressure from Israel and other Semitist lobbies, many European governments have outlawed the denial of holocaust and continue to impose fines and prison sentences on those denying the incident.

The (implicit) suggestion of these quotes is that there is good reason to doubt the Holocaust, referring to it as an "alleged genocde" and stating that "some historians" have claimed it had happened, when the concensus among mainstream historians is unanimous, and the claim that this recognition is pushed by Zionist lobbies is an antisemitic canard. This article from 2008 states:

The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs

Press TV was banned in the UK in 2012 (and remains so) after airing forced confessions of journalist Maziar Bahari. Given that Iran has one of the world's lowest press freedoms, like China, essentially all media outlets from Iran are quasi-official government mouthpieces anyway. But like China, I would expect that that this would vary between outlets, for example Xinhua and the People's Daily closely represent the government line, but Global Times is more jingoistic than the official government position, even though it is ultimately controlled by the PRC. Can you name me something especially valuable on Press TV that isn't in other Iranian news agencies or newspapers like the Tehran Times? We should never be citing something that calls the Holocaust an "alleged genocide", end of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. Press TV is certainly not reliable on issues relating to antisemiitism. But it is a major source for the viewpoint of many in Iran, including the government. It should be used with attribution and only on articles related to Iran and the region.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 I'd rather cite the Daily Mail. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is already on WP:RS/P, I think. This is Iranian state propaganda that promotes conspiracy theories and antisemitism; I don't see any need for it. If the views of the Iranian government are necessary in an article, that can be reflected using other, independent sources. Neutrality^talk 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 - It's state propaganda, no different than RT, KCNA, OANN, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Can't think of legit uses. Readers of Wikipedia are meant to have some confidence in the quality of underlying sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn: there is a legit use: to be used, with proper attribution, to present the view of the Iranian government respecting the guidelines in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. If such a view was due it would be mentioned in a good secondary sources which should then be used. By voting "4" I am voting for deprecation. There may be some theoretical edge-cases where the source can be used, but as I say, I can't think of one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4, This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 based on the Consensus we reached few years ago: The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [2]--Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Sa.vakilian: While that conclusion may be valid at the time, in the intervening years both examples quoted - RT and the Daily Mail - have both been deprecated and should not be used for such purposes by common agreement. PressTV should be no different. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 in bold, underlined, italic and ideally in a large font. Holocaust denialism is a bit of a red flag. Guy (help!) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG No one is saying that it should be used for statements of fact. But PressTV can be used, when properly attributed, for Iran related topics to present the view of the Iranian government.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, no, I don't think so. Let's link the government press release directly, not a cesspit that repeats it possibly unmodified. Guy (help!) 22:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jzg I am not following you here. Are you saying that Iranian government press releases are OK sources but Iranian state TV is not an OK source? That sounds like a contradiction.VR _talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: taking many of the "4" votes to their natural conclusions, we will end up banning most viewpoints coming out of Iran (a country of 80 million people). This is because all media in Iran is state-regulated to some degree, and the degree of that interference can change quickly. In the end, current Iranian affairs will solely be presented through sources outside of Iran, some of whom are openly hostile to its people and their culture (e.g. 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy). This will have negative implications for both WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Systemic bias.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Iran has banned most viewpoints comming out of Iran, wikipedia is just acknowledging that. Adding a theoctratic regimes propaganda doesn't do anything for neutraility or systemic bias.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Once an organization starts dabbling in holocaust denial you really can't trust much of anything they say. What ever small gain there may be from using their content for direct comments from the Iranian government, doesn't make up for the damage of sending users to an antisemetic website.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: The source can be used with proper attributions for Iran related topics. There's a recent consensus over its usage for expressing the Iranian voice. Moreover, deprecating this major Iranian state channels clearly goes in line with promoting Systemic bias. I still see no valid argument as to why this source should not be used with attribution for Iran related topics. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: I oppose blacklisting major newsorgs on principle, even unreputable ones like PressTV. Blacklisting newsorgs means that you lose major perspectives that wouldn't otherwise be represented. PressTV is the only English-language neworg based in Iran, so blacklisting it means you lose the whole Iranian perspective.

For example, here is an interview with international human rights law expert Alfred de Zayas. De Zayas isn't a nobody - he's like one of the top 10 experts in the world. But he is a vocal critic of US involvement in Venezuela, Bolivia, Yemen (by proxy) and other places so he is not interviewed very often on American news networks. So if you want to add his opinions about, say Yemen, to his own Wikipedia article you have to source it from PressTV (or Russia Today or some equally "shady" newsorg). Except, you can't! PressTV is #4 and verboten so even though you have both the video and the quotes from the interview in front of you, you are forbidden from adding it to Wikipedia. Same for Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza who also isn't welcome in American TV. ImTheIP (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing deprecation and blacklisting. Using an interview of de Zayas with PressTV would still be possible if there is a local consensus for that particular citation, per WP:DEPS. Imo it would be equivalent to citing de Zayas' blog, assuming he has one, according to WP:SPS. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Deprecation pretty effectively discourages the use of the source and there is also an automatic revert bot for ip users. Yes, you can argue for an exception if you have read up on all the latest WP:RULES and if you dare to argue why a link to an antisemitic conspiracy site is warranted (with the risk of being sanctioned if your argument doesn't hold up). Most people won't bother or will just add whatever they wanted to add without sourcing it which is even worse.ImTheIP (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, yes, it does. And given that PressTV has a history of holocaust denial, conspiracy mongering and bullshit, that is exactly how it should be handled: with a strong presumption against use, subject to exception by local consensus. That's option 4, by the way. Guy (help!) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Propaganda mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought you have something to add based on the RS policy. But wait, you're exactly asking to censor the Iranian government POV. I think ImTheIP is better than me at explaining this.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: for Holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. We should also be weary of other similar state propaganda agencies; they should not have a place in Wikipedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Unreliable for areas with demonstrated bias by the Iranian government e.g. fringe views on the Holocaust, but reliable in general non-political matters or for views of the Iranian government and their allies. Examples of their recent articles [3][4][5] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Press TV is a state sponsored media outlet of the Iranian government. In my opinion, it publishes false and fabricated information. It is a highly biased pro-Iranian news outlet. I would advise to avoid using it in almost every possible case; however, there might arise a situation where an editor who specializes in the field of Iranian politics and government affairs will feel that its usage is justified. An example of possible usage would be reporting that the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers met in Moscow in July to discuss the ongoing Iran nuclear deal. However, it is preferred that this foreign minister meeting were reported using a generally reliable source. If Press TV is used, it should be attributed. (as an aside: I cannot support deprecation, option 4, because it is equivalent to a ban) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: Holocaust denial gives an idea of the type of false propaganda outlets like Press TV spreads. I love Iranians and they have an incredible history, but if we introduce the Iranian regime's practices into Wikipedia (ie. using sources like Press TV), we are lending to an agenda that has no problems lying and spreading fake news. I acknowledge that our system in the West is by no means perfect, but here our governments don't openly execute journalists for their ideas. There is a MAJOR difference. Ypatch (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Though it's a state sponsored outlet but has some good coverage of the region. It can be used as reliable source other than of Iranian government stances where it should be attributed to government. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 Blacklisting of that or other similar Iranian official media outlets does not make sense originally, because they cover Iranian domestic news which are absence in non-Iranian media outlets. Benyamin (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, allow with attribution as a source for Iranian state perspectives (status quo) PressTV is a very biased source. However, its perspective is crucial to all Iran-related articles as the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and its level of detail is rarely met in non-Persian-language sources. Consider this PressTV report today. Its level of details about Khamenei's speech yesterday, with a direct video of Khamenei's address for cross-reference and checking by any Persian speaker, is simply not matched by the more generally reliable sources (see corresponding AJ English, Reuters article). For example, from AJ we only know:

Khamenei said, "But the smart Iranian has made the best use of this attack, this animosity and benefited ... by using sanctions as a means to increase national self-reliance."

From PressTV we know:

Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian people are smart and have taken advantage of the enemy’s sanctions, gaining achievements against the enemy’s will.

He went on to say that the US’ secondary sanctions led the Iranian scientists and producers to indigenize what the country could not provide because of Washington’s bans.

He pointed to the production of the advanced homegrown jet fighter Kowsar, the spare parts produced inside the country, the establishment of thousands of knowledge-based companies, the Persian Gulf Star Refinery built by the IRGC, and the major energy projects in southern and Western Iran as examples of the Islamic Republic’s achievements under the sanctions.

“Had they sold us a jet aircraft, we would not have produced the jet trainer Kowsar inside the country,” he said.

“They [enemies] have admitted that Iran managed to manufacture so many defensive products at the time of sanctions.”

Same for another of today's articles, "Iran's largest industrial livestock farm opens near Tehran". I see absolutely no reason that PressTV would fabricate anything about this, and as far as I have found this is the only English-language source that talks about this sheep farm at Fashafoyeh. Deprecating PressTV at large is a disservice.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Propaganda mouthpieces, such as this one, do not provide "coverage". They are not designed to provide facts, they are designed to influence. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 and 3 - this is the state press of the Iranian government. As such, sometimes the reporting will be accurate, sometimes it won't be, but it is a reliable source for the views of the Iranian establishment. Quite obviously, then, it should be used with attribution. Statements that it should be deprecated because it includes propaganda are worthless from our perspective, as all national media include propaganda. Deprecation on this principle would cause us to shut out viewpoints of major governments and peoples who are not politically aligned with the US or UK, doing a disservice to our readers and contravening Wikipedia's status as an international encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 I think if an article relied entirely on Press TV or similar coverage we would need to either find better sources or think about deleting it. However the point has been made above that the Iranian government has views and positions on things that we can use Press TV to verify. If Holocaust denial is the issue that concerns people then perhaps we ought to refuse to give any space to any mention of Iranian government views, since they are the source of Holocaust denial in Iran; the editorial decisions of an individual channel are secondary. Also Press TV makes a habit of interviewing Western politicians from outside the mainstream, and these interviewees sometimes make comments in Press TV interviews that they have not made elsewhere. The verifiability of those comments depends on our being able to source them to the relevant interview. If we just source to what someone else claims the person said in a Press TV interview, we’ll go wrong again. Finally, most national news in most countries is not entirely independent and reliable. All public media in China deny or ignore large-scale punishments and incarceration in Xinjiang. Most Japanese media deny or downplay the Shanghai Massacres. I doubt you would get much from sources close to the Serbian government on the topic of Srebrenica that wasn’t bluster, deflection and conspiracy theory. Does a single Russian news outlet cover the war in the Ukraine honestly? If we start knocking off sources close to unpleasant regimes or sources that share in their country’s blind spots we will be left with ‘the sum of all human knowledge according to the New York Times’ and that’s not really viable. We have to exercise our judgement in using sources, and look for the most reliable ones we can, but we have to work with what’s out there. Even KCNA can tell us what Pyonyang claims/thinks, even if it is pretty much useless for anything else. Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 as an infamous disinformation outlet. There is almost no upside to keeping them around, any reporting we could use would still be of their regular low quality. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 pure state media --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe, disinformation service. Cavalryman (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

• Option 3 (or Option 4 as alternative), per Guest2625. Most people in this RFC have cited PressTV's Holocaust denial as the basis for depreciating the source; while I agree that it is a significant red flag, I think PressTV is usable for the Iranian government's viewpoints only (hence it should not be deprecated); the source should be used with in-text attribution (or attributed to the Iranian government) if it is used in any Wikipedia article. For everything else that PressTV reports, I would think that other (much better) sources should be available to cite instead; if PressTV is the sole available source, its probably undue. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 and 3 Generally, I presume that PressTV is an appropriate source for the users to use it particularly in the news which are related to Iran --for example, concerning Iranian government's viewpoints--. On the other hand, it seems to be useful/trustworthy in regards to the Middle-East issues, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. State media famous for disinformation. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Holocaust denial should be enough, let alone the disinformation. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• As an editor that has extensively covered the Syrian Civil War, I'd like to give my two cents. Finding non-biased sources that cover that conflict's more intricate details is nigh on impossible. Practically all publications that cover the war in any significant detail are either pro-government or pro-opposition. PressTV falls squarely in the first category, with a notable pro-Iranian twist. Though biased, publications like these are often used in the SCW community in addition to some other source with the opposite bias covering the same subject matter, in order to avoid bias and to provide additional information in terms of Iranian deals or troop deployments. For that reason, I'd suggest an Option 2/3 to allow PressTV only when used either with attribution for a claim made by Iranian or pro-Iranian groups or when used in addition to another source with an opposing editorial viewpoint. Option 4 when reffering to Jews, Israel, the Holocaust or other very contentious topics. Goodposts (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Clear as daylight state propaganda by the IRI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Wikipedia is not an outlet for state media produced by the IRI, a dictatorial regime. Similar propaganda agencies funded/created by states who do not acknowledge the concept of "freedom of press" should likewise be banned from Wikipedia. If people need to present the viewpoint of the Iranian regime more appropriate sources can be chosen. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for being an outlet controlled by a dictatorship. Then there is the holocaust denial [6], not to mention the "interview" with Maziar Bahari where he had been told he could face the death penalty if he didn't say the right things [7]. All of that said, I think the fact that they are an outlet controlled by a dictatorship should be sufficient reason, without any need for the rest. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PressTV)

Comment and Question Apparently, those who have participated in this RFC, took position based on their political and ideological tendencies and at least 5 of those who have considered it as totally unreliable referred to antisemitic and holocaust denial contents. Even if this allegation is true, is there any policy or guideline which says antisemitic and holocaust denial contents will lead to total unreliability of a source?!--Seyyed(t-c) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PressTV's reliability as a source seems to have been discussed before but seems not to have been entered on the Perennial Sources board. Should such a major state broadcaster be omitted from scrutiny? There are citations on such pages as State of Palestine, for example, where such referencing might be considered contentious. Our article on them is not shy of denouncing them in various ways, so shouldn't there be a consensus attempted? GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Press TV indeed has an entry on RSP, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Press TV Press TV has been cited roughly 2,000 times combining presstv.com   and presstv.ir  . I was thinking about calling a deprecation RfC considering their repeated promotion of Holocaust denial, but you beat me to the punch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! So there is! My ctrl+F didn't find it because I was writing "PressTV" without the space. And yes, that's the way I would like it to go; I don't see how they're better than Sputnik. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think sources should be deprecated unless in very special circumstances. Furthermore, I don't think the consensuses on this page really represent anything more than the opinions of those who like to vote a lot. It appears to me that a lot of people vote based on their opinion of the source rather than whether the source is reliable or not. I think people should use their own judgement rather than these kind of blanket bans. ImTheIP (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand this for some sources, but Press TV promotes and advocates for conspiracy theories, which makes it akin to something like Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't people just exercise caution? A while ago I wanted to use an article from Russia Today as a source and the stupid filter stopped me. In that case, I knew the source was correct because other news sites articles said the same thing but the RT one was more to the point. I don't see the problem of linking to Breitbart either if it is for uncontroversial stuff.ImTheIP (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decides what is uncontroversial? GPinkerton (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, if other sources say the same thing, use other sources. If they don't, well, it's probably not true. Guy (help!) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think editors should have to use other sources. If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate. Blanket ban of sources are wrong because it cuts off minority perspectives. For example, if a famous Iranian general wrote an op-ed in PressTV, we wouldn't be able to cite it unless that op-ed was republished in other sources. That is not fair. ImTheIP (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate". You said it - "within reason".

If you deliberately use an unreliable source such as RT where alternative reliable sources are known to be available, all you're doing is creating work for whoever later comes along, finds the unreliable source, and has to redo the research to replace it. That puts it well outside the bounds of "within reason". Kahastok talk 22:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has to clean Wikipedia of links to RT. ImTheIP (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, but most Wikipedians do, because RT is a Russian propaganda outlet. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG Iranian viewpoints are often not presented in other sources, or those sources might distort Iranian viewpoints. This doesn't just apply to Iranian politics, but they could simply misrepresent what's happening inside Iran. We already have the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy and I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen Fox News openly attack the culture and religion of the Iranian people.VR _talk 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, WP is supposed to reflect the major viewpoints represented in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). Iranian media being conspiratorial and fake news does reduce the number of reliable sources which reflect Iranian perspectives. Maybe they could clean up their act. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, we don't reduce our standards to include shitty sources because they are the only ones that repeat what shitty people say. Guy (help!) 22:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a reasonable assumption that the views of the Iranian government also reflect the views of a substantial portion of the people of Iran (although how many Iranians agree with their government is controversial, see this example). So saying "shitty people" is really uncalled for. Consider what implications your comment has for WP:Systemic bias.VR _talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship; there is absolutely no reason to assume any such thing. Just the opposite, in fact. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, so there is a Canadian National Post article/op-ed that is filled with bunk and within days other sources like the AP, Reuters, AFP, and an Israeli at the National Post show it too be bunk. If anything your example shows we don't need PressTV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the legitimacy of this approach: Apparently, the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which runs or supports by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states. First, Russia Today[8], now Press TV and later many Chinese as well as Arab media. So this trend will undermine the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV and it needs a broader consensus. I mean the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so why should there be any reliance placed on sources that are not only censored, but openly embrace chanting out the party line? If we need to take a government's word for something, or represent their views, we can quote their own websites and press releases. There's no need to apply the distorting lens of that state's pet media organizations. GPinkerton (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you have not got the point and your argumentation is absurd. From the beginning, Wikipedia has declared that it does not believe in an orthodox or main stream narration, thus it has chosen to narrate all of the viewpoints, even the viewpoints of Fascists. Thus if we want to write a neutral article about Benito Mussolini, we should cover his own viewpoint as well, no matter how Fascist he would be. In addition, your argumentation is based on self-contradiction. If wikipedia policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, then it should not censor anything.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with GPinkerton here. If we need to quote the Iranian regime for their POV, we can go directly to their websites rather than having to weed out all the rubbish that these state-sponsored publicity outlets publish. I've come across so much of this recently and it's been very time consuming going through endless RfCs and talk page discussions trying to show what we already know about these outlets. The problem is that the Iranian regime's disinformation has spread beyond Iranian media:

• How Iran spreads disinformation around the world Reuters
• Iran’s threats to BBC Persian staff must be confronted The Guardian
• Facebook dismantles disinformation network tied to Iranian media Al jazeera
• Iran's propaganda implies Soleimani is being widely mourned — and the U.S. press is buying it NBC
• Iran has online disinformation operations, too CNN
• Iranian Propaganda Abroad

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A good strategy, so take this:

• BBC to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 after false child abuse allegations
• WATCH: BBC forced to apologise on air for 'fake news' GERS figure
• BP denies BBC accusations over Senegal gas deal
• BBC admits ‘anti-Semitism’ claim against Jackie Walker was false. Where’s LABOUR’S apology?
• Corbyn claims BBC report on anti-Semitism in Labour full of ‘inaccuracies’

Hahaha...--Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Funny, using Scottish Nationalist paper to attack the BBC (!) and then using a Labour Party blog to ... try to deflect criticism of the Labour Party and harp on their eternal victimhood and then using an oil company's denials to ... prove the unreliability of the BBC ...? What's next, using PressTV to attack the legitimacy of Israel? Using RT to say how wonderful Putin is? Please ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Be serious please. I tried to show how absurd the editor's argument is. You can discredit The Guardian, France 24, Times of Israel and etc using your own labels. Who cares? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The first link involves a mistaken report for which there was a settlement and an acknowledgment. It is the conduct that makes a source reliable since all sources are wrong from time to time. The second was an acknowledgment that a host said "Scottish spending" when he should have said "Scottish and UK spending in Scotland," which they corrected promptly. Third, petroleum extractor claims reporting on their extracting is wrong, with no evidence it is wrong.???? Fourth, personal blog, who cares. Fifth, politician claims errors, with no evidence there are errors. So???. You compare this to holocaust denial and aggressive antisemetism?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

...and who asked to use PressTV for holocaust denial? Most of the users are puzzled here and even don't care what the discussion is. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millenial

I would like to propose the deprecation of The Post Millenial as a source of information used on Wikipedia. There have been enough incidents now to show that the source is not reliable:

• The site was posting United Arab Emirates propaganda from fake journalists. [9]
• Multiple instances of presenting hoaxes as facts. For instance, most recently, the website claimed a murdered protester shot a car five times [10], a hoax and fabrication which later had to be corrected by them [11]
• Site received criticism from Bellingcat [12]
• Site employs controversial bloggers like Andy Ngo ("editor at large") who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information, according to outlets like OregonLive (added BeŻet (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

The site should not be treated as a reliable source of information, the same way The Daily Caller isn't. BeŻet (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd think that's a good idea. Past discussions seem along these lines, e.g. archive 278 (their ethics policy was plagiarised), archive 289 (unreliable and undue), archive 296 (rating it "generally unreliable"), this CBC article on it as a source. If others concur, do you want to do this as a properly-formed deprecation RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent example ... MOST of the media covered this incident the exact same way. This is why we put huge warning tags on articles about recent events (and especially breaking news like in this example)... the press frequently gets it wrong for a few days.

The important question is: Does an outlet issue corrections once the facts become clearer? Reliable media sources do, unreliable sources do not. So, does Post Millennial issue corrections? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of past discussion is pretty clearly that it's a terrible source that shouldn't be used - the question is only if it should be more actively barred from being used. You're asking the question about corrections, do you have evidence to present that the answer is yes? Do you have, more generally speaking, fresh evidence that it isn't a terrible source, one given to fabrications and conspiracy theories, as documented in the previous discussions? - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• They do not issue corrections. In fact, per [13], after they were contacted about posting articles from fake personas, they were one of the ones whose reaction was: deleted their articles without any statement. That's almost a textbook way to be classified as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's hardly unusual that a site has "received criticism" from Bellingcat. This is true for plenty of reliable sources and most of the ones I know of are on the left. Connor Behan (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. They'd probably love it if we did it. Oh! The poor oppressed centrists who just want to speak the hard truth, cancelled by the left fascist cabal that runs Wikipedia. We'd be doing them a favour! Has thepostmillennial.com been used to support false claims? Not as far as I can tell. It's been used in 2018_Ontario_general_election to support the claim that they endorsed the PC, which they did. In Garnett Genuis it supports a claim that Genuis wrote something in the post millennial (he did). Its use in List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is unproblematic, but probably could have been sourced to something else. in Belinda Karahalios it support the claim that Tanya Granic Allen made an accusation (she did, in an opinion piece in the PM. In Marc_Kielburger it's one of three sources, and could probably be omitted. The writer makes the hilarious observation that "Canadaland has an obvious bias and activist bent to its publishing". Pot, meet kettle. In Barbara Kay it's pretty just linking to what Kay had to say about herself, and again, she did say those things. Same with Barbara Kay controversy she's used again, as a source in Edward Kruk for "national and international media have interviewed Kruk and quoted his research", and Kay does indeed say '"We ignore the problem of father absence to our peril," wrote Associate Professor Edward Kruk, from the University of British Columbia, in 2006.' That's a completely unnecessary quote used to inflate his importance, but the PM's use is is hardly controversial. I'm not a fan of the Post Millennial, nor of Andy Ngo, I just don't see how your proposal would do any good. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

10 uses in article space strikes me as 9 too many, frankly. What the deprecated source would think of being deprecated is in no way a consideration - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Except the comment just proved it's not 9 too many by showing that those uses follow proper WP:ABOUTSELF policy. Connor Behan (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite an evident conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[14]. There is a problem of consistency in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. The examples listed by the OP for why it is not reliable don't strike me as particularly compelling: one of them amounts to an ad hominem fallacy, another was an error that they corrected (errors happen all the time in news reporting — corrections are a positive sign for establishing reliability). I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The check you linked was last updated over 6 months ago, before bigger controversies emerged. BeŻet (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And "Media Bias Fact Check" is, itself, not authoritative or even all that respected. Per WP:RSP, There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bellingcat says they publish disinformation, thats the line we use and they’re over it. I also see no good reason to keep them around, at best they’re a fringe low quality biased source and past consensus has clearly been to hold them as unreliable. Deprecate away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat cites one incident they published fake information, not that they constantly publish it. It also notes that "their article is much more carefully worded than those authored by Paul and Infowars" and "did not botch the basic facts". According to the CBC[15], The Post Millenial has links to the Conservative Party of Canada. You think that's fringe, Horse Eye Jack? Jeesh, from how far the other side of the political spectrum are you looking at this to see that as fringe? --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the text of that article (entitled "Canadian news site The Post Millennial blurs line between journalism and conservative ‘pamphleteering’") supports the argument for deprecation. Unofficial links to a political party doesn't make a source non-fringe. BTW I’m an American conservative (center-right on a global spectrum) so thats a swing and a miss when it comes to guessing my political affiliation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Starting an RfC, which is required for deprecation. Please use the following section as a survey. Horse Eye Jack; BeŻet, David Gerard, TheBlueCanoe, Vexations, Blueboar (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Post Millennial

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.

---

Should The Post Millennial be deprecated? (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed to deprecation. Deprecation should not be for borderline cases, and I think this falls into the “borderline” category. It has a reputation for bias, but also overall accuracy. Is it the most reliable of sources? No. But it is by no means the worst either. I would say we can use it, but with caution. Judge reliability on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation That's quite a non-issue with a source which is used just 9 times in the whole Wikipedia. Yes, they are WP:BIASED so anyone should be careful with due weight and attribution. I find many of the statements by the OP here to be exaggerations. I do recommend reading the pieces by the CBC and Bellingat. Neither article, while critical, is damning. Bellingcat says that they were more careful than other sources which were duped and that they did not "botch the basic facts", although they used the same framing as the fake articles elsewhere. The outlet was founded only in 2017 so it's possible they are improving, or then they will not. Either way this is jumping the gun and it's pointless to RfC a source that isn't even used. --Pudeo (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you'd need to show that they were improving to be convincing - merely stating it's a philosophical possibility without providing any evidence is adding text without substance - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I would flip that... for us to deprecate, you would need to show that it has gained a significantly poor reputation. Deprecation should be reserved for the worst cases, not relatively borderline ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The RSes describing and documenting the site as fabricating information have already been presented, so this has been done, and Pudeo would indeed need to present actual countervailing RS evidence of the site's alleged improvement before it counts as a substantive claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat also calls their editor at large a "prominent individual within the disinformation ecosystem", and though it's a little more ambiguous appears to call them "disinformation". Loki (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - it's already considered generally unreliable, its main line is controversial hot takes on others' stories, it propagates conspiracy theories, it fabricates information - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per evidence above. It is quite clear that better sources will be always available, and given the history of posting hoaxes and fake news, we run into a risk of controversial content appearing in articles which would then require a case by case discussion; and it goes without saying that a strong bias is present, which seems to often get in the way of presenting facts in a neutral and understandable way. BeŻet (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - repeating my comments above, despite a conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[16]. There is some inconsistently in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • mediabiasfactcheck.com is literally just some guy's blog - it is not considered a relevant source for assessing the quality of a source at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per the support !votes above, on the general philosophy of getting out in front of a problem before it can become worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• It should certainly be listed as generally unreliable , and I think nothing would be lost by outright deprecatation , though it may not be time for that quite yet. (There should probably be an RFC using the full "1-4 options" if this RFC specifically about option 4 does not reach consensus, or perhaps this RFC should be reconstituted to use the usual 1-4 options...?) They plagiarized even their "ethics" policy from other newspapers(!) and they've gone beyond merely being WP:BIASED into being inaccurate numerous times, as noted (with refs/links) a previous time the site was discussed on this noticeboard (and above). -sche (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the first time I looked at the website. The site looks horrendous. I would advise all editors to avoid using it. However, there might be some editors out there who know more than me about the site and when it would be appropriate to use. For this reason, I will not deprecate the site (aka ban it). I will have faith when an editor uses this site that they had a good reason and they will attribute the source. Also it might in this case be useful if people who care about reliable source minutiae were informed of its use, so they could look with unbiased eyes whether the sites usage made sense. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. I feel like we discussed this already? Here, at least. They plagiarized their ethics policy, for heaven's sakes: In fact, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. The quote from a journalism professor at the end in particular summarizes them as They claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering. More generally, pretty much all the coverage of them is sharply negative - there's just no indication that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RSN requires. Anyone can start a blog to repost the news with their personal political spin on it, but there's no evidence that they do any sort of actual reporting or fact-checking at all, so I don't see how they're usable as a source - and the plagiarized ethics policy is particularly alarming because it implies that they are trying to appear to be reliable and respectable when they aren't. That's exactly the sort of source we ought to be depreciating. Also see [17], specifically the fact that when contacted about a clear error they did not issue a correction but instead deleted their [article] without any statement. This is not how an WP:RS behaves. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. We have tons of reliable sources saying that they fabricate information. I don't know how anyone could oppose depreciation for a source like that. Loki (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Part of this is on principle I don't think we should reflexively deprecate sources. That is something that should be reserved for only rare cases and cases where otherwise the source might be widely used. That doesn't mean this is a quality source but that doesn't mean we should out right block it. No matter what some say, deprecation ends up being a out right ban on the use of the source. There is another issue here. This is a relatively new site. What if the issues are "growing pains" and we don't see the issues repeat? Well then we are taking a biased but "reliable" site off the table based on past sins rather than current performance. Note that so far these are rather universal arguments rather than specific to The Post Millennial. The concern about a early news source that might be making newbie mistakes is legit. The site is just 3 years old so we really don't have a long history to go on. If things are improving then 5 years from now we are going to prevent people from citing a possibly legitimate site for things they did when they just started. As for the specific issues, I find BeŻet's arguments far from convincing. The guilt by association with Andy Ngo is problematic and is not sufficient to prove the site should be deprecated. It is unfortunate that the news sources was deceived by a false source but a critical question is, did they correct? That the DailyBeast makes a fuss over this isn't surprising. The DB is on the muck raking side and is one of several sources that seems to go for click bait stories that make "the other side" look bad. Consider this line from The DailyBeast article in question, "The Post Millennial, founded by conservative writer Andy Ngo,". Is there any truth to that statement? The evidence offered by the DB is a 2019 story about Ngo leaving Quillette. Since the PM was founded in 2017 how does this work out? If Ngo founded the PM why isn't that mentioned in his BLP? This same source is telling us that PM removed embarrassing stories but they are making their own gross mistakes. CBC says the source blurs the line but that is true for many sources that we don't deprecate. Certainly this site hasn't earned a RS status but I think deprecating at this point is premature. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• • While it's certainly a pretty new source, it's developed enough of a reputation already that other reputable sources are calling it "disinformation". Part of the problem with your logic is that disinformation websites tend to spring up very quickly in order to get as much shit past the fan as possible before people realize they're unreliable. But we're at a point in the cycle where that's firmly happened and so I don't think we should delay deprecation out of some notion of how long it "typically" takes for a news organization to be deprecated. Loki (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree new sites do pop up frequently. But why is it imperative to deprecate this one? Why not just mark it as questionable reliability - seen as too heavily biased to be a RS and leave it at that? Conversely, note that it has been criticized but if that criticism drops off that would indicate the quality is improving. Sadly there seems to be a lot of cases of information sources sniping at each other. It very much seems like the most important thing to CNN is proving Fox is lying to viewers and the opposite for Fox with respect to CNN. Still, so far the actual merit of the claims against the PM, per the opening of this RfC, are not very impressive. This seems like a combination of "we don't like what they want to talk about/their POV" + "we found proofthey lied" sort of stuff. I think it would be better to simply treat it on a case by case basis. The deprecation process seems like it is becoming an unpopularity contest rather than a last resort process. Springee (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (I already expressed my opinion of the proposal, further up): given that this site has been discussed several times and that even the users who oppose deprecation often admit the site is generally unreliable, I would suggest that in the event there is not suport for the proposal which amounts to 'standard option 4' in other RfCs about reliability, the closer(s) of the discussion consider whether there is functionally support for option 3 (adding the site to WP:RSP as generally unreliable), or whether, in the interests of procedural formality, we need a second RfC on that question as soon as this one closes. -sche (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a "generally option 3" would make more sense here. I'm still a bit wary of that option in general since I think we are often more inclined to defer to that list rather than ask if the arguments/evidence in an article actually make sense. I'll take a very old example, Mother Jones Pinto Madness. This is an article that, to the discredit of the Pulitzer board, was a reward recipient. However, when one reviews the evidence and arguments as well as removes any ideological assumptions, the article really missed the mark. However, per our RS rules we would have to treat the outlandish claims in the article as accurate had it not been for later academic study that illustrated the errors in the work.[[18]] If the arguments are sound we shouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss. If the source is really that poor then we won't have to worry about finding disagreements between the assessment of a specific article vs the RSP general assessment. BTW, I can only think of one time the PM was cited in an article. That article didn't survive AfD. Springee (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation. Unusable for facts on the basis of a history of publishing conspiracist claptrap, and unusable for opinion (its primary function) because its editorial policies do not invest the opinions with any weight of significance. We would include opinion pieces from the WSJ because there is a high bar to inclusion, even when the opinions are climate change denialist BS. With The Post Millennial there is no such bar: it's a dark money funded online "magazine", cheap to run and replete with Orwellian claims to be "Your Reaosnable Alternative". Its factual stories are not, as far as a sample I checked goes, the result of its own original reporting, and better sources will likely always exist; news articles seem to be basically spin added on to other people's reporting. Its opinion articles are not RSOPINION. It exists primarily to "flood the zone", and there is no redeeming quality that rescues it. We simply don't need obscurely-funded sources that exist solely to publish hot takes favouring one side or the other. Guy (help!) 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but list as generally unreliable. Note that I am a participant in several of the previous RSN discussions regarding this source. TPM has trash-tier reporting and is sufficiently partisan that its viewpoints often lack representation in reliable sources. However, compared with the short list of successfully deprecated sources, it lacks 1) those sources' history, and 2) the number of outside RS describing those sources as disinformation. Lacking the strength of history and sourcing that led to previous deprecations, I think deprecating TPM would considerably lower the standard required for deprecation too precipitously. This source is bad! But it's not as bad as those, and edge cases may exist where it is useful. Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh no. This source occasionally cites (and attributes) wikipedia for really, really significant details like allegations of abuse of a minor and the definition of conservatism. Jlevi (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation on process grounds Deprecating a source ought to be treated as a very serious affair. It ought to be accompanied by solid research showing widespread problems (not simply a laundry list of anecdotes). The RFC statement itself doesn't even hint at relevant evidence. I recognize that this formal RFC immediately follows a more informal request, but that request started with a very short list of anecdotes (one of which I think is seriously misrepresented). Even if every single one of those anecdotes could be verified, that shouldn't be close to the bar for deprecation of the source. Many sources we rightfully except accept as reliable sources have that many problems every year.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation Thoroughly unreliable with no redeeming features I can think of. Hoaxes and fake news. Volunteer Marek 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation on process grounds: per S Philbrick, who summed it up perfectly. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. The set of circumstances in which this could appropriately cited in an encyclopedia is virtually nil. Being cited even 10 times on Wikipedia is about 10 times too many. Neutrality^talk 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation for publishing blatant copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), also it's hard to think of an appropriate and beneficial use of this source. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - The fact they plagiarized their ethics policy means really shot themselves in the foot. It's 2020! We can compare and check text! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Post Millennial hosts batshit crazy anti-science opinion articles written by political activist John Carpay[19] who founded Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a group trying to change Canada's constitution. The PM plagiarized their own ethics statement.[20] The PM published fake news items from the "Raphael Badani" group of fake accounts and then deleted them.[21] They used an article supposedly written by the fake author "Joseph Labba"[22] who had a computer-generated profile photo with telltale digital flaws.[23] The fake article said that Iraq protests were ceasing due to COVID-19, or perhaps not. On the topic, it quoted Sinan Antoon, seemingly commenting about COVID-19 and protests, but Antoon's words were from November, before the pandemic.[24] I don't think the PM can be trusted with any news. Certainly its opinion section is rife with falsehood. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't provided a source which says that the JCCF wants to change Canada's constitution or that wanting to change it is a bad thing. Connor Behan (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation has published falsehoods, repeatedly. It's a rubbish outlet, end of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm still of the mind that this process is out-of-process and goes against WP:PAGs. We should not be deprecating entire sources - it is like rating porn - unless, of course, the website itself poses a threat to our privacy and security. We certainly should not be participating in a decision-making process that is based on our own POV which may be opposite the ideology supported by a particular source, or what we perceive to be truth, right or wrong, social justice, or that may be against what our own WP:PAGs prescribe per WP:NOT. We are an encyclopedia that is supposed to represent the sum of all knowledge from a NPOV - like it or not. When we deprecate and downgrade entire sources, we are limiting our access to the free press and all available published material - and that opens the door to WP:POV creep and censorship. That is what happens when governments control the people, not vice versa. We should not be forcing a particular POV on our readers; rather, our job is to provide all substantial views, and allow our readers to decide for themselves. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well put. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Deprecating a source is different from blocking it. BeŻet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

lol, thanks that analogy made me laugh. To keep with the porn analogy...is it a porn film if there's no sex? No. Is it a reliable source if there's no reputation for accuracy or fact checking? No. It's not about POV's it's about being WP:reliable. I 'd like to point out a massive contradiction between what you've said here and your comments about Al Jazeera not being a reliable source on this same noticeboard. Bacondrum (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm surprised that after all the many debates in which you've participated here, you still miss the point. Deprecation creates only a presumption against using the source. That's clearly appropriate here: this is a source known only for opinions, many of which are egregiously incorrect because they draw in turn on crappy sources that we reject. The site provides nothing but right-wing spin, often by nobodies. No Wikipedian should be citing The Post Millennial. We should add it to the deprecated filter to remind people that you need a really good reason to use this source - exactly as applies to Occupy or The Gateway Pundit.

Wikipedia aspires to be a serious reference work not a news aggregator. The inclusions of opinions by professional opinion-havers in journals of opinion is fine in a news magazine, but we are not that.

• Oppose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we are to represent diverse perspectives we should selectively use material from a wide range of sources. The burden is on editors to use material selectively. This is difficult to do when a source of material has been deprecated. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation on process grounds. When you take out the WP:JDL parts, most arguments being used to support option 4 are actually the criteria that most closely match option 3. Connor Behan (talk) 15:18, 18 August 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.

The Australian

Australian media tends to not recieve much coverage on this noticeboard, the only one I can recall being the Quadrant RfC. The Australian is a major national newspaper and has been cited over 8,500 times per theaustralian.com.au  . I wouldn't bring up a national newspaper like this unless I had concerns about its reliability. These two opinion pieces [25] [26] from 2014-2015 describe The Australian as a deeply partisan publication, essentially in lockstep with the Liberal Party of Australia. Is this an accurate depiction? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for most subjects but needs attribution for political stories in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable it's apparently one of the most trusted Australian commercial news sources, just behind Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. They may be partisan, but it's not clear that it's affecting factual accuracy of their reporting. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If it's known for climate change denial, I would say we should avoid it for science related topics. (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Blatantly partisan, but also a real newspaper. Generally reliable, but perhaps do not use for science as noted by Buidhe - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, unlike the other Australian News Corp newspapers such as the Herald Sun or The Daily Telegraph, The Australian has a good reputation for factual accuracy, though it is definitely a highly partisan source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, it is owned by the News Corp Australia and, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, right-center biased. E.g., it claims the 2019-2020 bushfires in Australia have nothing to do with climate change. But generally speaking, the broadsheet newspaper has a reputation for accuracy.Tadyatha (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tadyatha: Obligatory comment that MBFC is just some guy's blog, and shouldn't be used to determine reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Noted. Thanks for pointing that out. My ignorance. Tadyatha (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, its one of the best quality Australian papers. Partisanship/bias is evident but doesnt effect reliability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable Quality centre-right broadsheet ala The Times and Daily Telegraph (UK); the opinion pieces linked are just routine partisan bickering. Did the criteria for being a RS change to "literally nothing but the NYT" at some point? --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. — Newslinger talk 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news more so than many other newspapers. It should also be reliable for computing / tech topics as it has had reporting on that for more than 40 years.—Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable - reputation for fact checking. As Buidhe notes their partisan views does not appear to have affected its factual accuracy. --Find bruce (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - Australia's only national newspaper. Has published for many years. The controversial articles are generally the opinion pieces. Deus et lex (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable generally, but the opinion pieces tend to be slanted more to the right than the left and should be used as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Kerry (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable Although it is a partisan source, it is about as reliable as the Daily Telegraph and The New York Times. They seem to have a good fact-checking process. The opinion pieces should be cited with caution though. This is the case for a lot of reputable news sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, opinion pieces may slant to the right, but no more than opinion pieces in the Guardian Australia and The Age / The Sydney Morning Herald tend towards the left. Cavalryman (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Reliable I loathe the Australian, but their news reportage is reliable. Their opinion pieces are where generally the dragons and devils lurk. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• GR - but exercise caution as with all news sources in today's clickbait environment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for straight news stories, opinions (when notable) should be attributed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable I look on The Australian as the counterweight to The Guardian. Both cover stories with a slightly different slant, but both are good at their journalism and may be relied on for accuracy. Opinion pieces in both lean further right and left respectively. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable This paper uses deceptive language to write what appears to be negative facts about people from the left of politics, without actually stating them absolutely, and without themselves actually having reliable sources for their apparent claims. It is also very selective in avoiding writing anything true but negative about the right side of politics in Australia, or true but positive about the left side of politics. As one of many outlets from the company in Australia, they clearly play a role as part of the NewsCorp broader campaign of discrediting the left side of politics. I have seen editors on Wikipedia claim something MUST be true because they saw it reported in both The Australian, and on Sky News, another NewsCorp outlet, or one of NewsCorp's tabloids, thinking they were independent. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I submit that we need to be very careful about trying to read representative consensus into the collected comments of editors on a journal that is, like most of Murdoch's outlets, hidden behind a paywall. It is pretty much universally agreed that at least parts of the paper are right wing (outrageously so for some opinion pieces), and in no way can it ever be described as left wing. To read the content, most people would have to pay a subscription to NewsCorp. Now that's something far more likely to be done by people with a right wing slant to their political stance to begin with, and unlikely to be done at all by anyone with views on the other side of the fence. It means that we can hardly read the comments above as generally reflecting those of people with views from right across the political spectrum. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey HiLo. I hate the Australian, its opinions columns are full of extremist lunacy, has published racist cartoons and opinions on more than one occasion. But their news reporting is pretty straight. Keep in mind Murdoch's monopoly here in Australia, if you are a journalist here you simply cannot rule out working for a Murdoch outlet, they own 70% of the media here. I personally count among my friend and family a number of excellent journalists including one who once worked at The Australian and one who currently works for the Herald Sun, they are both left and often take serious issue with the papers they work for, but there's not a whole lot of options work wise in Australian media. The Australian employs many journalists of a high caliber. Many at the ABC and Nine (formerly Fairfax) have worked at The Australian and vice versa. Its opinion columns are vile, but the news reportage is generally straight news reporting with editorial oversight etc. it has a conservative slant, but all outlets have a slant. Bacondrum (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Editors may be interested in seeing what the Australian populace thinks of The Australian. This year’s Digital News Report conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism says that 56% of Australians trust The Australian and 17% don’t trust it. This is around the middle of trust range for the sources which were surveyed. Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is, in fact, the highest trust for any named newspaper in Australia, ahead of The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Guardian.[27] --Pete (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems that the public doesn't view newspapers very favourably in comparison with television news. Regional and local newspapers are also trusted more than other newspapers such as the Murdoch paper. Burrobert (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
      • My take is that people assign trust based on how they compare what they read/view with what they can check. Looking at footage of something that's right there in rweal life, well, that works better than something that's just words on a page. On a more immediate, visceral level. And if it's a local paper, chances are that the reader has a very good knowledge of the subject already. The figures in the survey are a good start, but for reliable sourcing, we have to go on a higher standard than "what most people think". We're righting an encyclopaedia, after all. We, as editors, can check the facts, and look at journalistic standards, and give examples to each other. This noticeboard is particularly useful, because we get a dialogue going, and can look at specific cases and so on. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Preliminary discussions for a potential RFC on CNN and MSNBC

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.

---

Now that the RFC on Fox News has ended, I think it makes sense to have an RFC (or perhaps two separate RFCs) to see if the same (or similar) limitations should be implemented for CNN and MSNBC (the other US cable news outlets). Before doing so, however, I want to get a rough sense as to whether the community has any appetite for what could be another lengthy RFC so soon after the last one. And, if so, start discussion on how to neutrally word it. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe wait a bit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't see a point of RFCs for the sake of RFCs. Just because they are also cable news networks does not mean there has to be an RFC as well. FWIW, the last RFC on CNN in 2019 was SNOW closed. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because "Should CNN be deprecated or listed as generally unreliable" is blatantly a ridiculous question, I think any RfC on these sources is likely to be more nuanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely thinking of something more nuanced... NOT a deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So something like "CNN (for example) should not be used for coverage on right wing politics" or "MSNBC is treated as generally unreliable on political reporting"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "not generally reliable" is a more likely outcome than "generally unreliable", and would match the current status for Fox. The distinction being that the former suggests that the source may or may not be usable in any given situation, whereas the latter suggests that the source is unusable by default in the absence of a strong argument for exception. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We would also want to discuss the reliability of the opinion shows ... similar to how we discussed Hannity, Carlson, etc in the Fox RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• CNN and MSNBC should definitely be evaluated separately given that they're both high profile sources that would likely draw participation equivalent to the FOX RfC on their own. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Rosguill. CNN and MSNBC are not affiliated, and should be discussed separately. — Newslinger talk 20:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. SQL^{Query me!} 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed as in the current election climate such a discussion will be over-politicised, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the Fox News RFC that just ended, I think we have already crossed that bridge. In fact, I would think that having an RFC on other outlets would help de-politicize that one... it would show that we are holding all outlets up to the same level of scrutiny. Blueboar (talk)

I believe CNN in particular is about as reliable as Fox News at this point. Recently they published a story claiming Kim Jong-Un was dead/in "grave danger" after a botched heart surgery which was later proven incorrect. Same with Chris Cuomo says "it's illegal to look at Wikileaks", the Covington MAGA hat kids, and their constant pushing of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. I don't know enough about MSNBC to comment on its reliability and I would have to do more research. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Except Russian collusion was outlined by Mueller, along with obstruction, Mueller just deferred to Congress and the DOJ on whether a sitting president could be indicted. Cuomo is referring to stolen emails and he is right, it is "illegal to possess these stolen documents" in the same way it is illegal to possess any stolen goods. Every news media ran with the rumours of Kim Jong-Un being dead, because rumours of his death and the story about the heart operation were coming from the same sources and backed up by sources within the US establishment; misinformation was rampant among even sources "in the know". Covington MAGA situation was a mess because of contrary reporting on the ground, and was a royal screw up by all concerned. Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess, let's take one of those WP:CIR failures at random shjall we? The claim that CNN reported falsely over Kim's health is tendentious, and originate from Trump. CNN actually reported, according to a reliable secondary source, that "US monitoring intelligence that North Korean leader is in grave danger after surgery". Guy (help!) 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe do some preliminary due diligence work off this page first so examples that are false positives don’t take up the oxygen. The RfC options can also be workshopped.
  BTW is there an actual problem to be addressed or is this just to have the appearance Fox wasn’t singled out? Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do we have undeniably reliable sources that regularly report on CNN or MSNBC presenting deliberate misinformation? I don't mean mere mistakes, I mean stuff like altering photos or conspicuously omitting relevant information. If not, bringing up an RFC on those networks just because there was one on FNC is false equivalence. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Atlantic: MSNBC's in Trouble for Selectively Editing Romney's Wawa Moment, Politico: MSNBC mischaracterizes Romney remarks, The Slate: No, Mitt Romney Didn’t Fail to Start a “Romney-Ryan” Chant According to the Pew Research Center, MSNBC and Fox News stood out in terms of partisanship from the rest in the 2012 elections. I don't see any point in processing MSNBC and CNN together, though. --Pudeo (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's all from eight years ago, three of these are anecdotal, and none is scholarly. Note that middle-of-the-road partisanship isn't enough to exclude a source, and that's not what was voted on in the case of FN. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seriously? They are not remotely comparable to Fox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is the epitome of false balance. No, this is a very silly proposal - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The unwritten rule on Wikipedia is that right-of-center sources should receive stricter scrutiny than left-of-center sources. For example, contrast our policy at WP:RSP for the Daily Caller with our policy for Venezuelanalysis. The DC maintains an email address for corrections requests[28] and does correct when they are made aware of an error [29]. I am unable to find any mention of corrections at Venezuelanalysis. We don't say it, but the precedent is clear. Tread with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Given the specific way the Fox News RFC closed very narrowly, that the only thing that probably should have, as an "across the board' for all cable news channels, is general caution of using their opinion/talking head shows as RS for facts, just as we would not use their opinion columns on websites for facts. (Fox News' ones are just more "landmind"-ish in terms of claims). Anything else presented as a news story on these channels or via their websites, there's no strong reason at this point, given the close on Fox News, to seek to tackle them now, unless you can present a consistent bias on a specific topic area as with politics or science. Which I'm pretty confident there wasn't for these. --Masem (t) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely unnecessary "but both sides have to be formally considered" gray fallacy. CNN and MSNBC don't appear here every 3 months. Opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces. This applies to all opinion shows in any venue. Fox is special because they are blatantly and outrageously in the tank for whoever the Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump/anything remotely republican/anything remotely anti-liberal featuring known outrageously unreliable sources like James O'Keefe without any shame for doing it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either RfC would result in any change in status but I think Fox being here every few months was more to do with a few editors trying to bludgeon the process rather than any inherent issue with Fox. I strongly suspect if Fox had been just as accurate/inaccurate but was left leaning we would have never had the last RfC. That is also why I think either new RfC would result in nothing. Some editors, myself included would see either of those sources as no worse than Fox. Since I put Fox in the generally reliable bucket I would also put CNN and MSNBC in the same bucket. An editor who put Fox in the unreliable bucket for partisan reasons is less likely to put CNN in an unreliable bucket even if they are shown to be 100% "as bad as" Fox. Net result, the close call that was the Fox RfC is just enough less close to call the thing "generally reliable". Still, the constant "Fox again" issues were more due to a few editors rather than new evidence time after time. Springee (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support separate nuanced RFCs for CNN and MSNBC per BB and others above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with Headbomb, Peacemaker67, and David Gerard: these would be unnecessary indulgences in false balance and the gray fallacy. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with everything that was said on the gratuitousness of the proposal, and submit that a better use of our time would be RfC: Fuck, Marry, Kill: Cooper, Cuomo or Carlson? François Robere (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose I am not seeing a reason not to go ahead with this. Just as mentioned above as two separate RFCs since the two are not affiliated. No source is beyond question. PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see much value in pursuing this. I'm not aware that the reliability of news from these sources is seriously or routinely disputed. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  MrX, Then you aren't paying attention. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I am paying attention Sphilbrick. If you're alluding to something that I should be aware of, by all means, please point it out. - MrX 🖋

• CNN and MSNBC are separate. An RfC on CNN is unnecessary (it's reliable). It may be worth recording the fact that MSNBC should be used only with attribution, I don't know. Guy (help!) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• It stands out to me that almost no examples of (supposed) problems with either source have been offered here (and the few that have been offered have mostly been rebutted as mischaracterizations on the offering editor's part and not problems on the outlet's part, e.g. them reporting like other outlets that some US officials believed Kim Jong Un was ill ≠ them 'falsely reporting that Kim was ill'); it does lead to the impression that RfCs are being proposed only out of a sense that (false) balance is needed. (If RfCs are held, I can't see a reason to conflate them, they're two different sources and each RfC is likely to attract a distinct large body of commenters.) -sche (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support RfC only to see if there is any noteworthy issue with controversial event reporting - while I agree that Fox News seems to have lower standards these days compared to its liberal counterparts, both CNN and MSNBC should probably be assessed for the following separately (I've added my opinion of CNN & MSNBC):

1. Non-political news: will be generally reliable just like Fox News (duh)
2. Political: reliable for non-controversial events, must be examined for controversial stuff, will probably depend on how controversial the event is
3. Talk shows and opinion pieces: only for attribution to the journalists involved (duh)

45.251.33.198 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose RfC, it seems petty. If a challenge to either comes up organically thats fine but otherwise lets leave them alone. As for François Robere’s superior iteration of the question... Carlson, Cooper, Cuomo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT RfC for CNN and the RfC for MSNBC should be separate. CNN is far worse than Fox News Channel, particularly its newscasts. NYTimes - "CNN was forced to apologize after retracting a story on its website that a Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation." Politico, mistakes a sex toy flag for ISIS flag; labels Alabama as Mississippi, NYTimes - "But the biggest damage to CNN has been self-inflicted — never more so than in June, when in a rush to be first, it came running out of the Supreme Court saying that President Obama’s health care law had been overturned. It was a hugely embarrassing error.", list of completely botched stories, Law.com "Libel Lawyer Lin Wood Settles Second Defamation Suit With CNN", 10 worst most embarrassing US media failures - "This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments", The Media's Top Lies, CNN refuses to correct error, CNN gave Class Relotius their "Journalist of the Year" award, then published an article with the headline Claas Relotius writing fake stories 'on a grand scale, and it goes on and on and on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is going to be a very difficult RfC if this is an example of what we'll see. O3000 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose CNN RfC, open to MSNBC, although I've not seen any problems. This discussion seems pointy to me. Fox appears here often for good reason. CNN and MSNBC not so. As Horse Eye Jack said, if these sources come here organically, that’s fine. Otherwise, it is tit-for-tat. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Open to re-assessing these sources in response to specific concerns (as the Fox re-appraisal was prompted by their use of misleading digital image manipulation in their coverage of the Seattle protests). But as an exercise in reflexive false equivalence—which is clearly the framing behind this proposal—I'mma say no. We already do way too much of that. Also, note that policy and good practice already prohibit the use of opinion shows/columns as sources of fact, so we don't need an RfC to establish that for CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or any other outlet. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but I think that came out after, not before the latest round of deprecate Fox discussions. Springee (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lord, no. We just shot down one attempt to deprecate a noticeable percentage of perfectly fine sources used on the Wikipedia, now we want to do another one? People, your politics are showing, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think the intention was the opposite. If these were shown to be widely accepted as RSs then people won't try and act like perfectly fine sources are questionable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't know why we're having this discussion but RfCs are an integral part of the consensus building process which happens to be policy. Any editor who doesn't want to participate in an RfC is not obligated to do so, but we will have an RfC to rate CNN's reliability in the same manner we did Fox News and other entire sources that came before and that will follow. No source is immune from the rating system which began with the inception of WP:RS/Perennial. Also see WP:CONLEVEL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• OK... Thank you everyone for the input. I see that we have mixed feelings about even holding an RFC... but ENOUGH people want one that I think I will move forward on it. I need to think about wording now. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Note... and I will do two separate RFCs, so we can focus our attention on each outlet individually. Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There's actually pretty strong sentiment, arguably even a consensus, against opening RfC's on CNN and MSNBC right now. That's evident in the discussion above. Of course, you can choose to open them anyway, but I would strongly suggest that in your RfC statement you link this discussion, as participants should be aware that a majority of respondents here felt that the RfC's were unnecessary or a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I have to ask: if you were going to go ahead and open RfC's no matter what, why did you bother starting this thread? You asked if there was support for these RfC's; the answer was a pretty resounding no; and then you're like, well, here come the RfC's. Of course you're within your rights to open them, but I don't understand the value of this piece of theater. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" O3000 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "full of sound & fury, signifying nothing", but yeah. MastCell ^Talk 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: If we must have a discussion about having a discussion, then the answer is "no". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose just as I did when the notion was thrown out there in the middle of the Fox News RTC as a clear example of false balance "whataboutism". This is pointless and a waste of time. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• For others like me, who don't live on this or related noticeboards, I'll assume that Wikipedia:FOX is the relevant RFC on Fox News that's ended. WP:CNN refers to "consensus not numbers" rather than Cable News Network and WP:MSNBC is a red link, so it seems we still need to have those discussions. This can of worms was opened, starting the ball rolling with a 2017 RfC that deprecated the Daily Mail and the ball was given a big push with the creation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You may just now be realizing that it was easier to start that ball rolling than it will be to stop it. This is all something I've been uncomfortable about – the focus on the contributors (sources) rather than their contributions (news reports). But, at this point fairness and neutrality calls for an evaluation of all sources, as distasteful as that feels. Blueboar, please get on with it and don't let anyone intimidate you. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly how I feel. Don’t worry. I’ve been around here a long time. I don’t get intimidated. (Any perceived hesitation is just delay because I have been busy with off-wiki life). Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar I'll admit I do get intimidated, having seen that an editor can be banned in the blink of an eye and there is no reliable process to reverse it. I have been privy to an indirect warning that questioning the reliability of NYT can result in a site ban. Yet, in my normal activities as an editor, in under a year I witnessed 2 instances of egregious behavior by the NYT: printing a lie about an accuser of a powerful Democrat and failing to fix the error after being informed of it. If Wikipedians are - without justification - holding any media source (no matter their legacy) as untouchable, I find it hard to take any of this seriously. petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Agree wholeheartedly with Wbm1058 just above: because the can of worms was opened, it needs to be applied evenly across all similar sources as a matter of course. I must note however, the closing of discussions has over time eroded from an evaluation of policy-based, accurate arguments (ignoring all others) to little more than a head count. News sources have indeed become partisan, and editors are as well. We are faced with a dilemma only solved by sticking closely to policy: WP:NHC Consensus is not determined by counting heads...The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Without strict adherence to policy, the RfC process is no longer valid. petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The RFCs were snow-closed (one by me, one by someone else and endorsed by me). These RFCs were never going to work - they were literally raised only because the Fox RFC was raised.

But there may be material for a more general non-RFC discussion raising claimed reliability issues that might be substantive. Can we try to have one of those? - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've no problem that the threads were closed, besides the fact that you only got the voices of those who are most active on WP. I'll remind Blueboar (though I'm sure he doesn't need it) that there is no requirement for consensus or approval from the masses to start any RfC, on any topic, at any time. And in my understanding, he didn't open this thread to gauge popularity of his idea, but to hear different arguments for whether it's too soon after the exhausting Fox RfC (an RfC which I assume did not go through an approval process before launching, because that's not a thing). petrarchan47คุก 01:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just so everyone knows... I am perfectly content with the results of these RFCs. My only “agenda” was to ask the question. Having asked, we now have an answer. Done. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I assumed so. The fact that people did not assume good faith says more than them then it does you in my eyes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We have held RfCs only for right-leaning media, though a massive number of respondents in the Fox RfC mentioned that Fox is no worse than [similar sites], and gave examples. Therefore, leaving the process with only Fox having gone under the spotlight means attaining NPOV is going to be even more challenging in some topic areas. But I sure don't blame Blueboar for letting it go. petrarchan47คุก 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No... we just HAD two of these outlets “under the spotlight”. If that spotlight did not shine as brightly as you wished, or end in the result you desired... well, that’s your problem, not mine. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose But hey start an RFC if you want...but perhaps first ask yourself why? because people don't trust Fox? Is this like some kind of partisan revenge? Surely that is not what should be going on. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 17 August 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.

FOX talk/opinion shows

• #RFC on CNN
• #RFC on MSNBC

So the consensus on WP:FOX talk/opinion shows was that they should be treated as any other op-ed and existing policies on op-eds work already, correct? wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: incorrect, the secondary concensus at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News was "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions". (RSP entry) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What are the existing policies on op-eds, and how does the guidance on Fox News talk shows differ from that? wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG are what you're thinking of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting the applicable WP:RSOPINION guidance: "Opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." Per "Perennial sources", there is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. Therefore "Opinion pieces in Fox News may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." I don't follow how this materially differs from "Fox News talk shows should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions". The latter (the Fox-specific guidance) is more concise, but I don't see it as any stronger than the general WP:RSOPINION guidance. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I see no stronger and/or weaker guidance either of the FOX closure w.r.t. RSOPINION/NEWSBLOG. You need to show that the opinion has WP:WEIGHT to be included (which will likely be difficult for a Fox talk show in the first place) via consensus. --Masem (t) 23:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

wbm1058 I believe that is effectively correct. It isn't due to a consensus at WP:FOX since pundits weren't the subject. That means WP:NEWSORG applies as it always has: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Some Daily Mail opinions are okay too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions, and today we're dealing with journalistic opinions that are being mistaken for statements of fact simply because of the long standing reputations some of the sources have carried with them to the internet. A lot of those reputations have waned, and I have demonstrated this phenomenom a few times now. Editors simply need to get up to speed and consider that our PAGs are still holding true, and we simply need to follow them as they relate to opinions, context and quoting. DUE is one of the few segments of policy that has become problematic because of bias and POV creep, and that's what causes the problems. If you get a chance, read this informative little article in the CT Mirror. Another good read is this WaPo article, and let's hope they'll return to practicing what they preach. Another woke source is the "joint initiative of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology Sydney": Globally, public trust in four key social institutions – media, government, business and NGOs (including academia) – has been in freefall. This ‘implosion of trust’ (Edelman 2017) has been observed in part in the migration of audiences from traditional news media (newspapers, TV and radio) to online and alternative news sources such as blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Oh, gee, I wonder whose been saying that all along? It's global and it includes all news media, and it has only gotten worse. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, here's an example from the last 24 hours: a tweet from "NBC News" (not NBC editorial department). NBC News published an article with the headline "AOC backs Sanders for president — ignores Biden in brief remarks." It was updated to say "AOC symbolically nominates Bernie Sanders in 60-second DNC speech." And they say the "mainstream media" has a left-leaning bias! Hah! wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

In Greece, the sales of traditional newspapers have been in decline for years. For example, the recently shut down Sunday edition of Ethnos, traditionally one of the leading newspapers of the country. According to this 2012 article the average sales of the Sunday edition at the time were 115.670 copies per week. In 2020, the average sales had fallen to about 15,000 copies per week and it was still the third highest-selling among the Sunday newspapers. It shut down on August 9, 2020. Online newspapers and other news sites have become the preferred source of information. It is not as much a lack of trust in the traditional press, but the loss of their audience. I would expect similar trends in other countries. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wbm1058, the NBC tweet looks more like an idiot error than bias, or maybe it's so far left, it's off the map and I can't see it. Read the Fox report with the headline, AOC calls out ‘racial injustice, colonization, misogyny’ in minute-long DNC speech - does that read right wing to you? Looks like straight-up factual reporting to me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "idiot error" is a plausible explanation; I've noticed an obvious spelling error in a graphic on their Nightly News recently. Fox News report about her speech was fair, though they didn't note that her Sanders nomination speech ran 1:37. I'll assume the DNC allocated her a minute, but she ran over and the DNC was nice enough to let her do that. wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, what is the question here? WP:RSP is already clear about Fox's opinion shows: Fox News talk shows... should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. Seems pretty clear to me. There may be situations where we cite these shows—for instance, if we're describing the role of right-wing media in the propagation of dangerous medical misinformation about Covid-19. But these shows should not be cited as sources of factual information. Are we challenging that conclusion in this thread? If so, can someone concisely articulate their concern without devolving into rambling political commentary? MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

US Liberal sources vs. US Conservative sources: Cage Fight!

(As usual we are going to pretend that US Libertarian sources and US Green sources do not exist.)

Note that words like "liberal" and "Conservative" mean something else in the UK. This is about the US meaning of those phrases.

You see a lot of complaints claiming that Wikipedia has different standards for liberal and conservative sources. A recent pair of RfCs was flawed because it compared good liberal-leaning sources with a bad conservative-leaning source. So I am going to start by asking some questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC) ~

What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?

• The difficulty here is in classification. Sure, Infowars and The daily Mail are unreliable, but are they really politically conservative? Would not alt-right be a better pigeonhole to put Infowars in? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Infowars is conservative politically, in the American context (which for some reason this discussion is limited to) alt-right is a subset of conservative. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

On the right:

Breitbart News

Daily Mail

Drudge Report

Infowars

On the left:

Redneck Revolt

MoveOn

Palmer Report

Shareblue

Got any better (or in this case worse...) choices? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it, Daily Mail isnt America, Drudge is a news aggregator (their "exclusives" being I believe the exception to this), and the Palmer Report is a blog. Those don't seem to fit at all within this discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good opportunity to suggest some replacements that do fit. As for The Daily Mail, despite being a UK publication, they are a favorite source for americans pushing an alt-right POV. Palmer is no more and no less a blog than InfoWars is. Some of Palmer's pages strongly resemble news reports. [30][31][32] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats interesting, I've never throught of the Daily Mail as alt-right. On the "Palmer is no more and no less a blog than InfoWars is" I believe you are mistaken. InfoWars isnt a blog at all, its a fringe news source with a staff of paid writers which also runs wire stories from RT and if you look at their current homepage Alex Jones isnt credited as the writer of any of the news stories. Lets compare that to Palmer Report where the majority of their stories are credited to Bill Palmer and it feels much more like a group blog. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I get the format of this thread, but this question is kind of "unanswerable" because there really is no bottom when it comes to unreliable sources. I mean, least-reliable conservative source? The Daily Stormer, maybe? It's hard to pick. I'm sure there are "looney left" blogs as well. Maybe a better question would be like, least-reliable left- or right-leaning mainstream media? In which case, on the conservative side I'd have to say OANN and Newsmax, The Washington Times and Examiner, NY Post, Boston Herald, and all those old-school conservative tabloid rags. On the left, well, I think Pew said MSNBC was the most opinionated on TV, but I wouldn't say they're "least reliable" because of it. There isn't a liberal analogue for networks like OANN, I don't think. USA Today is strongly left IMO, but again, not necessarily unreliable because of it. Huffington Post is what come to mind when I think of left-wing unreliable mainstream media. Lev!vich 18:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What are the absolute most reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?

• "Biased but reliable" is what we are looking for here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• On the liberal side, I would say the New York Times is the most reliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• The Wall Street Journal is definitely reliable, but I'm not sure how much of its conservative reputation is due to its editorial page vs. its actual reporting. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• New York Times and Wall Street Journal. - Although I must acknowledge that WSJ news articles are consistently more objective than NYT news articles, despite my love affair with the NYT. The WSJ establishes itself as conservative-leaning more by omission than commision, i.e., they do not cover some important stories that receive detailed coverage in the Times, Washington Post, and other prominent newspapers. Of course, the WSJ editorials and most of their columnists are very conservative, Peggy Noonan being a notable exception.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'd say NPR, The Atlantic and Vox are among the most reliable on the left. The Young Turks is probably one of the most left-of-center sources in the US, but I think they score particularly high marks for accuracy, transparency and disclosure of conflicts of interest in their reporting. Armadillopteryx 22:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• National Review is a conservative publication that is at least somewhat reliable, unless contradicted by facts posted in some other more consistently neutral venue. These days, none of the mainstream major U.S. news sources seem consistently "liberal", not even NPR; since 2016 they've all tried to both-sides everything. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• As people have already mentioned NYT/WSJ is the classic matchup, although it might not really do for our purposes becasue they're more center left and center right than fully liberal or conservative (besides for the editorials there isnt much daylight between hem). I think we're looking for something more along the line of Mother Jones and The Intercept on the left vs The Christian Science Monitor and Deseret News on the right, all are reliable but opinionated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• On the left, NPR tends to have a higher degree of willingness to notice other points of view. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a recent example of this. Here Minnesota Public Radio takes notice of the correlation between the "defund the police" that is happening and the Minneapolis Crime Spike.[33]. Other left-leaning sources have had stories that are in the ballpark [34][35], and the CBS story does it almost as well as MPR did, but MPR hit the nail on the head much earlier than anyone else. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• NYT and WaPo on the left. WSJ on the right. Lev!vich 18:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Borderline

We should also explore the inner borders. Pick two sources from the SAME team to illustrate where you would draw the line between reliable and unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll probably catch a lot of heat for this, but I don't care. Reliable story on the DOJ moving to dismiss it's charges against Flynn from the BBC.[36] An unreliable story from the NYT[37]. Here is a key excerpt from the BBC's story [the DOJ] also said it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flynn had lied. Now the NYT: Prosecutors said that the case fell short of the legal standard that Mr. Flynn’s lies be “materially” relevant to the matter under investigation. The key difference between the two is that the BBC says the DOJ could said it could not prove that Flynn lied, while the NYT said that the DOJ talked about Flynn's lies. If we go to the actual DOJ filing [38], it does not assert that Flynn lied. The NYT's story is therefore false, and the BBC is correct. Note that the question of whether or not Flynn actually lied is not relevant here. Both stories are talking about what the DOJ asserted in that particular filing, and the filing consistently refers to Flynn's statements, without taking a position on whether or not they were lies. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning equality. It just shows the BBC is more reliable than something like The New York Times. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please suggest pairs of liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources of equal reliability.

• No unfair match-ups like Fox News vs. CNN, MoveOn.org vs. Forbes, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• This diagram, if accurate, can give many such pairings. It seems to match CNN to The Washington Times. VR _talk 23:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: Ad Fontes again ... Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Ad_Fontes_Media. GPinkerton (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.VR _talk 02:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Could be useful as a list of candidate sources to start your research. For example, I didn't know that Wonkette existed. (I didn't list it as a candidate in the section above above because it shades towards satire/parody.) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If we can include satire/parody, then: The Onion vs Babylon Bee. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Reductress vs Babylon Bee would be more appropriate, The Onion is pretty down the middle. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the following from The Onion is 100% accurate: Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Onion and the Babylon Bee unquestionably have equal levels of reliability. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Agree that they are equally unreliable, and the Bee only seems to skewer democrats, but the Onion skewers everybody, and so fails the liberal-leaning test. I am evaluating Reductress [ https://reductress.com/ ] now.

• NYT and WSJ, WaPo and WSJ, MSNBC and Fox News, Huffington Post and The Daily Caller or Red State maybe. Time and Forbes maybe. Lev!vich 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Nope - can't be done. It's an apples to oranges comparison. MSNBC is off by itself and so is CNN and Fox News Channel; in fact nothing even comes close to Fox News because of their left-right mix which is why they're #1; The NYT and WSJ are close - they're publications not television networks and there's a big difference; WaPo has gone so far left they're opposite is closer to being Breitbart; and to say "unfair match-ups like Fox News vs. CNN" means what? We simply cannot rate entire networks/tv channels and reach a fair & equitable blanket conclusion - it just doesn't work that way - and doing so is noncompliant with our RS guidelines because CONTEXT MATTERS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Place arguments that Team Blue is superior to Team Red or viva versa here

• I know that some of you won't be able to resist jumping the gun and claiming that My Team Is Full Of Good And Pure People, Every Source That Leans My Way Is Perfect, And The Other Team Is Full Of Lies And Evil. All such arguments, and anything else that does not address the specific questions asked will be moved here. There is a time and a place... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hell no... my team are a bunch of lying skallywags who will do or say anything to get elected. It’s just that the OTHER team is worse. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar wins the prize for most humorous and truthful response. Thank you  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar makes a strong case. [39] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to pretend that US Libertarian sources and US Green sources do not exist. Fox News is not a bad conservative-leaning source, just because it does not match some peoples political persuasions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I may have overstated the problems with Fox News, but the obvious "lying by Photoshop" images shown at [40] and the weaselly retraction that failed to acknowledge that they lied by Photoshop made me change my opinion of Fox News from "Use with care" to "Generally unreliable for facts, events, interviews and quotes." If Fox News is willing to mislead me about where a particular person carrying a gun and wearing a green mask was standing, how can I trust anything else they present to me? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, Guy - one incident of a photo montage created by the art department to garnish the page was all it took to downgrade/distrust an entire network. It's still the most watched, even The NYTimes had to admit it. Unfortunately, their own bias gets in the way of them being able to fully understanding why - they live in a media bubble - NPR explains it to some degree. Fox corrected the mistake and removed the montage, even though it was meant to be artistic using real individual photos to create the montage - the images themselves were not fabricated like what happened to the NYTimes over the course of 4 years that forced them to return a Pulitzer. But none of that seems to matter when we don't want it to matter. We tend to forgive the sources we agree with, and condemn those we don't, especially when they give us a reason not to, even when it's not a legitimate reason. If you get some extra time, read this WaPo article, section title May 2015, Make a correction. Fact-checking and error retractions after the fact are supposed to be evidence of a credible source. There have been multiple errors by CNN, MSNBC, the Big Three etc. - some of them never retracted their errors; rather, they just made the articles disappear. I've already provided quite a few links that support my position, including these. Please keep those links in mind when you're comparing networks and published sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

But again, the question I would like to see an answer to in the appropriate section above above is, "however good or bad you think Fox News is, can you name a liberal-leaning source that is just as good or just as bad?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Team Blue has a tendency to railroad innocent criminal defendants in the court of public opinion. There are few positions worse than that of an innocent person charged with a crime that could send them to prison for a long time. Such cases sometimes play out partly in the media. A past example of this was the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax. For a past example, why hasn't the NYT retracted this? [41] The key two sentences: But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury. There was never any ambiguity; the three are innocent. The NYT didn't want to see it. More recently, we have the case of Daniel Holtzclaw. Long story short: he didn't do it. The sources that have chosen to notice are squarely on Team Red and include sources Wikipedia regards as "not reliable".[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] Malkin's work in particular is groundbreaking and, taken as a whole, utterly convincing. What could be more compelling that getting an innocent person out of prison? Team Blue won't touch this with a 10-foot pole. Shame on them. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Wasn't Daniel Holtzclaw found guilty in a court of law? I think you're mixing up the court of public opinion and actual courts. Also just FYI we dropped Malkin from the red team after the whole holocaust denial thing, idk what team she plays for these days but it ain't red [52]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that about Malkin. After that, she deserved to be dropped. Re Holtzclaw, yes convicted in Court. Which is different from "actually did it." Adoring nanny (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Convicted in court *and* the conviction was upheld under appeal with the appeals judges being very clear about how meritless they thought the appeal was (and with the Supreme Court rejecting him hes run out of higher courts to appeal to). Thats a lot different from being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion which is what you originally suggested had happened. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware. The evidence is what it is, and the court decisions are what they are. I've seen it time and again. It is unbelievably difficult for an actually innocent person to get the courts to notice.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Their appeals were "meritless" too, until they weren't. The point is that one can't know the truth of these things by simply trusting the courts. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... You're just digging the hole deeper. Maybe walk it back a bit and accept that you picked a terrible example and seriously mischaracterized the situation? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe actually take the time to look behind the curtain? Just to pick a random example, in a rape case, why would one not search the house to looked for unwashed underwear that could contain evidence? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Place other arguments here

• I have trouble seeing what sort of positive outcome could result from this discussion. The very idea that we should care about an artificial dichotomy is what distracts from discussions that are about reliability rather than bias. These arguments get pulled in all the time anyway, so why strip out the productive parts to focus on them? Is the idea to isolate them to highlight their tangential (or sometimes parallel) nature? To conclude that there is indeed a correlation between, say, "left-wing" and reliability? These seem unlikely to me, but maybe I misunderstand. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• The topic keeps coming up -- most recently with the MSNBC and CNN RfCs -- and will no doubt keep coming up.

If indeed we have a double standard we need to fix that.

Most of the commenters in previous discussions are clearly rooting for Team Blue, with a minority rooting for Team Red. In my opinion previous discussions have been poisoned by poor choice of sources to compare; picking a high quality source that roots for Team Blue and comparing it with a low quality source that roots for Team Red is common. I thought that I would try to avoid that.

Finally, this may smoke out a few of those sources that are never discussed because they suck so bad, but which have snuck into multiple articles as a source. That alone would make this worth doing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Infowars is politically conservative, just an extreme fringe form that does not care for general reliability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• End of the day, it's just as likely that all the big-name, slickly produced left-wing and right-wing news outfits are ultimately owned by the same group, and the reason they are directing us towards opposing ideologies has nothing to do with what they actually believe. Instead, it is all to do with draining all of our energy into ridiculous discourse and draining our wallets into their corporate coffers. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That kind of baseless conspiracy mongering doesn't help. Please stick to arguments backed by RS. If anyone's doing the dividing, it's the Russians, and Trump and GOP congressmen are repeating their disinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Not baseless, just observing. In fact it’s funny how the same two parties have divided power in the same country for over 150 years, acting as if at each other‘s throat all the time, while cooperating to crush or coopt anything threatening that dichotomy. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion presents a false dichotomy. Following WW2, a consensus emerged in government, academia and the media in foreign and domestic policy. Conservatives reacted by setting up an alternative media, but it was never as large or as professional. Furthermore, it's main focus was on presenting opinions, rather than news reporting. Opinion articles are of course rarely reliable sources wherever they are published.

The left-wing media, which was also opposed to the consensus in foreign and domestic polices, but for different reasons, took a different approach. It concentrated on news reporting of stories they the mainstream ignored. That's why articles in The Nation are more likely to be reliable than those in the National Review. But then they are only really useful for niche topics.

TFD (talk)

• One problem that stems from our heavy reliance on Team Blue is that on subjects where Team Blue is silent, we end up with nothing. As I note above, such is the case for the overwhelming evidence that Daniel Holtzclaw didn't do it. Team Red has noticed. Team Blue has not noticed. Team Blue has not taken issue with the evidence Team Red discusses in depth; they have simply ignored it. But Team Red is largely "not reliable". You can see the outcome in the article for yourselves. The evidence is knowable, covered by sources, and utterly convincing. But our policies don't allow us to see it. That's on us. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, that is on Team Red's sources for being unreliable and deceptive. -- Valjean (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't put this on "Team Red" any more than I would put "Donald Trump is a KGB spy" on "Team Blue". It's about terrible sources being terrible and a black and white (or red and blue) "cage fight" that provides a ready-made opportunity to make false equivalence arguments by Wikipedians with otherwise policy noncompliant POVs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• As Rhododendrites suggests, this thread is one of the worst-conceived ideas I've seen on Wikipedia recently—and that is a high (or low) bar. The framing of this thread enables and perpetuates some of Wikipedians' absolute worst instincts: brain-dead false equivalence; reflexive pigeon-holing of reliable sources into a partisan political battleground framework; the general undermining and weakening of site sourcing policy; and so on. As the WOPR said, the only way to win the game proposed in this thread is not to play. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd further argue that inventing two "teams" and inviting people to argue about that false dichotomy in a Fantasy Sources Draft is outside the purpose of this noticeboard. As comments above are making clear, it's just an opportunity to make false equivalence/balance arguments without the usual constraints of this board's focus on reliability, leaving us with a sweltering heat-to-light-ratio. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Seems to me all of the heat is down here in this section complaining about the thread. Editors who think this discussion is a bad idea should feel free to not participate. Lev!vich 18:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Framing a discussion of reliable sources explicitly as a partisan "cage fight" is like turning on a porch light in mosquito season. It shows poor judgment, and the results are predictably counterproductive. People like Adoring nanny are using this thread to blame a violent serial rapist's conviction on a "Team Blue" liberal-media conspiracy, so it's just silly to pretend that The Real Problem here is that we're highlighting this perversion of the noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't think one editor's postings are a sufficient basis by which to judge a thread in which a dozen+ editors have participated. Lev!vich 19:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I did not say there was a conspiracy of liberal media. It is much more likely that Team Blue sources are avoiding looking at something which, for them, would be uncomfortable. Nor is he a rapist, any more than the central park five were murderers. To be explicit, our over-reliance on Team Blue sources is leading us to publish an article saying that someone is a rapist, when in fact he is simply a victim. If we were to examine all sources, including ones we don't consider WP:RS, we would realize that the WP:RS sources have it all wrong, the non-WP:RS sources are correct, and reach the opposite conclusion. Effectively, by following WP:RS, we are publishing a lie. To those who are condemning me for pointing that out, I challenge you to look at the evidence. I've laid out exactly where you can find it. If you don't want to see it, might I suggest to User:MastCell that it would be more honorable to say that User:Adoring nanny is making an argument whose truth User:MastCell does not have the time or inclination to evaluate, rather than to say that User:Adoring nanny is making an argument that is bad or wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Wow. That's my cue to take Levivich's advice and to stop contributing to this thread; thank you for helping to make my point. MastCell ^Talk 01:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with MastCell, this discussion is a clear violation of WP:NOTFORUM. These discussions are far less useful than the ones Blueboar proposed, I think Blueboar could have posed better questions regarding CNN and MSNBC, rather than simply asking about the general reliability, to which the answer was obvious. But this discussion has so far been nothing but a tedious circlejerk and its opening was poor judgement on Guy Macon's part. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I asked the questions that I wanted answered (and I got answers to those questions). If you want to ask different questions, do so. What “better questions” would you have asked? Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think asking questions like "Is MSNBC biased in regards to American politics?" or "Can MSNBC talk shows and opinion content be used for statements of fact?" would have gotten more interesting responses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I...don't know that I see this as a discussion that is imminently relevant to building an encyclopedia. GMG^talk 20:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)

I notice Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not yet mention South China Morning Post (SCMP).

I know there have been ownership changes and the recent Hong Kong National Security Law (effective July 1, 2020) may impact reporting at the SCMP (and the same law could impact every publication in Hong Kong SAR).

I found at least one previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Straits_Times_and_the_South_China_Morning_Post

At the very minimum Perennial sources should tell people not to use articles from "Lin Nguyen" who turned out to be a fabricated persona. The SCMP withdrew all articles by this persona. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely anything published after the new national security law should have just as much reliability as The Onion. Articles during the period between the British handover and that law I'm not sure about. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Xinhua (RSP entry) is a better starting point of comparison than The Onion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That RSP entry is far too generous to Xinhua. [68][69]. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the entry based off the opinions present in the 2 discussions, and I think it is a reasonable reflection of them. If you think it's too generous then that's down to the responders, not me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW The Atlantic here published: "A Newsroom at the Edge of Autocracy" (August 1, 2020). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SCMP has been owned by Alibaba Group since 2016, when it closed its non english language editions and subsidiary publications like HK Magazine it also retracted an article criticising Li Zhanshu in 2017, so I don't think that the national security law is going to have a significant impact, as these changes have already been happening to the SCMP since 2016. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The allegations presented in The Atlantic are concerning, particularly the censoring of reporters coverage of the Hong Kong protests by editors to give a strongly pro-goverment slant, and the publication of an interview with Gui Minhai, who was detained by the Chinese government at the time, effectively akin to a forced confession. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Lin Nguyen articles were all opinion pieces; they didn’t affect the SCMP's usual news reporting.
  To my knowledge, the SCMP has been generally regarded as one of the most (if not the most) reliable news outlets in HK. Regarding bias, they've usually been more critical of the mainland Chinese government than friendly towards it, even since 2016. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The statuses in RSN and "Perennial sources" also affect the selection of opinion pieces suitable to quote in articles. In Alec Holowka I brought up an opinion piece from RT on his suicide in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Death but other editors felt it was not appropriate to refer to it because RT is discouraged for controversial subjects. See: Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Russia_Today_and_The_Post_Millennial WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it? Shouldn’t opinion articles and editorials derive their reliability predominantly (if not solely) from the author rather than the publication, per WP:RSEDITORIAL? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @MarkH21: That's a good question for a separate thread of RSN. I couldn't find much on that particular author (Igor Ogorodnev) so all the editors had was the publication itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Newspaper of record#cite_note-51 says "The clippings are from the South China Morning Post, the paper of record in Hong Kong". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've encountered the SCMP on a few occasions and just read the Atlantic piece, which I think should be considered a reliable look into the state of the newspaper. The SCMP is clearly a newspaper of record, and in some non-sensitive areas it should certainly be considered generally reliable. There are serious concerns about its ability to report fairly on the Hong Kong protests and on some issues sensitive in China, although I would need to look further into it to determine whether this often manifests as inaccuracies (a problem) or just bias (not so much of a problem per WP:BIASED). Regardless, I'm glad to see this discussion happening, since the SCMP is a very notable omission to the RSP list. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging participants from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#South China Morning Post reliability: @Skyring: @-Ni3Xposite: @Ckfasdf: @Feminist: @Slatersteven: @The Drover's Wife: @DreamLinker: @Burrobert: (Adoring nanny is already here) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: do you want me to format a formal RfC? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I would love that. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also @Buidhe: and @Darouet: from the first discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the South China Morning Post (SCMP)? The South China Morning Post has been cited around 7,000 times on Wikipedia per scmp.com  

• 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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (SCMP)

• Option 1/2 The SCMP is the major English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. I would consider it a reliable source without exemption prior to 2016. However, after the 2016 purchase by the Alibaba Group and the continually deteriorating political situation in Hong Kong. I think caution is necessary for contentious topics like the Hong Kong protests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have changed by vote to a 1/2 to make my opinion more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: I have not changed my opinion on the reliability of SCMP. It would be common sense to attribute any claims it makes around its reporting of the Hong Kong disturbances. I haven't seen any change in the nature of SCMP's general reporting. The statement in the Atlantic article that "the use of terms like riot and rampage that often made it into the final versions of stories recounting protests" reminded me of similar statement that FAIR has made about the New York Times and Washington Post reporting on the various US protests. Regarding Lin Nguyen, which seems to have been the starting point for this discussion, the SCMP admitted its mistake and removed the five articles which had been located in the Opinion section of the paper. It said it had "reviewed and strengthened its verification process for submissions in response to the Daily Beast revelations". Seems like a sensible response. Burrobert (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I brought up Lin Nguyen since the entry for Der Spiegel does say it's generally notable but to avoid articles by Claas Relotius specifically. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. Yes a similar note for SCMP would be fine. Burrobert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. ~ HAL333 00:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 more or less along the lines of what Hemiauchenia argued. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 (reliable with caveats) per The New York Times' March 2018 article which says that In effect, Alibaba has taken Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record since the days of British rule and put it on the leading edge of China’s efforts to project soft power abroad. Every day, The Post churns out dozens of articles about China, many of which seek to present a more positive view of the country. As it does, critics say it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of propaganda. It also notes that there have been acts of self-censorship to avoid annoying the CCP. Still, from what I gather, it has many of the best journalists in HK. I have noted that some, possibly undue pro-China views, have been sourced to SCMP, such as a curious chapter detailing "Hong Kong's hatred of mainlanders" and xenophobia as an undercurrent for the protests. --Pudeo (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bigotry against people from the mainland and Mandarin-speakers is a well-known issue in Hong Kong. SCMP writing about it doesn't undermine their reliability as a source. Are we going to start deprecating sources because they cover issues that some editors perceive as being "pro-China"? In case anyone needs reminding, this is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia, or a European encyclopedia, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Tricky, this. Pre-2016 is OK, of course, but post 2016 it's also reliable for a lot of things, just nothing related to China or politics. I guess that's a 2? Guy (help!) 08:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Probably Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, more or less, per above. feminist (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for post-2016 articles, per above. There isn't evidence that the paper literally makes things up, however, we should also avoid sources that are turning into state propaganda outlets, "soft" or otherwise. Lack of press freedom in Hong Kong will also impact the reliability of other Hong Kong based media. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Cynistrategus (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 — one of the most important newspapers for any editor or educated person trying to stay informed about global events and opinions. So far, criticism presented here amounts to an Atlantic article [70] from a journalist who complains SCMP editors toned down pro-protestor language in his submission to the paper (what a surprise), and one more article [71] from a NYT reporter who was reciprocally thrown out of China [72][73], and who has pushed the conspiratorial view of the Trump administration that the WHO is too close to China [74]. More broadly, bringing up the SCMP at the RSP is yet one more example of the list's mission creep. At this rate Wikipedia will end up treating all domestic and international news sources that fall outside of the center of the quite narrow Anglo-American political spectrum as suspect, or unusable. That's a devastating development for what is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Pinging Blueboar since they've had valuable commentary on this issue in the past. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know the source at all, so I can not comment on specifics. In general, deprecation should be reserved for clear cut, “worst of the worst” situations. Even “we could do better” level sources should not be deprecated. That said, if we CAN do better, we should. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a high opinion of the SCMP and labelling it option 2 for "additional considerations apply" is more a reflection of the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong than the SCMP itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 SCMP is a well regarded international newspaper. Being owned by a mainland company means that of course there is going to be a bias towards the Chinese government, but as of now no sources seriously dispute that the paper is "generally factual." Maybe in a few years if Beijing continues to tighten its grip on Hong Kong and its press outlets in a demonstrable way the SCMP should be downgraded, but as of now a bias towards the Chinese government doesn't change that fact that it is generally reliable. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I feel that the SCMP is a trustworthy source. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I have worked quite extensively on the protests articles and I don't think I have seen cases where SCMP is outrageously inaccurate or biased. Their factual reporting is generally reliable. Their opinion articles, however, are mostly written by biased, unreliable, blantantly lying pro-Beijing columnists. OceanHok (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @OceanHok: Perennial sources also considers opinion columns, so if you don't mind please share examples of highly biased columns. That way the entry can add caution against using such columns. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Wait, perennial sources tells us what opinions can be referenced? Who has the audacity to prescribe acceptable opinion here? It's one thing to rate the factual reliability of sources, but saying which opinions are acceptable is something else entirely. Some editors may like the opinion columns of their favorite newspaper of record, some editors may think those columns are complete garbage. WP:RSN really has no business declaring some opinions good and others bad. What matters for opinion is WP:WEIGHT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: This came up in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1 where I had suggested including an opinion from a columnist of RT but other editors rejected the idea because RT was unconsidered unreliable for controversial topics, straight reporting and opinion pieces alike. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of examples. Some of their views and thoughts are hugely troubling to me. In many cases, they were following the rheotic of the HKSAR government. Not saying it is not ok to support the government, but in most cases, they were just discrediting the opposition without solid proof, or they intentionally discussed only one side of the problem.

• [75][76]: These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
• [77]: This one states that the "rioters" "lies" but didn't address the issues behind the police's lack of credibility or discussed why the police's claims were not accepted.
• [78]: the title itself is ridiculous enough already. They also followed the rhetoic that the voting stations will be vandalised by the protesters (which obviously didn't happened on that day).
• [79]: calling opposition lawmakers clowns without recognising that the pro-Beijing bloc is exercising tyranny of the majority as there is no universal suffrage for the LegCo election.
• [80]: Supporting Carrie Lam to delay the election because it gives time for people to "cool off". The way to "take a break from politics" is to postpone an election?
• [81]: And what happened on the next day was that the protesters and the ethnic minorities were offering support to each other when the protesters passed through Chungking Mansions.
• Therefore, with so many problematic statements, I find it is really hard to consider these opinion pieces as usable. OceanHok (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. The issues raised above should be kept in mind when using the SCMP for claims about the protests and other sensitive political issues. But for factual reporting it's generally reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 This RfC is ridiculous. Most newspapers have political biases and reliability issues. The only cases which are worth recording are those where they routinely engage in parody and fantasy : The Onion; National Inquirer; The Southport Times and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: 1. Wikipedia:Perennial sources does call out specific cases of scandal like Claas Relotius (Der Spiegel is otherwise generally reliable), and 2. there has been a recent major change in Hong Kong law (though it can potentially affect all HK outlets), and 3. SCMP is such a common news source that Perennial sources should address it. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 as a general reader I've found their articles informative and fair, but fully accept the need for caution. A bit better than other [former?] papers of record, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. . .dave souza, talk 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: As I mentioned in the pre-RfC discussion, the SCMP has been and is the newspaper of among the most reliable sources in Asia. It is still Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record. The factual accuracy (as opposed to its tone/bias) of its news reporting hasn’t been directly challenged by other RSes.
  The NYT and Atlantic articles discuss a change in bias towards Beijing. However, a change in bias itself doesn’t mean that the factual reporting is less reliable (cf. WP:BIASED). Whether its fact-checking and accuracy deteriorates as the situation in HK press freedom changes is speculation about the future. If/when that does happen, then the SCMP should be revisited as an RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Even if there may be bias on a small subset of topics and cases of problematic opinion pieces, it would require quite a stretch to argue that SCMP is anything other than "generally reliable for factual reporting." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Additional considerations apply. Most of the time SCMP is a reliable source, but the impact of the direction management is pushing and the new Hong Kong security law need to be taken into account when using it. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 The South China Morning Post is used as way for newspapers such as The Washington Post to know what is going on in Hong Kong. I have found that [82] a search in the WP's articles yields many citations of the SCMP. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is limited freedom of speech in Hong Kong right now and the newspaper has been called "increasingly pro-Beijing" by the NYT [83]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. I don't want to call this discussion a waste of time, but this certainly comes to close to being one. Remember per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)" and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." That guidance is already enough to go on in this instance. -- Calidum 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 with all usual cavaets on a case-by-case basis. No indication that there's enough problems of China's interference in the paper's reporting to be concerned that it makes them unreliable, in fact when I have to use them (this in the article of technology and video games) they certainly aren't speaking in a manner I'd consider as a mouthpiece for China. Obviously if an article feels fishy, use caution but that's true for all RSes even to the NYTimes, so I don't think option 2 is appropriate here. --Masem (t) 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, possibly split into 2 entries like Fox News and The Guardian on the main WP:RSP list. SCMP is a reputable newspaper with strict editorial control - educators on all sides of the HK political debate trust them as the written standard of Hong Kong English). However, it is also known in HK that SCMP has always had a pro-government bias, whether that government was British Hong Kong or Chinese Hong Kong. The Alibaba takeover has exacerbated their pro-Beijing bias but so far I don't see much of SCMP twisting facts to suit their agenda. I think we should put SCMP in the "reliable" category for factual reporting, but caveat all opinion sections in the same way we split Fox, Guardian, and other broadsheets with a known editorial bias. Deryck C. 19:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, because they have done good factual reporting of current events in Hong Kong. Félix An (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 with the caveat that we aren’t yet able to judge the impact the new situation (national security law etc) will have on SCMP’s ability to produce high quality journalism (especially investigative journalism). I think that this discussion is premature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Update over the last two weeks I've watched SCMP closely, the only major difference I can detect is a large shift in their tone when covering Taiwan. This makes sense given that Taiwan is the core national security concern of the PRC/CCP. As a result of this shift I would consider them a less reliable source when it comes to Taiwan but the unreliability is coming from the language they choose to use and the facts they choose to disclose rather than active disinformation or anything truly disqualifying like that. Obviously this effects stories about politics, defense, and the like more than a story about a new restaurant or something like that. However I would say additional considerations apply to coverage of Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for their factual reporting, seems to be reasonable accurate. Any opinion columns are subject to WP:RSOPINION. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, it's a good source and it is almost reliable.--RuiyuShen 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per OceanHok on news articles. Op-eds should be treated in the same manner as those of WaPo, etc. per WP:RSOPINION. We have not allowed Jeff Bezo's acquisition of the WaPo to affect our assessment of its reliability, there should be no difference vis-a-vis Alibaba and the SCMP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's not a fair comparison, because RS say that Bezos has not interfered with the operations of WaPo, whereas reliable sources say that Alibaba has affected the reporting of this source. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per MarkH21 and Bzweebl. The publication's (supposed) new pro-Beijing position has not affected the reliability of its factual reporting. KyleJoan^talk 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: The SCMP is one of the most reliable sources there is on China. Its reporting typically reflects a much deeper level of understanding about Chinese politics and society than reporting in major Western new sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I used SCMP frequently in a professional capacity related to coverage of the Hong Kong protests; I was admittedly frustrated with their tone at some points, as someone who supported the protests, but I would be lying if I said I noticed or suspected any glaring revisions or omissions of facts when it came down to it. A good editor should be able to strip away any latent editorializing tone when present and be fine using SCMP for reference. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - No evidence has even been presented that there are any issues with reliability. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 I agree with Hemiauchenia. wikitigresito (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Despite what I would have guessed, SCMP has been fairly accurate on their reporting and fairly neutral. I don't think the National Security Law will affect it because they can just move legal headquarters somewhere else; Alibaba's ownership is worrying but it still is the best non-biased source on China out there, at least for now. TheKaloo (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2020
• Comment This is a bit of an odd discussion. For the SCMP to be ruled unreliable, we'd need to be guided by experts' views on the topic - e.g. expert media commentators who state that the SCMP is no longer reliable, etc. I can't see any such sources being provided above. From what I've seen in following Hong Kong from afar, there are long running concerns that the SCMP sometimes self-censors itself and has a long running history (including during British rule) of leaning towards the government line. But I haven't seen recent sources stating it's no longer reliable. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - From among the publications on Asian-specific topics covered by various outlets, the SCMP's coverage is usually some of the best. They tend to separate personal positions and facts fairly well, and I'd go as far to say that there are plenty of publications that ought to learn a thing or two from that. Goodposts (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Horse Eye Jack. I note that SCMP pretty much has been the newspaper of record in Hong Kong. From 2016 to 2020, after Alibaba acquired SCMP, there was little to no change in the general reliability of SCMP. (I note that in its news articles, if Alibaba is mentioned anywhere in its news articles, SCMP goes out of its way to point out that Alibaba is the owner of SCMP.) However, given the recent passage of the new security law in Hong Kong, it is currently not possible to assess whether SCMP's reliability will be affected following the law being passed; I opine that SCMP will continue to maintain its reliability (unless evidence to the contrary is discovered); however, SCMP is likely to shift (or at least face much more greater pressure to move) to a more pro-China stance, but not to the point where its reliability is affected (unless again opposing evidence is found). JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Option 1|2 (so far) 1 until 2016 for news stories, more caution required after that. Opinions, as always, should be attributed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 before the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong. Option 1.5 until the 2016 purchase by Alibaba. Option 3 from 1 July 2020 due to the new Hong Kong "Security" law, which is in fact more about ending free expression[84]. This[85] is a sufficiently major change in their environment that it would be unwise to assume they will be able to continue their past practices. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Stop your WP:SOAPBOXing (more about ending free expression) and actually produce a link which comments explicitly on the SCMP. Neither of your BBC links does that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 and Option 3 - It is a mouthpiece of CCP now. SCMP was a reliable source, but not since it is owned by Alibaba, which is the most Pro-Chinese group in the world after communist party of China.[86] NavjotSR (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per Hemiauchenia – advise caution/judge case-by-case post-2016. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (SCMP)

I think Burrobert raises a good point regarding analogous biases in American papers of record; I'm reminded of allegations in John L. Hess's memoir that NYT systematically privileged the US government's perspectives in its coverage of the Vietnam war and myriad other issues during his career there (and this was published before the Second Iraq War). Nonetheless, I think that with the better way to address these issues is to treat papers of record with a greater degree of scrutiny, rather than twisting what "generally reliable" means. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat newspapers of record (and all newspapers) with serious scrutiny: the New York Times' coverage of the Iraq War is an extraordinary demonstration of the importance of that principle. However, as I note above, what we've actually been doing at the perennial sources list is casting doubt or prohibiting the use of newspapers in the United States (e.g. the Grayzone) or internationally (e.g. Xinhua, RT, the Times of India) whose political or national orientations fall outside the narrow center of Anglo-American politics. Sometimes it's unclear whether consensus was even achieved for a given outlet [87]. Furthermore it's bizarre to watch national outlets come under attack here, at an international encyclopedia, as respective governments find themselves in increased geopolitical conflict with the United States. It's both within our mandate and power as editors to be able to understand these conflicts, not participate in them ourselves. -Darouet (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with The Grayzone is that it has this strange "anti-imperialist" worldview where everything that western governments do is bad and anything that Maduro / Assad / Putin / Xi does is good. Of course neither of these perspectives is true, and nor is their reverse. I would support calling a RfC on Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Televisión Martí and Alhurra as these are directly controlled by the US govt, and I am unsure about their editorial independence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I'd be happy with an RFC of all of those US government-controlled publications WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Grayzone responded to being depreciated with a "You can't handle the truth!" meltdown that included calling Katherine Maher a "veteran regime-change operative" it is pretty obvious they operate in a different reality to the rest of us. Compared to the platonic ideal of a Reliable Source everything is going to fall short. That doesn't mean every source is equally (un)reliable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We deprecated the newspaper without consensus on the basis of a few flimsy articles from much weaker sources, and flimsy reasoning from editors who didn't demonstrate even a modicum of the competence of the journalists they were criticizing. The close was particularly egregious. As for their reaction to being deprecated, much found in their two articles on the topic is excellent [88][89]. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You’re going to lay it all on the line for TGZ? Please tell me this guy is pulling my leg and isnt going nuclear over a shit-tier source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The deprecation close [90] was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these [91][92][93][94][95][96]. The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" [97], another from The Daily Beast [98] (which our own list calls "a biased or opinionated source"), and lastly an article about the contents of a conversation that Max Blumenthal had with Karen Greenberg on the politically sensitive topic of torture in the US and Israel [99]. Importantly, from the perspective of our own governance, the close did not conform to any consensus that emerged from the deprecation discussion. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that TGZ is a shit-tier source and you're just quibbling about procedure? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that and I wouldn't be caught dead using such language here. In agreement with the rough consensus of the RfC discussion [100], the Grayzone is an opinionated source that is usable on Wikipedia, and in certain instances, where its views or reporting have been contested, it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good example of why news sources like SCMP are important in giving a global (as opposed to American or Western European) perspective on issues. Compare these two headlines:

• "Hong Kong third wave: three labs picked to help mainland China medical team conduct mass Covid-19 testing in the city": SCMP
• "China’s Offer to Help With Virus Testing Spooks Hong Kong: Infections have surged in the city, and its labs have been going at full speed. But wariness of the Chinese Communist Party [sic] runs deep." New York Times

The SCMP does mention criticism of the mainland's involvement in coronavirus testing in Hong Kong (there's an image of protesters about 3/4 of the way through the article), but the focus of the article is on how the testing is being carried out. The NY Times article approaches the issue entirely from the perspective of worries about the influence of the "Chinese Communist Party" [sic]. This is something one very often encounters in Western reporting on China - there's a very strong political angle on all the reporting. For issues such as this, I have much more trust that the SCMP will provide a relatively neutral and comprehensive view of the topic. That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China. That's precisely where it is most valuable, as a reasonable and well-informed counterpoint to sometimes distorted reporting in Western media. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Not one person has voted option 4, therefore your contention that anyone is trying to deprecate the SCMP is preposterous. Please make arguments about reality rather than constructing fanciful straw men to tilt at. Also whats with the sic? I’m not seeing an error in Chinese Communist Party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A fair number of people have voted to discourage use of the SCMP for topics related to Hong Kong. Those are precisely the topics in which the SCMP's reporting is more extensive and neutral than that of newspapers like the New York Times. I'm arguing that it is in precisely these contentious topics that usage of SCMP is important for a globally balanced, neutral view. As for the [sic], the name of the ruling party of China is the Communist Party of China, not the Chinese Communist Party. I see that the Wikipedia article was moved a few weeks ago (which might be in line with WP:COMMONNAME, given how often Western sources get the name wrong), and that you voted for the move. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" have pretty much the same meaning, just different ways of translating it. The CCP prefers the first translation but most third party entities prefer the second. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the discussion about the name of the CPC to overshadow my actual point above - which is to compare reporting by the NYT and SCMP. The two articles I cite are illustrative of a trend, in which many Western news sources take strong political angles on Chinese topics. In the above NYT example, plans to offer coronavirus tests to every person in Hong Kong become primarily a story about Hong Kongers being spooked by the CPC. The SCMP covers the issue in a much saner way, as primarily a story about coronavirus testing, that also involves some protests. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your core argument was "That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China.” despite nobody voting or arguing for WP:DEPRECATE. The SCMP and NYT might frame a story differently but they’re both reliable, can you imagine if there was no difference in framing between reliable sources? Everyone would write almost exactly the same story and we’d all be worse off for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Xinhua News Agency

What is the reliability of Xinhua News Agency?

• 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? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Xinhua)

• Option 4 Xinhua has promoted the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 originated in a US Army lab in Maryland. [101][102][103]. For another fine example of Xinhua "reporting", see [104]. We should not make an exception for "non-controversial" topics or the like. For example, for the critical first few weeks, Covid-19 was not considered "controversial". Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I couldn't find anything in your sources that say Xinhua News Agency reported that COVID-19 was created in a U.S. army lab, just that the Chinese government had spread this disinformation. Some of your sources are behind a paywall, so perhaps you could provide the quote. Note that the head of the U.S. government, Donald Trump has publicly stated that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese Lab. That doesn't mean that PBS and NPR shouldn't be considered reliable. As for your other example, I don't see anything extraordinary about the claim that "nearly 100 people" in Hong Kong protested in favor of the government. Since Hong Kong has a population of 7.5 million, that would be about 1/1,000 of 1% of the population. There are 42 pro-China members of the legislature, the executive council has 30 members, so we're up to 72 verified supporters of the government already. TFD (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The difference is that NPR is WP:Independent of Donald Trump. It is free to, and frequently does, say that Trump is talking nonsense. By contrast, Xinhua is not WP:Independent of the CCP. NPR-style reporting would be to say something along the lines of "The CCP is promoting the theory that Covid started at a lab in Maryland, but we found no evidence to support this." But that's not what they do. Per my The Atlantic source [105], "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really." That's how Xinhua promoted the Covid conspiracy. See the article which as of yesterday was here [106] and can (as of now, but possibly not for long) be found in Google's cache here [107] and archived here [108]. Unlike what NPR does, I can't find anything from Xinhua saying that the theory is nonsense. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You claim above that Xinhua has promoted a specific CoVID-19 conspiracy theory. Can you provide a link to a Xinhua article where they do that? If you can't, you should strike your statement. Factual accuracy matters, especially at WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

[109] does it precisely in the manner described by [110] - "We're just asking questions, really". Adoring nanny (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). To list just a few, The Sunday Times (generally reliable) had a long report that repeatedly hints that SARS-CoV-2 might have leaked from the WIV: [111]. The Independent then wrote its own article based on The Sunday Times' story, including new quotes from Richard Ebright, who has been promoting the WIV leak theory non-stop for months: [112]. The Independent quotes Ebright as an expert, even though his expertise is in bacteriology (not virology) and the claims he's making about mutation rates of the virus are WP:FRINGE (for example, they're completely at odds with Boni et al. 2020). The Washington Post (generally reliable) played one of the largest roles in the promotion of the WIV leak theory, with its publication of Josh Rogin's column claiming that the US State Department had uncovered severe problems at the WIV in 2018: [113]. Though this was nominally posted under "Global Opinions," it was written in the style of a news article, and was widely referenced by other news outlets (and later by the Trump administration). For example, the BBC wrote it's own "We're just asking questions" article that speculated on the lab leak theory, based on Rogin's piece: [114]. The BBC article extensively quotes Filippa Lentzos, a promoter of the WIV leak theory. Even the venerable Columbia Journalism Review (itself often used to determine reliability of news sources) wrote an article that while criticizing some of the right-wingers commenting on Rogin's story, also posed the "What if?" question about the WIV: [115]. In other words, if "We're just asking questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" is a basis for judging a news source unreliable, get ready to deprecate The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Washington Post, the BBC and Columbia Journalism Review, and possibly many more sources. Xinhua is really a very minor offender in this department. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a CCP mouthpiece, it is probably reliable only in an WP:ABOUTSELF stylee for attributed statements about the CCP. As a source of fact, I would say no thanks. So that's option 3 with a bullet I guess, or maybe 4 but we need to clarify the wording slightly. Guy (help!) 08:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per JzG. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 We currently have around 9,500 citations to Xinhua per xinhuanet.com   and news.cn   Xinhua is the official state news agency of the Chinese Government. Like the Russian Government's TASS (RSP entry), and the Turkish Government's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry) and TRT World (RSP entry), Xinhua is usable for statements regarding the official views of the Chinese government, and non-controversial topics per WP:NEWSORG. However it is not a reliable source for stuff like the Xinjiang Camps/Uyghurs, Tibet human rights, Taiwan, or anything else where the Chinese government could be reasonably construed to have a conflict of interest. I don't see strong enough evidence (excluding the COVID-19 stuff which I don't think is definitive) that Xinhua is an outright propaganda outlet in the same way RT or Sputnik is, which I think CGTN falls a lot closer to. Any use of Xinhua should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that it is not always immediately obvious that something is controversial. For example, who could be opposed to a reduction in terrorism, an increase in stability, economic prosperity, and an increase in happiness? [116] (now dead link, here is Google's cache, at least for the moment)[117][118] Adoring nanny (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That particular piece is the attributed views of "Dr. Kaiser Abdukerim, a member of the Chinese delegation and president of Xinjiang Medical University", it states this right in the lead: "A Chinese expert from the Uygur ethnic group on Monday stressed here that without stability in his hometown of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, nothing can be achieved there." I don't think that Xinhua is making up what he is saying, and therefore can be considered reliable for his views. The statement by Dr. Kaiser that: "Today's Xinjiang enjoys social security, its people live and work in peace and contentment, its economic development is flourishing, all ethnic groups enjoy heart-to-heart solidarity, and the human rights of people of all ethnic groups are fully guaranteed" is not true, but it is his attributed opinion. Of course Xinhua is being selective in promoting this view, but this could be said for most sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UT

Per the article, "As a professional in medical education, he said he was especially impressed by such figures that from 1949 to 2017, the population mortality rate in Xinjiang decreased from 20.82 to 4.26 per thousand . . ." So the article is approvingly quoting him being impressed by mortality "figures" of 4.26 deaths per thousand people per year. Sure sounds like an alternate universe. One wonders what the mortality rate is in the camps.[119] Same story for the "happiness index" he approves of, whatever that may be referring to. Are the camp inmates happy? Lastly, the article describes him as an "expert." That part is the article's statement, not his. Is "expert" really an appropriate way to define him? Does his expertise include the camps? Does it include the ability to distinguish real data from fake data? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

4.26 is less than half of the UK's mortality at 9.3, but this is probably related to Britains proportionally older population. I can't find any other evidence of Kaiser's existence outside the UN speech other than a single paper where his is last author. Compare Xinhua with this story in CGTN and you can see that the CGTN story comes much closer to outright propaganda. I definitely think there is a case for deprecating CGTN, but not really for Xinhua at the moment. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#CGTN_(China_Global_Television_Network) Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't mind seeing China Central Television/China_Global_Television_Network added to the Perennial sources list. Not sure if new RFCs are needed for those? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: As as I mentioned in previous discussions, Xinhua often has decent reporting in English for quite a few non-controversial topics. For example, I used it heavily on some tables to provide accurate dates for Xi Jinping presidential trips. For international reporting, it has published many reports about COVID-19 in underreported areas in Africa. These reports could be verified in non-English sources (French, Arab), but hard to find in other secondary English sources. Now, there's a few topics where it would be no-go except for quoting Government officials, specially US-China disputes and other political controversies involving China. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option four makes a statement which is demonstrably true but I am opposed to outright bans on any source. CCP propaganda can be judged on a case-by-case basis, recognizing what it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 US government sources peddled the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but that theory didn't stand up, did it? All government-controlled organs are partisan by definition and this naturally matters in controversial cases such as wartime. Xinhua should be treated like other government sources of information and attributed so the reader can decide for themselves whether to trust them. Holding a straw poll here to decide the matter is ridiculous because Wikipedia and its editors are definitely not reliable sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Straw polls on RSN are the standard way feedback on each particular source is collected. Honestly I haven't thought of a better system than that, though one could post information on polls and surveys indicating trustworthiness of sources in certain countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: In both Chinese and English, Xinhua generally report factual information with carefully chosen terms that favor the PRC government. It also often publishes articles for major government propaganda points. Xinhua should only be used for certain restricted cases.
  It's important to note that the heavy journalistic spin doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting. An appraisal from a 2010 Newsweek article (pre-2013 Newsweek is considered generally reliable on WP:RSP): It helps, of course, that Xinhua's spin diminishes when the news doesn't involve China. [...] And even if the agency fails to improve its image, naked bias is not a handicap the way it was for TASS, the Soviet Union's 100-bureau news agency during the Cold War.
  That said, I still would not use Xinhua as the sole source for most claims given that their editorial oversight is severely compromised by being an arm of the PRC Central Government, which does not hesitate to actively censor information. It's really only useful as a source for the view of the Chinese government, or for obscure details of uncontroversial events (e.g. the dates and lineup of a concert). — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Updating vote: after seeing Newslinger's response and seeing that Xinhua has a news exchange agreement with AFP, I'm also okay with a very restricted option 2 that relegates its use to covering the Chinese government point of view and uncontroversial events. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, any source that published conspiracy theories related to COVID should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Neither The Telegraph or The Atlantic stories specifically mention Xinhua in reference to COVID 19 conspiracy theories. The NYTimes story refers to this tweet which contains a bizarre video mocking Pompeo using automatically generated speech and weird animated figures, see what you make of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3. It is similar to RT (TV network) that was depreciated. We need to be consistent. It does not matter that much if it is controlled by a government, although to be controlled (rather than simply be funded) is a red flag. It is known for promoting disinformation, which is opposite to be known "for fact checking and accuracy". My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  RT and Xinhua are superficially similar as state-run news outlets by Russia and China. However, they have different histories and different sets of appraisals by RSes. The history of RSes calling out RT for disinformation and other journalistic malpractice is significantly more extensive than Xinhua.

  The two outlets have no formal relation, so Xinhua needs to be looked at independently from RT. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  They do have a lot of similarities, as sources say. For example, according to US senators [120], "Similar to Russia’s state-controlled RT and Sputnik news services, the People’s Republic of China controls several media organizations that disseminate news and propaganda domestically and internationally." So, they are placed together. Also, they both appear in the controversies about the "foreign agents" in the USA. Now, according to the letter above, Xinhua is not just a propaganda organization (like RT). “Xinhua serves some functions of an intelligence agency by gathering information and producing classified reports for the Chinese leadership…”. See als o here. Yes, that appear to be a difference. In Russia such reports for "the leadership" are compiled by the GRU and SVR (Russia), not by RT. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, and none of these similarities have to do with the reliability of factual reporting published by Xinhua. That can be assessed on its own merit by what RSes say about the accuracy of Xinhua's reporting. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think this analogy is precise. Xinhua is China's largest state-owned news agency and is targeted to audiences both within and outside China, which makes it the equivalent of Russia's TASS (RSP entry), currently considered a situational source. The Chinese equivalent to RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry) is China Global Television Network (CGTN), a television network that was modeled after RT and is targeted exclusively to non-Chinese audiences. — Newslinger talk 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree: the analogy with TASS would be more appropriate. It indeed served as a front organization for the KGB, although even TASS did not prepare the intelligence reports for the Soviet leadership. But it does not add any reliability as a source for controversial content. Using TASS or Xinhua for official statements by the government? Even that would be pretty much just a "primary source". One should use other, secondary RS which would place such government statements to proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 It's a reliable source for the views of the Chinese government, but there are better sources for that. Presumably a secondary source will discuss important Chinese political views without us having to determine what is and is not propaganda. The misinformation is disqualifying similar to RT, and anything factual those sources say will be corroborated by a news organization with a better track record. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'm against banning major news outlets on principle.ImTheIP (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, even if they technically meet the definition of option 4 and are eligible for deprecation I would oppose deprecation on the grounds that it would leave us with few direct sources for Chinese government opinion. They are the world’s second most powerful country after all, even if they engage in world leading levels of disinformation and generalized information operations. That being said the disinformation published by Xinhua in relation to the coronavirus pandemic has been shocking even by the standards of Chinese information operations and information warfare, the argument for full depreciation is a solid one I just oppose it for the reason stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice) by process of elimination. Xinhua News Agency is the official state-owned news agency in China, and its content is guaranteed to be consistent with the Chinese government's position. If used (whether under WP:ABOUTSELF or on its own merits), content from Xinhua should be attributed in-text. Xinhua is not generally reliable (option 1), because it is a biased or opinionated source that is not editorially independent from the CCP. Among all mainland Chinese state-owned sources, Xinhua is the highest-quality source, which is enough to make me oppose deprecation (option 4). There are other Chinese sources for which deprecation is warranted (e.g. the Global Times), but if I were only able to use one mainland Chinese source to provide coverage of China across Wikipedia, it would be Xinhua. It's the gold standard. Compare to Russia's TASS (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  An alternative approach would be to treat Xinhua similarly to Turkey's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry), a state-run news agency that is considered a situational source (option 2) for general topics and a generally unreliable source (option 3) for controversial topics and international politics. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 per Wugapodes. If you need to quote the Chinese government's statement, there are better, third-party independent sources for that. OceanHok (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2-3 WP:ABOUTSELF for the PRC. Xinhua is useful for uncontroversial details like who's the Party Secretary of randomProvince, what jobs did they held beforehand and when they were elected to the Central Committee. Some people may see that stuff as trivial, but due to the way the PRC/CCP Nomenklatura functions I think that it provides notable information. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, except where WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - This is the official news agency of the most populous country on earth, and should be treated as major news organizations in the west that are closely aligned with their respective governments. -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Newslinger. Regarding the argument that state media outlets transmit conspiracy theories through insinuations, anyone trying to cite a claim in an article to something as weak as an insinuation should rightly be reverted, regardless of the publication. As long as the disinformation doesn't rise above the level of insinuation (and as long as the publication publishes something other than insinuations), I don't think that we as editors have much to worry about. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: there is quite a lot of opinion here but few examples. Those examples that have been given don’t show unreliable reporting. Regarding the quote "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really.": this describes some of the COVID reporting published by western media outlets that have been trying to assign blame to China. Burrobert (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 1) The AFP cooperation agreement, in force since 1957, speaks volumes. 2) And there is no basis whatsoever to have an assessment vastly different in spirit (e.g. "generally unreliable" or deprecation). 3) Per Rosguill and Burrobert, insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, anyone who suggests otherwise should be regarded as in violation of WP:CIR; to add to Andrew Davidson's point, major U.S. newspapers (WaPo, NYT, USA Today, WSJ) played as propagandists to promote the false notion that Gaddafi was perpetrating large-scale state violence on yet another largely nonviolent "Arab Spring" revolution; as an example, the WaPo has no story on HC 119, which confirmed that the US/UK/France had made a false case to the UNSC for NATO intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  CaradhrasAiguo, I don't know that I'd say that insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, they just aren't the kind of promotion that affects our ability to use the source here because we shouldn't be basing claims on insinuations in any context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1-2 depending on the topic. For non-politically-controversial subjects (e.g. China opened _______ new train/subway line/road/some other building), it would be a reliable source. However, for some more controversial issues, it is reliable only for getting the Chinese government's view on the subject, as it is the official view of the Chinese government (e.g. The official Chinese government view on ______ subject, according to Xinhua, is "blah blah blah"). Félix An (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, just like for any other news agency. But this discussion is far too theoretical for my liking. Are we discussing something specific here? Is there a specific factual inaccuracy that we're evaluating? I haven't seen any examples in this thread of actual problems in Xinhua's reporting. I therefore propose that this thread be closed with no result. If someone has a question about a specific Xinhua article, they can bring it here to get input. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, an unreliable source as is typical for a state run outlet from a one party state which is consistently at or near the basement of press freedom rankings. Analogous cases include PressTV (which was deemed unreliable) and Telesur (which was deprecated) so I don't see why this source should be granted an exception. To grant an exception to Xinhua for the simple fact that it's a non-"Western" or non-European/Anglospheric source isn't going to cut the mustard. If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between its political vs non political reporting, then we can split the Xinhua source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. While there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. @Newslinger: and @My very best wishes: The two of you are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I would say (in my lay and non-expert capacity) that the comparison with TASS and I would even go so far as to say RUssia Today is misleading because: 1) Russia is a constitutional democracy and 2) the press freedom situation/ranking in Russia is significantly better than that in the People's Republic of China. At this point I would strongly recommend closing this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting given my comments and the tally of the votes above (11 votes for option 3/4 vs 6 votes for option 1 vs 5 votes for option 2 - I've disregarded option 2/3 votes to prevent bias.) Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Press TV (RSP entry) is a television network solely targeted to non-Iranians, which makes it the Iranian analogue of RT and China Global Television Network, but not TASS or Xinhua, which are news agencies that serve both domestic and international audiences. Telesur (RSP entry) is a single television network with plenty of competitors, whereas Xinhua (as a news agency) is the closest thing China has to an Associated Press or Reuters, complete with a news exchange agreement with Agence France-Presse as others have mentioned. Yes, China scores lowly on the Press Freedom Index, but there is more to a source's reliability than the country that it is based in, and even in countries with low press freedom, some sources are more reliable than others. Finally (and this applies to both comments above), RfC discussions are not solely assessed through vote-counting, and early closures are not performed unless there is overwhelming support for a single option and close to no support for the other options – which is not the case here. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that Xinhua can't be used for "political" topics would be the worst outcome, as it would substantiate editor fears that this discussion is being used to censor Chinese political viewpoints. Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, In some non-political news, this is still relatively reliable. But for news involving politics or controversy, just because it is the official release channel of the Communist Party of China, this means that it will be accompanied by its political needs to meet its interests. This may deviate from the objective facts.——Cwek (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, mostly per Cwek. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 01:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Xinhua is not just state owned, it is an integral part of the Chinese Communist Party. All information coming from Xinhua should be indicated in the text, not footnotes, of articles. It is a task for someone who actually knows something about China to figure out what is true and false, slanted or straight in a Xinhua article. It is not 4, which I would reserve for unprofessional, low grade conspiracist drivel. It is a professional propaganda unit of the world's largest Communist Party. It has many professional journalists, but its goals are set by the party, its writing is supervised and monitored by the party. Writing which is in any way inconsistent with party policy appears there only by accident, and will be punished. Accuracy is NOT its primary concern, except insofar as it serves the party's purposes. It can and often should be cited in China-related articles, but with clear indication of where the information came from. It should never be used for general information outside China! Why should it be when there are so many accurate and timely sources of information that are not part of the CCP? As for general information inside China, always check whether there are non-Xinhua sources available first. It should never be a default choice and special care in attribution should always be used. Rgr09 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, most of their news reports are reliable. Their political comments may be controversial in neutrality. --Steven Sun (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: So just to be clear. Are you saying we should split the evaluation of this source into its reporting on political vs non-political issues (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics? Because it seems like that's what you are saying. I am asking because of how similar your position is to mine, which is to close this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting Festerhauer (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn't split the discussion as we don't have an agreed-upon boundary yet. We do want to think carefully about how we delineate the topics for which Xinhua is considered unreliable, as POV pushers (in either direction) will wikilawyer every single word of the RSP entry to get it to say what they want it to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, a good source.--RuiyuShen 03:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1I think Xinhua News Agency is reliable. If you say it is non-neutral, then Fox News, CNN, Voice of America and other media also have non-neutral phenomena. For example, Fox News exaggerates Mr. Trump’s political achievements and CNN has fake news. Voice of America is not neutral in some matters, and my English is not very good, so use Google Translate, please understand!Jerry (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — 城市酸儒文人挖坑 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 1-2: Most of the time, Xinhua Net is a good source for Chinese news, even it is the best one in all nationwide news agency of China.--Xiliuheshui · chat 04:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, as I know it is serious and accurate when reporting the facts, and more neutral than RFI, VOA (especially when reporting China). Compared with NYT, BBC, it has less doubts, assumptions and implies which is trying to lead to conspiracys in its reports. Maybe you dont agree with its ideas for it has a Chinese offcial background, but it doesnt mean it is unaccurate when reporting the facts. --“ ROYAL PATROL ” ^{☎ 911} 04:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 when the reports are not about China's politics. KONNO Yumeto 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 and 2 - Xinhua is a reliable source with special considerations. This is pretty clear cut to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time citing their articles: they are more reliable than many national and international news providers, except on certain topics where there is an incentive to propagandize — and likewise for SCMP. Prohibiting either of these two would have completely unnecessary and wide-reaching consequences across the project, and I would strongly oppose a blanket restriction even on politics because there are dry, non-controversial political stories where they are literally the most reliable source tangible.   — C M B J   04:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - A lot of political decision/policy from China Mainland government and China Mainland NPC are published via Xinhua News Agency as official policy release channel, thus needed to be Option 1. For non-politically news, Xinhua News Agency is fairly reliable. For political decision articles that is not marked as "Official Release", they can be in the scope of option 2. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for controversial topics and international politics and Option 2 (situational source) for general topics. Per Newslinger ([121]) Flickotown (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, mostly per Newslinger. It is a state propaganda source, so must be used with caution and attribution except the most basic information, such as the dates of Xi's trips (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Xinhua is owned by the government of P.R. China and hence they are, or could be, biased when reporting around topics like China's international policy and so on. When reporting most of China's internal news, they are still pretty reliable. Itcfangye (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — Itcfangye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 2/3, it is a state propaganda source which should be used with great care.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Xinhua News Agency can be regarded as a relatively reliable media in China, and it is actually relatively neutral except for political reports. --⌬Yxh1433 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2-4 depending on subject. Like RT is a state propaganda mouthpiece. For boring insider baseball it is probably fine. The more the CCP dislikes something or needs spin, the less likely it is to be reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 depending on topic. I came here wanting to argue 2/3 but was convinced by the arguments that (a) RT is in category 4 and (b) actually I have never written about any topic for which Xinhua was a reliable source I depended on - for topics about Mainland Chinese culture and events there are more specialist sources; for anything vaguely political they're firmly in category 3+. Deryck C. 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. As an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, use should be attributed by default, which is how their reporting is generally handled in reliable sources I've seen. Reporters Without Borders calls it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" and "at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party". Some straight news and the fact that independent original reporting from China is hard or impossible to come by for certain topics doesn't make it reliable. I think this is most important when considering due weight – if other sources don't cover something they've said, we shouldn't either, and if they do, we should be able to cite those sources instead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for most cases, while Option 4 for global news/politics of regional/global concern . It should be generally reliable in local (China) news, but when it comes to global or regional news, like that in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even that in Xinjiang, it becomes a propaganda service rather than a global news service. I can't agree with what most Chinese editors think of putting it a direct option 1 because it is the official mouthpiece of China. Being a mouthpiece means some reliable sources for news related to the location, but at the same time, can raise doubt of neutrality and factuality if the thing that they report is of global concern that doesn't align with the country's values.--1233 ( T / C） 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is state-run media, how about Yonhap, Tanjug, Anadolu Agency? If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is communist country media, how about VNA, KPL, Prensa Latina? As for Covid-19's source, Xinhua is just quoting rumors on social medias, just like some media (including US-based) said Covid-19 originated in a Wuhan Institute of Virology. I think Xinhua is generally reliable as a news broadcaster, though its political words and opinions are left-wing. 隐世高人 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of those would indeed also be unreliable. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe of all the sources you just named Yonhap is the only one we hold to be generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So what about Antara, MTI, CNA, they are all generally unreliable as state-run media? 隐世高人 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Antara is complicated and has changed massively over the last three decades. I’ve discussed MTI before and its a middling source but their issues seem to be with selective coverage and boosting of the governing political party there not disinformation. By CNA do you mean Taiwan’s or North Korea’s? I wouldn’t consider either to be of top quality but Taiwan’s CNA would be a solid 2. State media as a category is not inherently reliable or unreliable, its a very diverse group of sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh jeez pete Singapore’s is CNA too isn't it? I would say they’re also a two, they generally produce higher quality journalism than Taiwan’s CNA but Singapore’s press environment and freedoms are inferior to Taiwan’s. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

When you ignoring Xinhua's left-wing words and opinions which makes it nonneutrality, Xinhua would be generally reliable. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - we should exercise caution regarding all news sources, particularly state-owned sources when it's political, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, and WP:RSBREAKING while keeping in mind that the paradigm shift from print publication to digital online has made once trusted news sources dependent on clickbait revenue and sensational headlines in a highly competitive cyber environment. Also to consider are the nuanced changes in journalism today which is an opaque blending of opinion journalism and factual information in the same article (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Op-Ed for links) which creates media spin and makes it difficult for the average reader to distinguish between the two. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Pretty obvious. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• 'Option 2' It depends on thetopic. For topics of current controversy where the Chinese government had a particular contested opinion, then Option 3. For routine news,Option 1. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 mostly per Hemiauchenia. It is a government news outlet, and in China there is no practical difference between the party and the state. However, Xinhua's articles skew straight reportage rather than publications outright designed to be party propaganda like People's Daily or Global Times. I would trust Xinhua for e.g. statistics of airports in China. feminist (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I find Hemiauchenia's opinion reasonable. wikitigresito (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - Per Newslinger, because it makes sense to still have a Chinese source for inside China stories. TheKaloo (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Xinhua's reporting in many underdeveloped news markets is sometimes the only source available online, owing to their global footprint. I don't see any case made for why all of Xinhua's reporting should be presumed bad. [MBFC also rates it mixed. --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI Ad Fontes Media and their media bias fact check are not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ad Fontes Media. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) and Ad Fontes Media (RSP entry) are separate entitites fyi, though they are often mentioned together. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, I’m confusing AFM’s Media Bias Chart with Media Bias Fact Check (shame on me but those are awfully similar). I don’t believe that either is reliable though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Object to form of RfC - based on the lack of a succinct question. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  The RfC statement meets WP:RFCBRIEF and this RfC format has been recommended since Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6 § RfC: Header text. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 - I am fimiliar with their work, especially in the field of foreign policy when I was researching the Syrian Civil War. Their publications on the topic tended to be accurate, well-informed and corroborated by other news outlets. Furthermore, as another editor noted, they have a cooperation agreement with AFP, which is considered a very trustworthy reputable news agency. Xinhua is state-run media, which could mean editorial viewpoints in line with those of their respective government, but most of their work lacks any serious issues. As long as their reports continue to be accurate, I do not believe that their state-run status ought to be cause enough for a deprecation. For these reasons, I opine that they ought to remain an acceptible source, though may require attribution in cases in which their status as a state-run outlet could be problematic. Goodposts (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-3: Xinhua News Agency is a big news agency, and its reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. Xinhua inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think Xinhua should be split into multiple entries in the Perennial sources list when it gets added there:

Option 1 for all African and Central/South American and uncontroversial Chinese topics per MarioGom and King of Hearts. The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (and to a lesser extent Central/South America); in these regions, Xinhua has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. Specifically, I should note that English-language reporting in Africa is relatively scarce and Xinhua does help to somewhat plug this void of African-based reporting. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, there will definitely be a pro-China bias, but I don't know if this bias affects their reliability for such cases so Option 2).

Option 2 for all other general topics per Newslinger and Hemiauchenia not covered above or below. From here on citing Xinhua should preferably (but not mandatory) be used together with in-text attribution. Topics that fall into this category include some European topics (i.e Eastern Europe), Oceania topics, South-east Asian topics (except South China Sea), South Asian topics (except the China-India border), the Middle East, etc. For such topics, Xinhua is generally useable, but if other sources are available, cite those sources in addition to the Xinhua article being cited.

Option 3 for all topics where China is involved / has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and some European topics (i.e Western Europe), the politics of East Asia, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. For such topics, Xinhua can be used for the viewpoints of the Chinese government; outside of that, other sources should be used instead. Citing Xinhua for these topics should use in-text attribution.

Per Newslinger, I don't think Xinhua should be deprecated given that it is the "gold standard" of Chinese reporting. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You might want to clarify what you mean by "where China is involved". As I explained in my !vote above, I consider Xinhua most reliable for Chinese inside baseball and routine reporting of uncontroversial events that don't rise to international prominence (where Chinese sources are often the only ones available). And since China is one of the biggest investors in Africa, I'm sure the CCP has certain politicians it favors, so I'm not sure it is that great for covering African politics. If Xinhua reports on any international news that isn't covered in other media, that's very suspicious. So for me Xinhua is primarily a source for Chinese domestic matters which are not highly political in nature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: With regards to uncontroversial events inside China, I agree with you, so I've amended my !vote accordingly. Xinhua is a good source for non-political matters within China and should be treated as generally reliable for such topics. As for African politics, examples like | this, | this and | this show that Xinhua is relatively unbiased so long as the Chinese government does not have a conflict of interest. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I guess for any international news reported by Xinhua it's always going to be on a case-by-case basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 It is generally reliable when the reports are not about politics.--BlackShadowG^★（talk） 09:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. Might occasionally be useful for documenting government statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. As Thucydides411 noted: If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). I also agree with Darouet re Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. A biased implementation of policy that ranks Western-aligned media that walk in foreign-policy lockstep as somehow more 'independent' and 'reliable' than non-Western-aligned media does our readers a disservice. Humanengr (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1'. No evidence has been presented of poor journalism, just criticism of the state. If being in step with the CCP makes them unreliable then surely all of Murdoch's papers are unreliable, he once ordered his editors to "Kill Whitlam" our democratically elected Prime Minister during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis which lead to the un-elected opposition taking power. We still consider his rags reliable, and many of them are despite their notoriously partisan owner. Do we have evidence of Xinhua publishing falsehoods? I've seen none. This debate is mostly just pro-china vs anti-china opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 I'm no fan of the CCP by any means, and I find quite a few false equivalences between this and various Western media among the Option 1-ers, but per KofH and Horse Eye Jack I find that this is an at least tolerable Chinese source (esp. compared with stuff like China Daily) so outright deprecation would give us a systemic bias. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2. When the reports aren't about politics, it's reliable, as China's national news agency. When talking about politics, you should check their reliability separately, not deprecate. --Rowingbohe♬(Talk/zhwiki) 02:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is definitely not reliable for any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim made or any claims where the Chinese government is known to lie (COVID-19, Uyghurs, Hong Kong etc). But it can be a valuable source for non-controversial news in China as well as the views of the Chinese government. Like it or not, that government runs the largest country on earth.VR _talk 05:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I explain my rationale in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Xinhua)

Pinging participants of the last discussion @SwissArmyGuy:, @Newslinger:, @MarioGom:, @Horse Eye Jack:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If there is consensus that Xinhua is generally unreliable, we would need to re-evaluate the reliability of the Global Times (RSP entry), a Breitbart-like tabloid (except state-owned and pro-CCP) that could not possibly be more reliable than Xinhua. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Definitely. If Xinhua is deprecated then almost every single news outlet in mainland China would have to be deprecated. Xinhua is the only publication in mainland China with a news exchange agreement with AFP, for instance. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua. The other government sources are worse and the “independent” sources don’t exist for our purposes as they only re-write and republish content from the government sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Every news source should be evaluated on its own merits. Blanket banning of sources from entire countries is a very bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not a blanket ban if theres an exception. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that your proposal would mean banning Caixin, which as far as I can tell, does excellent reporting. During the outbreak in Wuhan, for example, it published articles that revealed a lot of previously unknown information about the initial phases of the outbreak and the initial government response. These articles were fairly critical of the government. This is just to illustrate that a blanket ban on an entire country's news sources is misguided. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal investigative reporting does not exist in China in a way which would be recognized in the west, what does occur is illegal. Like all other non-government media organizations Caixin is banned from doing independent investigative journalism and primarily publishes rewrites of stories from state media, sometimes they do add their own reporting to these stories but thats not what people in a free country would consider investigative journalism. The problem here is Chinese law, not the companies themselves. If the law changes then we can reconsider. See media in China for more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think to add to Horse Eye's statement is I believe exposing stuff on local governments is allowed by the CCP in China but not on the CCP leadership and nor the central government. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats very true, within China the media plays an important role in exposing and/or scapegoating local and regional officials for major problems/corruption to deflect from or obfuscate the failings of higher officials or the CCP. Its much more a kangaroo court of public opinion than what we would recognize as genuine muckraking though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan, contrary to your blanket statement. More generally, their articles appear to be mostly original content - not reprinted from government media. We should evaluate every news source on its own merits. Deprecating every news source from China, without looking at them one-by-one, would be wrong-headed. You appear to have some very strong preconceptions about Chinese news sources, but the statements you're making about Caixin are just factually incorrect. Political dislike of China by some editors should not trump WP:RS policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: If Caixin's reporting was focused on the wrongdoing of the Wuhan municipal government I could see the CCP let them do that, but one would not expect Caixin to do "independent investigative reporting" on the CCP highest leadership. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan” source? That would mean they broke Chinese law btw, there is no dispute here that independent journalism as we would recognize it in the free world is illegal in China. China is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to press freedom, they make the Russians look good in comparison. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Caixin does good investigative reporting, as proven by their coverage on Wuhan ([122]), but because you assert that their reporting is actually illegal in China, you want to ban their use on Wikipedia. Where's the logic in that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed the part about investigative reporting, is there a specific quote you have in mind? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the Caixin article I linked? It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known, before the article was published (29 February 2020). Caixin learned this information by talking to people directly on the ground - for example, at labs that had tested samples. This is the sort of high-quality reporting that you're saying should be barred from use on Wikipedia, simply because it comes from China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I did read the article, however if I want to read it again I must subscribe. Thats why I’m asking for specific quotes. I also noticed you havent responded to the much meatier comment below. Are all those WP:RS lying? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The whole article is here at archive.is. I'll see if I can get one on Megalodon. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m not seeing a level of information here that would allow us to discern whether or not "It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known.” We need a third party to deliver that analysis. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Every statement in the article that begins with something along the lines of, "Caixin has learned that ..." is based on Caixin's original reporting. There are many such statements throughout the article. For example, almost all the details about how the first patients were discovered to have a novel coronavirus was uncovered by Caixin, by talking with its sources (including people at the testing labs). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you know that? I also wonder how you can argue that their board is independent given their Chairman’s affiliation, you do know who he answers to right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is almost no media freedom or editorial independence in China, per the BBC "Most Chinese news sites are prohibited from gathering or reporting on political or social issues themselves, and are instead meant to rely on reports published by official media, such as state news agency Xinhua.” and media outlets are shut down for doing independent reporting. Most indipendent media outlets have been forced to shut their doors and the few that remain publish under heavy state supervision and control. Xi Jinping has stated that Chinese state media are “publicity fronts” for the CCP/government and that “All news media run by the Party must work to speak for the Party’s will and its propositions and protect the Party’s authority and unity,” (Xinhua translation) Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: how we have not deprecated Global Times is beyond me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Then start a vote for it. No sarc when I say this, but it should be a guaranteed deprecation given the reputation of that publication/Communist Party rag Festerhauer (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The last time it was up for discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Global Times I made my views clear, it wasn’t a RfC so a formal deprecation wasn’t on the table. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Err...so do you want to start an RFC on it or do you want me to? It's better if you did as I'm not familiar with the procedures of rsn. And while we are at it maybe open an RFC on CGTN as well? I mean we might as well given what we have discussed here...Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe in starting RfCs from whole cloth, I prefer it to be a specific incident which is escalated here. We don’t want to clutter the space. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Festerhauer See Global Times RfC below. It is used in more than a thousand articles, so better deprecate sooner rather than later, imo. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

buidhe we might as well do CGTN too as its between Xinhua and Global Times in reliability, that would be our direct analogue to RT. They also publish straight up disinformation like this gem: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020. I suggest you do as they say and "Click the video to find who's spinning a lie for the audience.” [123] TBH this one video is probably grounds for deprecation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the votes in the TASS discussion were for option 3, yet it wasn't found to be generally unreliable. I think DannyS712 did an excellent job closing that discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between Xinhua's political vs non political reporting, then we can split the source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. The thread above shows that while there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We are only two days into this RfC, and RfCs on this noticeboard are open until there are no new comments in five days, with a minimum duration of seven days. An uninvolved closer will assess the consensus here. It is premature to make such an assessment when the discussion is still highly active. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Well I would have to respectfully disagree with what you've said. Based on what's written above I just don't see my assessment as being premature. There is near universal consensus that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics and that needs to be reflected in the final consensus; you don't need to look any further than all the comments that have been made after our above exchange (Cwek, Eric Liu, Rgr09 and Steven Sun). Their voting options may be different but they all agree on one thing: that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics. You are right when you say that the discussion is highly active but tahat doesn't mean we can't draw stable conclusions in the interim. And you are also right when you say that we ourselves will not be determining the consensus, but of course our contributions are still important as they help determine the consensus. Could you comment on my point above to split Xinhua's source between its political vs non political reporting (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics accordingly? Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Sixth Tone (RSP entry) split would also be appropriate for Xinhua, and I had made a note under my original comment in the survey section referencing Turkey's Anadolu Agency (which is treated similarly) after you submitted your previous comment. Yes, many editors who have already participated in the discussion agree that Xinhua is less reliable for politics, but there are still at least five more days in this centralized RfC, and the consensus could very well shift in either direction. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please participate in this discussion regarding the interpretation of WP:Biased. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just to mention that someone placed a link to this page on Chinese wiki's village pump, with an inaccurate claim that "enwp proposes to list Xinhua New Agency as an unreliable or deprecated source" (while this is actually an discussion on reliability-related issues), before the surges of editors with little experience here. --Antigng (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Antigng: Except that is exactly what Adoring nanny is setting out to do, considering this previous post of theirs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually quite impressed that nobody has yet been able to show an example of Xinhua's reporting being factually inaccurate. I came into this assuming that there very well could be problems with Xinhua's accuracy. But all of the criticism has been entirely theoretical - that Xinhua must be unreliable, because of its connection to the Chinese government. But the inability of Xinhua's detractors here to actually present real examples in which Xinhua's reporting has been unreliable has convinced me that the news agency is probably generally reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: With reference to our article Xinhua News Agency, it was easy to find:

• Dodds, Laurence (2020-04-05). "China floods Facebook with undeclared coronavirus propaganda ads blaming Trump". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on April 6, 2020. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
• Zhong, Raymond; Krolik, Aaron; Mozur, Paul; Bergman, Ronen; Wong, Edward (2020-06-08). "Behind China's Twitter Campaign, a Murky Supporting Chorus". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
• Kan, Michael (August 19, 2019). "Twitter Bans State-Sponsored Media Ads Over Hong Kong Propaganda". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
• Doffman, Zak (August 19, 2019). "China Pays Twitter To Promote Propaganda Attacks On Hong Kong Protesters". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
• Lakshmanan, Ravie (2019-08-19). "China is paying Twitter to publish propaganda against Hong Kong protesters". The Next Web. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.

Doubtless older resources could be found for less topical matters. GPinkerton (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You posted a bunch of links about China. Do you have anything about Xinhua? I'm asking for actual examples that demonstrate Xinhua's supposed unreliability, not a litany of complaints about the PRC in general. If there are real concerns behind this attempt to deprecate Xinhua, other than general dislike of China, then there should be some specific examples you can give in which Xinhua's reporting is unreliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: All the articles I listed detail Xinhua, the agency which has been spreading and amplifying misinformation it wrote for the purpose at the behest of its superiors. The headlines mention China, the actual articles describe Xinhua malfeasance in China's service. GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your links show neither "malfeasance" nor "misinformation" by Xinhua. The first link only mentions Xinhua once, and doesn't actually point out any instance of inaccuracy or misinformation in Xinhua's reporting. The second article, from the New York Times, only mentions Xinhua to link to a humorous video they posted on Twitter. I don't think anyone is proposing treating tweets as news articles. I'm sorry, but at this point, you either show actual examples of misinformation printed by Xinhua, or you admit that you can't find any. Decisions on WP:RS have to be based on real facts, not on political dislike of one or another country. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried taking a peak in the local references section? It doesnt appear you have, why go nuclear on GPinkerton when you havent done your due diligence? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda by Xinhua, among other state-sponsored channels Chinese and no, is analysed here:

• Ma, Cindy. "Coronavirus Coverage by State-Backed English-Language News Sources". The Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
• Ma, Cindy. "Covid-19 News and Information from State-Backed Outlets Targeting French, German and Spanish-Speaking Social Media Users". The Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved 2020-08-06.

by the Oxford Internet Institute. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I opened the PC Magazine link, and it is a typically incoherent mess and hack job, stating on the one hand In response, Twitter told PCMag it removed the ad cited by Pinboard for violating its ad policies on inappropriate content, which bans advertisements that can be considered inflammatory, provocative, or as political campaigning. Twitter also appears to have removed many other ads Xinhua was promoting concerning the Hong Kong protests., while, in the next paragraph, It isn't the first time a state-run news agency has been accused of spreading misinformation via Twitter ads. Well, which is it? Inflammatory / provocative / political campaigning, or outright "misinformation", for which they provided no evidence of Xinhua itself (and not random accounts) engaging in? Inclusion of tangential links, as Thucydides mentioned, to bait discussion elsewhere is not a sign of good-faith discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

All you have is somebody else has said this, it is really not that helpful. Do you have the link to an actual article that is in the Xinhua news network's domain that is not reliable? VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean stuff like this is clearly lie by omission. Like TASS, it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interview with a Chinese government official, in which all views are properly attributed to that official - just as we expect reliable sources to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• "it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics". Here is the problem: with sources like that you never know if this is really a personal opinion by a state official or a scripted disinformation he was asked to promote, and you do not know if this is something really "non-contentious" or this is a "kernel of disinformation" about something you know little about. such tactics are generally well known [124]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Like this kernel of disinformation put out by gov't official, broadcast by Xinhua: [125]. Or: this bland propagandizing or this. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As Comrade J said, 98% of information would be accurate. Only 2% would be the "kernel of disinformation". But you never know which 2%. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

1. It's perfectly legitimate to report what Chinese officials say. 2. Nothing in that first link is "disinformation." It's a short statement by a government official complaining about anti-Chinese sentiment in the US. You appear to be upset about the idea that a news outlet might actually report on the views of Chinese officials. This is a global encyclopedia, and reporting on the views of Chinese officials is just as important as reporting on the views of American officials here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• A concrete lie by Xinhua I've seen repeated statements in the RfC that Xinhua doesn't lie, they are just selective. I'd like to point to a counterexample. In this article[126], Kaiser Abdukerim is described as an "expert." The remainder of the article consists mainly of quotes from Kaiser. The choice of word "expert" is therefore crucial in framing how the reader understands the article. And Xinhua introduced that word. The article then goes on to describe his reaction to various "statistics" about death rates, poverty rates, the "happiness index", and so in in Xinjiang. These "statistics" all claim to show dramatic improvements. But the Xinjiang re-education camps hold a large number of people who are utterly destitute, die with considerable regularity, and are surely unhappy.[127] A true expert would notice that the "statistics" could not possibly be correct. For example, it is not plausible that there is a death rate of only 4.26 per thousand in a region where a significant portion of the population is held in such camps. Therefore, Xinhua should not have used the term "expert" to describe Kaiser Abdukerim. But it's actually worse than that. A quick control-F shows that they use the word four times -- once in the headline, and three times in the body. So they are hammering the usage home. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: Re: the CNN link, using one verified death (of the infant Mohaned) and a former detainee's spurious claim of deaths of fellow detainees is hardly solid evidence, and your die with considerable regularity extrapolation is thus WP:SOAP-violating nonsense. There are numerous examples of former detainees fabricating stories of physical abuse; e.g. that of Sayragul Sauytbay, who witnessed no violence in her facility(ies), per reporting from Aug 2018, yet in Oct 2019 "reporting", somehow was disrobed and violated in front of 200 inmates. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per CNN: But Tursun's story of detention and torture -- which she also delivered in full to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in 2018 -- fits a growing pattern of evidence emerging about the systematic repression of religious and ethnic minority groups carried out by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Those are CNN's words, not mine. Based on what do you conclude that her account is "spurious"? See also [128]. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your initial strongest claim above was large number of people who...die with considerable regularity. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I am not going to allow a shifting the goalposts. And as with the Nayirah testimony, yes, people do perjure themselves in human rights testimony to U.S. congressional institutions. And please stop the WP:SHOUTING. There are templates such as {{tq}} which can allow for emphasis in quoting.
• Just for the record, I don't contest the "destitute" part for many detainees who feel utter emptiness in the facilities. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Toned down the bolding. You are arguing that nine deaths in a single cell does not support "considerable regularity"? What about this? [129] I am still interested in your assertion that the nine deaths statement is "spurious". Based on what? Does evidence that one person lied support an assertion that a different person lied? Or do you have something more? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You're citing "Radio Free Asia," a US-government-funded outlet established explicitly in order to oppose the Chinese government. Even if we believe the article, it claims that 150 people died, which would not have much of an effect on overall mortality in the region (Xinjiang has a population of over 20 million). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Adding why there are so much Chinese users flocking to this place: someone posted in the Chinese Wikipedia that enwp tried to label Xinhua as unreliable when this is clearly a RfC. Then, these people who basically ruined the Chinese Wikipedia's discussion atmosphere of sensitive topics, flocked here to defend the news agency. They are mostly Chinese and seems to be linked to a working group (which called themselves a User Group) Wikimedians of Mainland China. BTW, this vote sea have been seen in the Chinese Wikipedia at admin votes and some other issues, but it is really another story. Back to this story: there should really be a separation of columns and news articles of Xinhua, where can be seen below:

User:1233's opinion on Xinhua News Agency (and all other agencies with communist influence in China)

Content related to:	Opinion	News Story
China, excluding Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan	Normally Reliable	Reliable (considering this is a government mouthpiece)
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, South China Sea	Proceed with caution, may contain disinformation	Mostly contain disinformation, while in some cases, such level can be considered as fake news
East Asia (Japan, the two Koreas)	Normally Reliable	Proceed with caution, may contain discinformation
South and Southeast Asia	Normally Reliable	Proceed with strong caution, especially related to South China Sea
Africa	Be careful, but mostly Reliable	Reliable, but proceed with caution in news reports about clashes as it may be sided
Other regions with a positive Chinese presence (e.g. Pakistan)	Mostly reliable	Mostly Reliable
Other regions with a negative Chinese presence (e.g. USA)	No comment on opinion	Beware of disinformation, though news tips from Xinhua (and other CCP-controlled media) would mostly be considered ok and could supplement an article in a positive side.

--1233 ( T / C） 15:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• That is interesting. Note to closer: people living in mainland china who don't want to be blacklisted, arrested, or otherwise punished, may not feel free to write something bad about CCP organizations such as Xinhua. People living in China are subject to punishments up to and including disappearance for expressing the "wrong" opinions.[130] See also [Ren Zhiqiang]. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Its actually a bit more pervasive than that... Its any Chinese citizen anywhere in the world, there is a portal maintained by the Chinese Communist Party's Cyberspace Administration which allows users overseas to report Chinese citizens committing political crimes (they can even report them by just their username and the CCP will investigate who is actually behind that account). In July they handles 95,000 reports and thats just for political crimes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: It looks like you're telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Have I misunderstood you here? @Horse Eye Jack: Do you agree with Adoring nanny's suggestion? This is really beyond the pale, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your assertion of what Adoring nanny’s comment does, advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern is not the same as telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Do you disagree with the characterization of the nature of political crimes in China or the Cyberspace Administration's online portal? I doubt the Sydney Morning Herald is making that up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the practical distinction between "advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern" about Chinese editors and "discount[ing] the views of Chinese editors." Anyone can see what Adoring nanny is asking the closer to do - to treat the Chinese editors as if their votes are based on fear of their government, and therefore to ignore them. I don't see any other plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Failure to WP:AGF would be unwise, I’ve already given you another plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. That you don’t see a distinction between them is your opinion, I see a very large distinction and you need to respect that. Also consensus isn't about votes, wikipedia (like China) isn't a democracy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Spell out the distinction: how should the closer take this legal concern into account? If the implication isn't that the closer should discount the opinions of Chinese editors, then what is it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about that issue that needs to be had. But on this RfC, it's a distraction, so I've struck much of my comment. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The USA runs Guantanimo Bay, can you tell me how many people went through that camp, what their names were and what crimes they had been accused of, what they were eventually charged with, how much time they served? We will never know how many have been disappeared after being subjected to "extraordinary rendition", the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another with the purpose of circumventing the former country's laws on interrogation, detention and torture (A crime against humanity in international law). The USA has been disappearing people with collusion from British and Polish security agencies since the 90's and they continue till this day. Do we suggest US media sources are unreliable based on these well known facts? Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems to me that Xinhua's reporting fits the description of WP:QUESTIONABLE, so should be considered generally unreliable and fall into option 3. Consider "a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight": here is a Xinhua article that states, without qualification, in the headline, lead and article body that 'over 470,000 people gathered on Saturday in a rally held at Tamar Park'. A factual source would at the very least attribute this number to the rally organisers, and to be accurate and reliable would also say that the police estimate of turnout was 108,000 (contrast an accurate report of the same rally).

I've seen three main lines of reasoning for treating Xinhua as option 2. Firstly, per @Hemiauchenia:, that there's no strong evidence that Xinhua sometimes acts as propaganda à la RT. I point back to the linked article above. Considering the topic is a pro-police rally in Hong Kong, sentences such as 'people from all walks of life take part in a rally to voice their opposition to violence and call for restoring social order, expressing the people's common will to protect and save the city', and phrases such as protestors 'say "no" to violence', are clear, blatant propaganda. As Xinhua is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the CCP, it's fair to presume that the article is intended to mislead readers about the scale of pro-police protests, amount of popular support for pro-democracy protests and promote an image of pro-democracy protestors as only seeking violence. ReconditeRodent linked a report that confirms how the CCP controls/influences Xinhua's output.

The second argument is one that @MarkH21: and @Newslinger: make, that Xinhua isn't fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting, but simply skews, manipulates or otherwise misrepresents facts. Essentially, because it's a news agency it's the 'gold standard' for factual reports within China. However, as Horse Eye Jack has rightly pointed out, the sad truth is that there is very limited media freedom in the PRC and therefore can be no factually reliable large-scale WP:NEWSORGs, Xinhua is no exception. Returning to the above article, it's obviously unrealistically generous to account for its inaccuracy as a gross failure of fact-checking. For this reason, I think it's worth looking back at WP:QUESTIONABLE, which also says "beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking that this guideline requires" per the 2017 Daily Mail RfC. There seems to be a presumption that Xinhua, because it has less commentary and analysis, is factually accurate. How can there be evidence for this, even on non-sensitive issues, if it has no independent editorial oversight or reputation for trustworthy fact-checking?

The final argument, made by @Darouet: and Mark H21, is that Xinhua is a reliable source for illustrating the Chinese government's position. On this point I agree with Wug·a·po·des - the political concerns of the Chinese government will be analysed and discussed by political science journals, current affairs magazines and well-respected research groups such as Brookings or Chatham House in a much more reliable, neutral and rigorous way (and without having disinformation mixed in), while factual claims by Xinhua can be confirmed by more reliable news or statistics sources. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References (Xinhua)

References

PETA

At User talk:Normal Op#PETA (permalink here), I stated the following to Normal Op: "Regarding edits like this and this, where was it deemed that PETA is unreliable? Even if it was the case that PETA falls under 'questionable sources', WP:About self applies."

And, well, you can see Normal Op's reply. In response, I stated, "This isn't about me wanting to use PETA. I am not a PETA advocate. It's about you removing PETA when the source is being used to report on their own activities, such as whatever celebrity appeared in their PSA or whatever celebrity they gave an award to."

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• If it's not covered by a third party source, it's not WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The policies/guidelines in play are WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:CHALLENGE. Yesterday, I laid out my case in detail for exactly this sort of edit (though using a non-PETA advocacy group as an example) at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Activist editors ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE. — Normal Op (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, a salient point: don't make decisions about sources on Wikipedia based on MBFC, which we don't consider a reliable source. Including it in Cite Unseen seems questionable if the goal is as a guide to what Wikipedia considers reliable. That said, mention of a non-notable award (any non-notable award) and citing only the issuing organization is going to be WP:UNDUE. There is no reliability issue, though, as PETA is a perfectly fine source for who it gave its own award to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed... the problem ISN’T reliability (an organization is reliable for saying that it gave an award to person X, per ABOUTSELF)... the problem is DUE WEIGHT (why should we mention that the organization gave the award to person X). Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my concern was the editor removing the source with an "unreliable" rationale when the source was being used to report on PETA's own activities. As for mentioning that certain celebrities have appeared in PETA's PSAs, have been given PETA awards, or whatever else? PETA is the most well-known American animal rights organization and gets plenty of media attention, such as its "Sexiest Vegan" list, as reported on by Elle. So, yeah, if a reliable media source reports on something going on with them, it may be worth mentioning per WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The ASPCA is the most well-known American animal rights organization and if PETA gets plenty of attention then there is no need to use the unreliable PETA for anything at all as anything relevant will be covered by WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we'd need to compare sources on which organization is the most well-known. But as for "unreliable"? Like others stated above, its reliability isn't the issue regarding these cases. It's reliable for its own activities as long as it's not making a statement that would require a secondary source for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

”Its own activities” is a near universal category... Do you mean they would be reliable for their own non-controversial activities such as awards and whatnot? For instance if they call the conviction of one of their activists a “miscarriage of justice” would we then state in wikipedia’s voice that it was so? Surely thats not what you are suggesting. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going by what WP:About self states. Simple. Rhododendrites and Blueboar are clear above. And so is WP:About self. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To give a more practical example that I could see with PETA, let's say the NYtimes mentions a celeb did a visually-interesting promo for PETA, and PETA has a blog statement that gets into details about the shoot with the celeb, some that would be worthwhile encyclopedic info in talking about the shoot in the celebrities page that the NYTimes mention didn't discuss. The fact the NYTimes mentioned the celeb's shoot with PETA would be the needed allowance to use PETA's blog to talk about its own shoot with the celeb for the facts of that shoot and nothing more. If no source otherwise mentioned the shoot, then we'd not be able to use PETA's blog here for lack of weight. (obviously how much of that blog to use in light of the NYTimes would still be tempered, shouldn't be paragraphs-long inclusion). --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements. We should be clear on that. We should also be clear that in articles other than PETA, it should generally not be used, per WP:UNDUE. The comparison with the ASPCA is a valid one. If the ASPCA publishes an article with statistics on, say, prevalence of abandonment of pet alligators, or cases of dogs dyiong ion hot cars, that is probably acceptable, because the ASPCA, while it certianly has activist tendencies, is not in the end an activist organisation, its main activity is animal welfare, whereas PETA is about animal rights. But this isn't really about PETA, it's more about awards and accolades, which is a broader problem. Most "awards" handed out by groups, especially activist groups, are awarded in order to promote the group rather than to recognise some worthy individual. It's a form of the association fallacy: by associating PETA with Justin Bieber, thus parity is asserted between the two. Perhaps we are supposed to think that PETA is popular with pre-teen girls or something, I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, association fallacy is the reason why celebrity branding is so effective in advertising. Good catch, Guy. Normal Op (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • * There are 400 articles in Wikipedia that use citations or links to website peta.org. Most of them are celebrity articles. Check just a few and you will see how the celebrity branding is being used by PETA to advertise and legitimize their message. There are hundreds more than 400 if you count the other domains petaindia.com (35), peta2.com (115), petaasiapacific.com (17), peta.org.uk (46), peta.de (18, English), peta.de (138, German), petafrance.com (25, French), peta.nl (1, English), peta.nl (3, Dutch), peta.org.au (6), petaasia.com (7), petaasia.cn (3, Chinese), petalatino.com (6, English), petalatino.com (6, Spanish), and there are others. Normal Op (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

      Ouch! I would just get rid of any use of PETA on a celebrity wikipage for WP:DUE, WP:NOTADVOCACY reasons. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on it, but then I get blowback, like this RSN. But it's all good, because that puts it in the open and gets other wiki-pinions. Maybe this thread can forestall the other 400 edit wars others will start as I begin to strip those 400 citations. Come join the project? Normal Op (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy says, "PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements." And yet I see that Normal Op removed PETA as a source for its own statements and positions at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in July and is now back at it. Purging going on. I'm not stating that one should not ideally rely on secondary sources, though. No article about an organization should be mostly built on sources by that organization.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also applies in this case. Using PETA for things that are vegetarian/vegan in the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, for example, is fine.

As for supposed blowback, I was very clear about why I brought this matter here. And others have agreed with me about reliability and a source being used for its own activities...but not using the source for things that would require a secondary citation for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that reliability isn’t the only policy in play here. It does not matter whether PETA is reliable as a source for a statement about its own activity if some other policy indicates that we should not mention that activity. It’s a moot question. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:About self has already been cited more than once in this discussion. If WP:About self, WP:Due weight and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS are followed, there should be no problem. Reliability isn't the only guideline in play here, but it is one of them the rules in play. If we are going to deem PETA unreliable for anything but its own activities and statements, as long as those statements don't run afoul WP:About self, we might as well go ahead do that. Turn this discussion into an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a general RfC on PETA is needed, since most people seem to agree that PETA is only citable via WP:ABOUTSELF; the disagreement is over what exact claims are self-serving or not. In general I feel we ought to avoid citing selfsource'd mission statements in the lead as often as we do, since they're often unduly self-serving, especially for controversial organizations or ones with a generally negative reputation. If that mission statement is taken seriously by anyone or is seen as a meaningful way to understand the organization, it ought to have at least some secondary coverage; if it does not, it's WP:UNDUE to focus on it, and potentially even actively misleading if the overwhelming thrust of coverage describes the subject differently. "The Death Cyborg Army says their mission is to bring peace and stability to earth" isn't a reasonable way to start an article if they're the only ones saying it about themselves and nobody else takes it seriously enough to even cover that claim. --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that going with an RfC is best. We have people debating the reliability of PinkNews above and giving it more leeway than a source like PETA...despite the fabricated news reporting PinkNews has engaged in. So RfC started below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the PETA question

The example Flyer22 Frozen gives is a very narrow example, and I feel the above answers have already covered it well. However, a lot of these peta.org blurbs that I'm finding inserted into BLP articles say extra stuff like "So-and-so is an animal rights advocate" or "So-and-so supports PETA" when there are no other mentions about animal rights or PETA in the biography and the only citation is directly off PETA's website. In this case, I feel strongly that these three Wiki policies/guidelines apply.

1. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
2. WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
3. WP:BLPSOURCES: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Opinions? — Normal Op (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA is a source for information about itself that is in controversial. Anything that might be seen as self serving (such as membership) is should not be used for.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If the public figure has given an exclusive interview to PETA or otherwise told PETA that they are an animal rights advocate, etc., as has happened in the past, using PETA as a source for that is fine. But using an additional source or a different source to report on that matter, similar to a different source being used in the Mariah Carey article to report on a PETA award she received, is also an option. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

1. PETA isn't a questionable source. The organization promotes the idea of ethical treatment of animals. Hardly an extremist position in the Western world. 2. If we take this to the extreme, the official site for Premier League could not be used as a source for who won the league because it's a self-published source and involves a claim about a third party - the team that won. 3. I think one should look at what the claim is. A celebrity winning a PETA prize is mundane and uncontroversial. The likelihood that it is true is overwhelming. It is not the same as a claim that someone was awarded a prestigious prize from the International Holocaust Denial Society. ImTheIP (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an advocacy group that exists to promote a specific viewpoint, which is contested (most people in the world are not vegans). I have trouble seeing that it is WP:DUE on high profile articles like Justin Bieber, where reams of independent, reliable sources exist. (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, yes it is. It's an activist group with a fringe perspective ("meat is murder"). Guy (help! - typo?) 11:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a more important question here is whether or not the content is DUE. It might be notable if the article was about a member of PETA who set fire to a car because it had leather seats, or if they threw paint all over a woman who was wearing a mink coat, or something else notable. Just belonging to PETA is no different from being a member of any other advocacy or organization - do our readers care, is it relevant in the grand scheme of that BLP's life, and does it pass WP:10YT? I'd be more inclined to challenge that content per WP:NOTADVOCACY. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

But if it is true (idk) that PETA has a fringe perspective, then it becomes more notable, not less, who they award their prizes to. Consider again the fictitious International Holocaust Denial Society. If they give an award to X it is relevant to know how X responds. Whether he or she repudiates the prize, declines to comment or warmly accepts it. Though, of course, you would need strong third party sources to verify that the prize is a real thing and not just some publicity stunt/attention grab.ImTheIP (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: They're all publicity stunts using celebrity branding techniques; or as Guy pointed out above, an association fallacy. Here are 400 publicity stunts by PETA mentioned in Wikipedia. One of their publicity stunts is naming people "Sexiest vegan", or "PETA's person of the year". There is no "acceptance" to refuse. Hollywood celebrities take all the news and attention they can get; it helps their career. Actors are not really free to turn down advertising gigs or endorsements by anyone as their careers are often short-lived. Normal Op (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, a lot of things are publicity stunts and there is no Wikipedia rule against describing successful publicity stunts. There are lots of organizations handing out awards to celebrities and other famous persons. I see no harm in mentioning who has won major PETA awards.ImTheIP (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This article has recently been created Jackie Kearney and mentions a PETA vegan award. Are mentions of these awards not aloud on biographies from now on? If this is the consensus then this should be publicized better because users are going to keep creating articles linking to PETA or adding the PETA website as a source to existing biographies. Should it be added to this list [131] and get a ruling? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Whether their views are fringe or not isn't really the problem (well, it introduces an additional problem if they are, but none of the cites that I saw were to obviously fringe material, so that's not the issue.) The issues are that first, PETA doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (hence, they're not an WP:RS, making what we can use them for very narrow); second, many of the claims are potentially self-serving given that the organization is controversial and they're basically saying "look at all the good / uncontroversial stuff we do" or "look how important we are"; and third, if it's WP:DUE it ought to be covered in a secondary / independent source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable An advocacy group that runs hyperbolic and gimmicky campaigns (I don't appose what they are advocating per se, but they are what they are). They have a fringe agenda and no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. As per Aquillion, they also make many self serving and promotional claims. Bacondrum (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor stripping PETA from any and everywhere

I'm sorry, but looking at Normal Op's latest contributions, all I see is an editor yanking PETA from any and everywhere based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. All I see is an editor with a serious anti-vegetarian and anti-veganism angle to his edits. This editor is not taking WP:CONTEXTMATTERS into consideration whatsoever when it comes to this topic. As seen at Talk:Sia (musician)#Undue advocacy content in this article, where he was challenged by Ssilvers, Jack1956, Somambulant1 and SchroCat (permalink here), Normal Op has argued against use of PETA, pointing to this thread as justification, as if this thread has ruled that PETA is unreliable. As seen here, he removed the following from a section titled "Activism": "Albarrán became a vegetarian after seeing a documentary about slaughterhouses and remained as such for around 25 years, until making the transition to veganism. He has participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights." Oh, so we can't use PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan, and/or that they participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights? What? Just like we may use sports sources to report on someone being an athlete, or LGBT sources to report on someone being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we can use PETA to report on someone being vegetarian or vegan, especially when it's a significant part of that person's life and they specifically told PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. PETA is a perfectly good source for reporting that someone participated in a PETA event. Based on Normal Op's bullying at Sia (musician) I removed the PETA sources, but I think his argument was wrong. He is still edit warring to delete the mention of animal rights advocacy at Sia's tour Nostalgic for the Present Tour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA is an advocacy group , so if it is the only source reporting on a person's support for animal rights, that can be seen as promotional and should be removed. Same would be true for GLAAD regrading one's sexuality. I'd argue that a sports team talking about an athlete is a far different relationship as that's a professional one and not advocacy. But that said, once other sources have talked about the person's animal rights activities from a third-party, it seems fair to use PETA to add more info that third-parties do not give, as now it does not give the feeling of advocacy. Care still must be taken to not make the added material look like advocacy for the group. --Masem (t) 05:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: There is no edit warring by me. However, there seems to be a bunch of other editors who have jumped on the anti-advocacy bandwagon in the last 24 hours and are either removing peta.org citations and/or are finding alternative (non-peta.org) sources to cite. They probably read this thread and jumped on board. The count seems to have gone down by over a hundred since yesterday, and I made just 4 or 5 of those. Normal Op (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: you keep trying to narrow it down to things like "PETA's Person of the Year Awards", because you know peta.org wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a full and general reliable source discussion when the scenario is expanded to how these peta.org citations are really being used. And I'm not focusing on PETA's Person of the Year Awards; I could care less about them. For your information, FF, I am anti-ADVOCACY and against using Wikipedia for ADVOCATE work. I do not discriminate between one advocacy or another. I didn't have an opinion about PETA or peta.org before I started researching it for Wikipedia, and don't even recall how I wound up in the animal rights topic, but I have since then discovered that ADVOCACY is rampant in the PETA, animal rights, and vegan topics. You need to quit WP:HOUNDING me, FF, just because you don't like the subject area I'm editing in this month. (In June it was Confederate statues, before that it was places on the National Register of Historic Places, and before that it was Tiger articles.) I'm trying to fix the advocacy stuff, per Wikipedia policies, and to better the encyclopedia, while you're trying to stop me with this... what is it... oh yeah, the THIRD calling me out on a board over the SAME issue in like two days because it's not going the way you want it to. Stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, already. And no more PAs!

I assert PETA is NOT a reliable source. We're here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Maybe we SHOULD be debating whether to add PETA to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

When I see these tiny insertions in dozens of articles saying so-and-so is a vegan or so-and-so is pro-animal rights, and there's nothing else in the article about it, and the citation source is peta.org, I can assume that it's not a big part of the person's life or someone else would have published it. Contrast those with the article for Joaquin Phoenix which mentions "animal" 15 times and doesn't need a peta.org sourced citation to show he's an animal rights activist. Check Bob Barker's article and you'll find "animal" 11 times and zero peta.org citations. That's because those two men ARE animal rights advocates and the newspapers know about it; it's a big part of their lives. (See WP:DUE.) But when you instead see that these tiny PETA blurbs have been inserted into hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and you check a few dozen of them and find the only mention of "animal" or "PETA" or "vegan" is with a peta.org source, one can logically conclude the content was inserted as part of an advocacy campaign that is an extension of PETA's advertising machine. If you look at one or two or three articles, you don't get the big picture. When you do a search for "peta.org" and find hundreds of these little insertions, and check a bunch of the BLP articles, you quickly find out it has been part of an WP:ADVOCACY campaign. I use the word "insert" because I've checked several of these with the "Who wrote that" tool, and I've found that the editor that inserted the PETA content, only inserted that content; they weren't already editing a biography and decided to add animal rights stuff as well. And I found that this pattern of editing behavior happened over and over and over again. See WP:DUCKTEST.

Then there's PETA's "Sexiest Vegan" awards and "PETA's Person of the Year Award". These are free awards that PETA can "give away" (simply labels, actually) that operate as free advertising with all the benefits of celebrity branding and none of the costs/expenditures. By simply naming someone, without even getting their permission, PETA can all of a sudden gain some sort of news coverage (or generate its own) that aligns PETA with a celebrity. Celebrities are usually happy to take any attention they can get; it increases their value as a commodity. So the celebrity isn't going to say "No". The award itself has no actual value beyond the publicity and public goodwill it generates. The awards themselves are worthless and, as such, mentioning them in Wikipedia in someone's biography is WP:UNDUE. You argue that mentioning it in a wiki article is harmless, but you're wrong.

As for using PETA's publication to support what they say about someone else, even if you were in the room and you could verify it happened, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you know a fact to be true; it only matters if some other reliable source said so. That's why we use secondary sources for our citations in this encyclopedia.

PETA has a long record of controversial publications, outrageous stunts, stretching the truth and outright lying about events and facts, as well as what people say or think about issues. Here's just one such news report (published in The New Yorker and reposted by its author) [132] where it says "peta's publicity formula–eighty per cent outrage, ten per cent each of celebrity and truth", and Newkirk's quotes "We are complete press sluts" and many more... er... "questionable judgment" quotes.

In a second example (which I had researched and wrote for the PETA article) PETA continues to this day to promote the information that milk causes autism even after being proven wrong AND admitting it! "When pressed, PETA cited two scientific papers, one from 1995 and one from 2002 using a very small sampling of children (36 and 20), and neither showed a correlation nor a causation between milk and autism. Newer studies from 2010 and 2014 have shown no association between dairy and behavior in autism. Despite having been corrected, PETA says they still keep the information on their website "because we have heard from people who have said it contains helpful information." Excuses by PETA to keep their false scientific claims on their website for the last six years! Do you get that? This is not what reliable sources do!

So why would anybody ever use them as a source! Peta.org would fail to be called a "reliable source" under the Wikipedia reliable sources policy: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:REPUTABLE. And from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: " In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." PETA is not a newsroom with an editorial staff doing fact checking, they are an advocacy organization, and with their history of falsifying matters and publishing it, they would NEVER pass a reliable sources test. Editors above have been very generously "PC" about the touchy subject of calling out such an outspoken organization (whose annual budget for advertising is over $10M [133]). After all, one's fellow Wiki editors many well be PETA followers. No, you cannot use peta.org's statement that so-and-so is a vegan or vegetarian. It violates WP:ABOUTSELF, and it's self-serving for PETA to publish that. It's completely different than a sports publication mentioning someone is an athlete. Using an LGBTQ source to say that someone is gay or bi might well be advocacy and nonRS. First of all, being called an athlete is unlikely to be controversial; being called gay/bi/etc. is more likely to be controversial. But that's all hypothetical and not really related to the PETA discussion. Per Wikipedia rules, if you want to discuss or argue about a policy, such as WP:ABOUTSELF, then you're supposed to discuss it on the Talk page of the policy.

You need to find some other reliable source that says someone is vegan — and if you find one, and they say that, then go ahead and use THAT in someone's biography article. Earlier today I did just that; I swapped out a peta.org citation with a reliable source saying that someone was a vegan; then posted that. But I don't suppose you noticed that when you checked my contributions and then called me anti-vegan.

I have presented a case that PETA/peta.org is NOT a reliable source. I have read (above) that others also think peta.org is not a reliable source for anything other than information about PETA itself (per ABOUTSELF). So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source, nor even one opinion that PETA is a reliable source.

Remember, we're on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

— Normal Op (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think quite that much needs to be said. The previous part of the discussion (PETA saying things about themselves) was at least debatable because what's self-serving is sometimes unclear, but stating that someone is a vegan or the like is unambiguously a claim about a third party and therefore not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF; and I think it would be difficult to argue that PETA itself has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source." In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information. Has PETA been caught doing that? If not, I don't understand why it would be an unreliable source. ImTheIP (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Milk_and_autism Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information. This isn't quite correct, although I can understand why you would think that given the sort of sources we usually discuss on WP:RS and how the discussions tend to go. Overall WP:RS requires that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this is something that, in theory, needs to be positively affirmed and proven by the people who want to use the source - it isn't something we assume. So when talking about a think-tank, advocacy organization, or private website the burden is on people who want to use the source to make the argument that it passes that threshold. The reason discussions here normally seem like the inverse of that is because most of the time the sources that require in-depth WP:RSN discussion and a full RFC are ones that, at first glance, seem like they might pass that bar (eg. sources that present themselves as reputable news organizations or high-quality publications, and whose presentation in that regard at least some editors accept.) We don't generally waste time discussing organizations that trivially fail that threshold and which nobody (or almost nobody) thinks is an WP:RS. PETA is different in that it's not really claiming to do serious fact-checking or anything like that - while some of the people above saying it's not an WP:RS might be basing that on its bad reputation, for the most part that's not the issue. It's not an WP:RS because, by the nature of what it is, it's not really attempting to be one and that's not really its purpose. For an activist organization, you would have to actually show they perform fact-checking and have a reputation based on it in order to convince people it's generally usable as an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for that, Aquillion. That's very well expressed. Normal Op (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op, I didn't read any of your latest comment. I might read it later, but I won't be replying to it. I know from this ANI thread on your tendentious, advocacy editing and having skimmed enough of your gaming the system/wikilawyering arguing that debating you would be a huge waste of time. It's because of that ANI thread that I now see why you focused on the "Pet food" section of the Veganism article. In my opinion, that ban should not have been lifted, and it is perhaps time for a different one. And I will also note that no one has stated that PETA should be used for scientific claims. This is where you do not grasp WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Like I stated above, we have people debating the reliability of PinkNews above and giving it more leeway than a source like PETA...despite the fabricated news reporting PinkNews has engaged in. So RfC started below. It's designed similarly to the PinkNews RfC.

Aquillion stated "that someone is a vegan or the like is unambiguously a claim about a third party and therefore not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF; and I think it would be difficult to argue that PETA itself has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires." If a public figure tells PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan, that is a WP:About self matter and is acceptable. We use exclusive interviews and similar all the time. We have no reason to think that PETA is lying. No such reports of them lying about stuff like that exist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Though not your first PA offence against me, Flyer22 Frozen, this is your second and final warning to knock off the personal attacks! I've already muted you because of your contemptuous writing to me, and about me. You even accused me of edit warring on an article by mis-attributing to me edits of others. You have been going after me like a dog with a bone. Your attachment to PETA has quite an Wikipedia:Advocacy flavor, to wit: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy." I care not one wit about PETA one way or the other, but you seem to care... a lot. Normal Op (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop pinging me to this page that I'm obviously watching. I see no need to ping you to this page again either. To repeat, I am not interested in your gaming the system/wikilawyering. I am far too experienced a Wikipedia editor to fall for any of that. It humors me to see you trying to school me on Wikipedia's rules. You stated that I "even accused [you] of edit warring on an article by mis-attributing to [you] edits of others." False. You state that I have committed a personal attack against you by noting your documented activism on Wikipedia, and yet you call me an activist when there is no documented proof of it and when many editors (Mathglot, for example) on this site know that I do not tolerate activism editing on Wikipedia. When I look at your history, including your recent "must purge Wikipedia of PETA" silliness, as if this is some WP:DAILYMAIL case, all I see is an activist. Go report me at WP:ANI if you must. Your assertion that I am attached to PETA, when I do not agree with their extreme views and have been clear on my user page in the past that I do not try to police people eating meat, is laughable. It's as laughable as you stating that you "care not one wit about PETA one way or the other." For me, this is about the way you have gone about editing on this matter. Yes, I am a vegetarian. But I am not a vegan, and couldn't care less about trying to police your meat-eating. I did not become a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, if I am mentioning you, I should notify you. If you don't want the pings, use the mute function. Normal Op (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

[134] in regard to deletions like this shouldn't we wait until a consensus is first reached here? I don't think we should delete anymore PETA until we get an official decision has been made by consensus vote. (see discussion below). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Talk to the hand", really? Did you just time travel from the 90s? Somehow I'm not surprised that you would reduce a woman's response to "talk to the hand." You stated, "Per Wikipedia guidelines, if [you are] mentioning [me], [you] should notify [me]. If you don't want the pings, use the mute function." This is yet another Wikipedia aspect you are wikilawyering. And, really, since it's not based on any rule, it's questionable to even call it wikilawyering. If you were reporting me at WP:ANI, you would have a point. But that would only count for you notifying me on my talk page. Nowhere are you required to keep pinging me to a page I am watching. When an editor tells you to stop pinging them because they are watching a page or will check back, you should stop. Point blank. This is per WP:Harassment. It's per WP:Harassment because your pings are not being helpful in any way and are instead causing distress. Your unnecessary pings annoy me. Since you know that, you should stop. Stating "Oh, well, just mute your pings. It's your fault if you keep getting pings from me." is silliness. And it's not like you would lose anything by simply ceasing pinging me. You're just going to keep pinging me when mute is on? Who is the pinging for then? What nonsense. Editors have been reprimanded for unnecessarily pinging others -- meaning after they were asked to stop. Likewise, editors have been reprimanded for thanking editors via WP:Echo when it has been used as a harassment tactic. Editors have been warned and/or reprimanded for either when it comes to their interaction with me. And you would be no different. As certain admins (including WP:CUs) know, I have stalkers who ping me via sock accounts. So that is one reason I don't like to be pinged unless necessary.

Now that aside, let's get something make something very clear: Your reckless edits have removed PETA for WP:About self matters. That is the main reason this thread was started. And as made clear by Ssilvers above, SMcCandlish below, Adrian J. Hunter here, and by others, using PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan because that person told PETA that, or using PETA to report that a public figure did a PSA with them, or won a PETA award are WP:About self matters. As is clear by this post you made, you are aware that PETA is not some little organization and that they are instead powerful. They aren't telling falsehoods by stating that a public figure is a vegetarian or vegan. And yet you are going on your "must rid Wikipedia of that pesky PETA in all cases" crusade. It's ridiculous. You've stated that editors are being PC for not going along with your extreme take on using PETA as a source. You've gone on about an advocacy campaign for PETA on Wikipedia, when it's significantly more likely that the reason editors have used PETA as a source is because it's so well-known.

When this thread is archived, you're going to point to it like it's the WP:DAILYMAIL case, as if PETA can't even be used to name vegetarian and vegan foods. And, actually, as is clear by the Sia case, you pointed to PETA in a "no, not the Daily Mail" way before I started the RfC below. Sighs. I'm just going to state now that when you are again sanctioned for disruption, whether it concerns the PETA website or something else, I will state, "Told you so." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Added more to post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

___

Sources

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PETA?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Only reliable for WP:About self matters

Further questions:

• 1. Is PETA reliable for statements about a person being a vegetarian or vegan? What about when the person tells PETA that they are a vegetarian or vegan?
• 2. Should citations to PETA be attributed and/or have an inline citation?
• 3. Are PETA awards and commentary about a person making PETA's "sexiest vegan" list to be excluded from Wikipedia articles unless covered by a secondary source? Should such material be included at all, such as in the "Public image" section? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Note: I updated this time stamp when adding in the third "further considerations" aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PETA)

• Option 3 if we're really doing this. There's no indication that they do any sort of fact-checking. Interviews with them are likewise generally unusable - we rely on the interview being with a WP:RS, normally. Since PETA isn't an RS, an interview with them cannot be considered WP:RS - that is not "person X says they're a vegetarian" (which would be the case if we were citing eg. their Twitter), that is "PETA says person X says they're a vegetarian". WP:ABOUTSELF requires that it be published by the person in question - otherwise articles would be full of hearsay from unreliable sources. Awards, commentary, and so on generally require a secondary source, and always require a secondary WP:RS source, without exception, whenever any third party is mentioned, including any awards, recognition, description of someone's characteristics, whether they are a vegan / vegetarian or not, etc. I'm baffled the discussion has gotten this far - we wouldn't accept a political think-tank saying "X totally agrees with us" as a source for their politics without secondary coverage, either. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Οption 4. This organization is singularly focused on one objective, the welfare of animals. The means it uses are often confrontantionally militant. Its internal and operational structure approaches those of a military group. Therefore, it would be expecting truly too much to expect to come out of PETA some neutral critique of others' or its own actions and ideas. But, of course, we can always quote and relay PETA's viewpoints as they emanate from the organization itself, per WP:ABOUTSELF. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - not to be trusted, surely anything they report can be found in alternative (reliable) sources. GiantSnowman 09:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: PETA, like all activism organizations, is not a reliable source for alleged facts, beyond their own positions, statements, and non-controversial history (e.g. who is on their advisory board, or where they were founded), though they are not categorically unreliable "no matter what", like a publisher devoted to falsehoods (Weekly World News, National Enquirer). Advocacy/pressure groups like this (on any topic) aren't reliable for statements of alleged fact about the world, because everything they write is one-sided socio-political staking out of a position, a stance, and is unlike other forms of non-fiction writing. It is the nonprofit/NGO direct equivalent of marketing. That said, PETA is not less reliable (nor more) than other such organizations, regardless of the subject of the activism. PS: In the heated discussion above, Flyer22 is correct that if celebrity A. B. Ceedy says they are a vegetarian in an interview published by PETA, we can use that. That's WP:ABOUTSELF material on the part of that person, and we have no evidence of any kind that PETA fabricates interviews. For interview material, PETA is a conduit for the statements of someone else, and is not the creator of them. There's a very big difference between PETA asserting, in their voice, that someone is a vegetarian, versus PETA quoting an individual personally stating he or she is a vegetarian. Whether PETA is biased and self-serving in who they choose to interview and what they choose to ask them is irrelevant. This reminds me a lot of the failure to distinguish between something like Facebook or Twitter (a legal entity) as a speaker and publisher (e.g., whether claims that Facebook or Twitter makes about its own relationships with various government agencies and how it handles private user data), versus Facebook or Twitter as a self-publishing service, as a conduit for other's own expression. Twitter is not a reliable source for whether Twitter actually abides by regulations, or whether a particular vaccine idea is a good one, or whether Pluto should be reclassified as a planet again. They are a reliable source, in the conduit sense, for the fact that Trump really did tweet another stupid and inflammatory thing this morning, and what exactly the wording was. In short, do not confuse the medium with the message, or confuse the source of the idea with the venue through which you encountered it. PETA as an originator of a claim is useless, but PETA as a relay of the claim of someone else isn't suspicious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
• Option 3 - maybe a source for claims about itself, absolutely not a source for claims about anyone or anything else, and obviously not an RS for statements about living people that can't be source to an RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's #4 verbatim. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 PETA is an agenda-driven activist organization, not a news outlet. They should not be cited for anything outside simple factual statements about themselves. Zaathras (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 They seem perfectly happy to let truth be a casualty of getting what they want. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: If PETA has made an interview with some celeb claiming to be a vegetarian/vegan, that interview is a sufficient source to claim that someone is a vegetarian/vegan. If PETA has published a report linking meat to cancer then that is not a sufficient source for the claim eating meat gives you cancer. It all depends on the context and what kind of claim is being made. The claims "X is a Nazi" and "X is a vegetarian" are syntactically similar, but the former obviously needs much stronger source support than the latter.ImTheIP (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per SMcCandlish. Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 4 per above. Also, any claims in any source that a person is vegetarian/vegan need to be dated because many people stop eating a vegan diet [135]. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - close enough to being the same thing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Given their nature (extreme advocacy) and tendency to see things form a very "narrow perspective" I am gona say not reliable for anything except the fact they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. No, PETA is generally not a reliable source. But an outright ban on citations is inappropriate. Is the fact that a certain product won one of their awards something that could be sourced to them? Probably, as PETA is the primary source for information about PETA's awards, and that may be content worth including in an article. Is PETA good for factual matters about the world outside PETA? Probably not. I do worry that (as I say below) it's not entirely clear what is actually being proposed, and I do worry (as is fairly clear above) that people's own views of PETA are influencing their assessments. Nonetheless: I echo what SMcCandlish said above about PETA being no "worse" than any other pressure group, and what he said about interviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - They are not a news organization, they are an advocacy group. That's fine for things they are doing, but they don't claim to be objective, so we shouldn't either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: Per Atsme and Dennis Brown. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)
• Option 3 or 4 As per Aquillion and The Gnome. It's an advocacy group, where's the peer review or editorial oversight? Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: One of the tests for RS is whether they do fact checking on a regular basis. PETA does not appear to do this. This is regrettable, because it's true that PETA is sometimes the only interview source for whether someone is vegan. (Other interviewers generally don't ask this question.) Nevertheless, as long as PETA doesn't do fact-checking, wikipedia shouldn't consider them a RS. — Eric Herboso 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it so important to include someone's dietary choices? If it's only of importance to a Wikipedia editor and not to interviewers, nor was mentioned by a celebrity, then isn't this advocacy? Normal Op (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You’re correct that people’s dietary choices shouldn’t be on their pages just if it’s merely their dietary choices. But “veganism” refers to more than diet. It’s an ethical stance that includes clothing and other choices. It’s on par with saying someone volunteers everyday for a particular cause, because they make daily choices for that particular cause. They might not be loud about it, and other outlets might not ask them about it, but being vegan in the traditional sense is a significant aspect of what a person chooses to do everyday. It’s similar to if a celebrity chose to be a volunteer firefighter and was serious enough about it to do something related to firefighting every day. I would argue that this is strange and significant enough that it would be noteworthy to include in a bio, so long as it was sourced from an RS. I don’t think PETA is a RS, but I do think that if a celeb publishes their own info stating that they are vegan, then that is allowable per WP:ABOUTSELF. — Eric Herboso 23:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Eric Herboso: If a celebrity publishes their own information, then PETA's publication of that same fact isn't needed as a source. Your assertion that all vegans are "ethical vegans" contradicts Veganism. Normal Op (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @Normal Op: I agree wholeheartedly that PETA shouldn’t be used as a source (because they're not a RS); I was saying that WP:ABOUTSELF would allow their own published info to be used as a source. But I completely disagree with your saying that my assertion contradicts veganism. The first line of veganism is completely in line with what I’ve said: that veganism is not just a dietary choice, and that it is additionally a philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. I believe this makes it appropriate to include in a bio, even though I don't think citing PETA to do it is acceptable for technical reasons. (As an aside, if your agenda is to not have vegan status included in bios, your best argument seems to me to be that veganism is something that many people eventually stop doing, and so any citation would need to be for a dated period of time. Finding citations that someone was vegan from 201X-202x would be more difficult to find than a single point citation of someone being vegan, and thus might result in less citations of veganism on wikipedia. (I mean no offense in assuming you have an agenda here; it just seems that way from the focused edits & comments you keep making.)) — Eric Herboso 02:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Advocacy group, not a news organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 and 4: As an activist organization with a mantra for sensationalistic campaigns and a history of false statements, they are generally unreliable for any factual reporting whatsoever. As for ABOUTSELF matters, they would only be acceptable for uncontroversial statements about themselves, and never about another person. (I notice an option for 'deprecated' wasn't offered.)
  

Q1: No, especially in the absence of a secondary and reliable source because PETA has a reputation for altering the truth. Also, "being a vegan", as for any dietary choices, can be a temporary condition for many people. It is not a permanent fact about a person such as where someone was born or what their primary language is. Would you report in Wikipedia that someone follows the Atkins Diet? No.

Q2: No opinion.

Q3: No, PETA awards should not be included in Wikipedia. PETA hands out these awards like water bottles at a marathon race. Such awards are only rubber stamps by a controversial advocacy organization and are neither valuable nor important. Mentioning them in Wikipedia is UNDUE and just more advertising for the advocacy organization. How are they even judged? Is PETA in the people business like People magazine is? I would trust People's Sexiest Man Alive or Sexiest Woman Alive before I would put any stock in a PETA award. In my research I encountered: "Celebrities regularly featured in People magazine were excluded" from PETA's 'sexiest' awards. What does THAT mean? Did you know PETA has at least 6 different types of awards? Sexiest Vegetarian, Most Beautiful Vegan Celebrity, Sexiest Vegan Celebrity, Sexiest Vegan Over 50, Sexiest Vegan Indoors, and Sexiest Vegan Next Door (non-celebrities). Each press release includes this sort of agenda promotion: "That skin … that hair … that body! Ever notice that certain celebrities just seem ageless somehow? No, not the plastic surgery nightmare stuff. It’s that glow. What’s their secret? Refraining from eating meat." — Normal Op (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why wasn't an option for "deprecated" offered? Common sense, that's why. This is not a WP:DAILYMAIL matter, which is what I've been telling you. That you want to treat it like one is clearly out of step with what pretty much everyone else has stated. Similar goes for other comments you've made about the source, and yet you want us to believe you have nothing against PETA. You clearly haven't listened to anything that editors who are far more experienced than you are have stated about using PETA. Or if you have, then you don't care. You just want the source's use severely limited or rather the source outright banned. I don't know what else  SMcCandlish could state to get you to listen, but I've pinged him again just in case he thinks he can state anything else that would help. And, for the record, whether or not mentioning "sexiest vegan" is WP:Due is about context, like various other things when it comes to using sources like PETA. If secondary sources are noting that a celebrity, especially one whose notability partly or mainly hinges on their appearance (their perceived physical attractiveness), made PETA's "sexiest vegan" list or topped it, then, yes, it is likely WP:Due for us to mention that. Various celebrity articles have "Public image" or "In the media" sections to address how the public and/or media views them. A lot of these articles, such as Jennifer Lawrence, are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. And Lawrence being considered beautiful or sexy is something that is mentioned in her "In the media" section. If she were a vegan and made PETA's "sexiest vegan" list, it would likely be reported on by one or more secondary sources and would also likely be included there in her Wikipedia article. If she were a vegan, and with her reputation for advocacy, it's something that would that she is a vegan would certainly be included in her "Personal life" or "Off-screen work" section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen: Your antagonistic, condescending, and repetitive personal attacks towards me are getting really old. Knock it off! Normal Op (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your "Flyer is being so mean to me" tactic is really old. Knock it off. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, Ginger. Normal Op (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pot, meet Kettle. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, at risk of being the only person in the room with a tan suit: their investigations are GREL; their footage is GREL for the event they capture; and everything else should be considered as reliable as any company pamphlet or neighborhood news. All three cases should be attributed. As for the particular case: Q1 - yes if as part of an interview with the subject; Q2 - attributed; Q3 - I'm not inclined to this sort of tabloid shtick regardless of where it comes from, so no. I am inclined to change my vote if evidence of unreliability is presented. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5 Not reliable at all, not even about themselves. PETA has shown repeatedly that they will weaponize and distort information in pursuit of their goals. Everything they do and say is suspect. Even about themselves: remember when they claimed to run animal shelters but killed all the pets they took in? They lie. About everything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As other editors have said, they are an agenda-driven advocacy organization with no editorial oversight. Over the years, this organization has repeatedly presented absolutely outrageous claims as being factual. For example, they once claimed that milk can cause Autism. Sources that regularly spread this much pseudoscience have no place on Wikipedia. They appear to be so concerned with pushing an agenda that they seem to not think that facts matter. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. PETA is an advocacy group, whose scientific claims might be correct in some cases, but like many advocacy groups they start off with their conclusion ("exploitation of animals is never justified") and try to find scientific evidence to support that, instead of letting the scientific evidence guide their views. That approach leads to them to often ignoring evidence contrary to their views, while accepting poorly founded scientific claims. The "beer is healthier than milk" claim is among them, another is the claim that B-vitamins prevent mosquito bites, to prove that there is no need to kill them. On some occasions, animal rights groups have documented severe animal abuses taking place, and when that evidence is picked up by a news organisation, we may elect to add a link to the original source, but we should always rely on secondary sourcing to verify such claims. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sjakkalle: From what you wrote, I'm thinking you meant "Option 3", not "Oppose 3". Is that correct? Normal Op (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Corrected :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per above. ~ HAL333 02:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PETA)

Comment how is "PETA" defined? Is this a website, all their websites, quotes of theirs in other media, their own quarterly journal, what? GPinkerton (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As currently noted in its Wikipedia's article, it's an American animal rights organization. Some in this discussion have also called it an activist organization. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I would include anything published on any of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' numerous websites including peta.org, peta2.com, petaindia.com, petaasiapacific.com, peta.org.uk, peta.de, petafrance.com, peta.nl, peta.org.au, petaasia.com, petaasia.cn, petalatino.com, petakids.com, furisdead.com, and dozens more. I would also include any statements directly attributed as being from PETA, including statements made by Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco or any of the PETA executives or staff in the performance of their duties at PETA. Normal Op (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the question of how we define PETA is a good one. The people you mention by name also publish in outlets that do have a reputation for fact-checking. Even if PETA-published sources have to be ruled out or limited (on which I right now express no opinion) we should not ban citations to these writers' work in more reputable outlets. (The only time I can think of citing PETA on Wikipedia was literally yesterday, and this was for one of their awards -- though not their "sexiest vegan" nonsense. Their various awards are quite widely commented upon in the vegan world, among the winners, and in the mainstream press.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In what outlet would Newkirk or Pacheco publish that isn't PETA commentary, op-ed, or press release? Do you have any examples? (I'm assuming you saw my "in the performance of their duties at PETA" qualifier.) Normal Op (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not share your assumptions (or what I take to be your assumptions) about "op-eds". Newkirk has published several times in The Guardian: this is a highly regarded UK broadsheet. I think it would be problematic if a hamfisted anti-PETA guideline banned citing work published in The Guardian. (Obviously, these pieces can't be taken to be completely "neutral" with regards animal protection issues, but no broadsheet is "neutral" anyway.) Newkirk has also published scholarly work (e.g., she has a chapter in Sister Species, published by Illinois UP, which is a key collection in the scholarly literature on animals and women) as well as non-fiction (but non-scholarly) books with established, reputable publishers (e.g., Animalkind was published with Simon & Schuster). Restricting citations to PETA's website is one thing. Blacklisting people associated with PETA is completely another. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I'm not advocating blacklisting; you must have missed my "in the performance of their duties at PETA" qualifier. Books go through an editorial process that op-eds do not. All 4 of Newkirk's articles in The Guardian are labelled as "Opinions" and are covered under primary source policies including WP:PRIMARY: "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; ... original philosophical works..." Normal Op (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't miss it; a lot of what you are saying (including the "duties at PETA" claim) is ambiguous, which is precisely why we're having this conversation. If I understand you correctly, you accept that the books are OK, even if the proposed "PETA ban" goes through. You are not advocating a ban on work from people associated with PETA. (Though I honestly do not know what your position on the "op-eds" is. Could I ask you to state it in plain English?) So what are you proposing? Is it simply a ban on content published by PETA? Or is it more than that? SMcCandlish seems to think it's more than that. I am inclined to oppose this proposal for the simple reason that I do not know what it is. It feels suspiciously like an attempt to just ban a bunch of citations that certain editors do not like because of a perceived link to an organisation that certain editors do not like. I've got a lot of issues with PETA (though I understand that their very decentralised structure and love of press attention complicates views of the organisation), and I don't see any reason to think of them as a particularly reliable source on most things, but this whole thing feels a bit off. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow-up (and a partial going-back on myself): Feel free to reply, and feel free to ping me if you want me to see something, but I am not sure I want this to be any more of a time-sink than it already has been! Do not feel you have to answer my questions if you do not want to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I meant to indicate that your attempt to frame this RfC as an author blacklist discussion by using books and op-eds as examples was immaterial because we already have policies/guidelines for the handling of books and op-eds. Books are usually more acceptable because they have more editorial oversight. Op-eds are usually less acceptable because they have less editorial oversight. The phrase I used "statements directly attributed as being from PETA" meant those cases where an otherwise reliable news source is quoting PETA to get filler for their article, or just plain churnalism. I have seen numerous instances recently of 'news articles' which are only repeats of what the 'reporter' read on peta.org or gleaned from the latest PETA advertising video. And I don't mean the reporter was covering the subject; they were merely repeating the PETA campaign message; a sort of well-disguised press release. That falls under "statements directly attributed as being from PETA". Normal Op (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Re, 'how is "PETA" defined?' As an organizational author and as a publisher. 'Is this a website, all their websites, quotes of theirs in other media, their own quarterly journal, what?' All of the above, and quoted statements by them in the press.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Could someone provide examples of use? I'll eventually get around it, but the earlier we have them the better this RfC will go. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned my own citation of PETA above -- it's in Jackie Kearney. I doubt this is the sort of thing that some others so strongly object to, but it certainly seems to be something they want to ban. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Quote below. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is worthy of inclusion people other then PETA would care (see wp:undue). If no one cares why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• In Jackie Kearney: "The book won the PETA UK Vegan Food Award for Cookbook of the Year 2016."

If PETA does something notable others will notice it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that the issue is weight, not reliability. The reason we normally would not use PETA as a source is because we need evidence that their findings have been widely reported before we mention them. It's not because we question whether their facts are accurate. TFD (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC: Chabad.org

The website chabad.org should be treated as:

1. A reliable general reference on Judaism;
2. A self-published / affiliated source in respect of the Chabad-Lubavich movement, used as WP:ABOUTSELF and otherwise only with attribution;
3. Deprecated as a source.

See background for further details. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• chabad.org  

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303 § chabad.org. This website is used as a source in 1,346 articles. Chabad.org "is the flagship website of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement". The issue here is that while the site is used as freely as, say, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Lubavicher perspective is a minority within a minority within a minority: a subset of hasids, which are in turn a subset of orthodox Jews. Chabad is on the fringes of orthodox Judaism; there are "profound ideological differences" between the Chabad movement and the rest of Judaism. It seems to me that the popularity and well-crafted nature of the site obscures its status as advocating a distinctly fringe position. Much of its content rests on interpretations of the law that are stated in absolutist terms but may and often do represent extremely idiosyncratic views. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions (chabad)

• Support 2 as proposer. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: (Guy), when you state that "This website (Chabad.org) is used as a source in 1,346 articles" could you please break down the numbers: Such as, (1) how many articles about the Chabad movement and ideology does Chabad.org on WP link to? (2) How many times is Chabad.org listed in WP:External links in articles, usually about Judaism or Jewish holidays? (3) how many times is Chabad.org actually given as a reference within articles about Judaism in general? Outside of these three areas on WP I can't think of any way that Chabad.org would be used as a reference point on WP. In light of this research you may even consider withdrawing your proposal as unnecessary. I think you will find that your concerns are unwarranted and that the need for limiting the site as a reference point is overblown.IZAK (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, reliable for about self and thats pretty much it. About self extends only to the Chabad-Lubavitcher movement and they are not a reliable authority on orthodox Judaism or Judaism in general. We must be especially wary of using anything the Lubavitcher have published on history as they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field. In general I think we should treat them like any other extremist religious organization, they’re much closer to something like Falun Gong than mainstream Judaism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be using the term "extremist" here. The word extremist is loaded with negative connotations to terrorism, and insulting religions onwiki isn't conducive to a good editing environment. There's also no need to call out Falun Gong as an "extremist" organization either. There's no need to insult people's religions in this discussion.Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to engage in whatever level of political correctness and personal censorship you wish to engage in, I will continue to WP:Call a spade a spade. Deeply religious people with *always* find some way to be insulted by wikipedia’s coverage of their religion (and particularly their sect), ignore those POV pushing voices. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But why call a hammer spade? There are criteria in the social sciences for "extremist group" and Chabad is not an extremist group. So please, keep your language neutral. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah Debresser! I do love debating you but don’t you have a COI to disclose before participating further in this discussion? I don’t see any note about it in your vote explanation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack—you say "they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field". What makes you think they have a "long record of distortions and outright lies in that field"? Can you for instance link to anything or cite any source making such a claim? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: Chabad is pretty unambiguously a fairly small and often idiosyncratic sect of Judaism in general. We shouldn't be using them as a source for Judaism in general without attribution. Loki (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, no, it's not, it's one of the largest sects of hassidim in the world. It's also not a "fringe" movement in Judaism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Any sect of Chasidim is small and idiosyncratic. Most Jews aren't even Orthodox. I never called them fringe but wouldn't object to that description since they're a minority of a minority within Judaism. Loki (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Loki—what are you trying to say when you say "Most Jews aren't even Orthodox"? This being an encyclopedia, of course we want to give a detailed explanation of the beliefs and practices of observant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 That being said, I think that the presentation of the evidence against Chabad/Lubavitch overstates their fringe status within Judaism. They are a highly influential and widely respected and well organized and effective minority voice for highly observant Judaism. Yes, the messianic teachings of some of their adherents are controversial, but they remain a powerful and respected voice in Orthodox Jewish communities worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to be a minority viewpoint in Judaisim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no viewpoint in Judaism that is a majority viewpoint. Editors here should take into account that the outcome of this discussion will be applied to any and all Jewish resources, including OU.org and Aish.org. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Chabad represents around 13% of Hasidic Jews and Hasidic Jews represent around 5% of the total Jewish population, meaning that Chabad counts for less than 1% of the world's total Jewish population. That's very different from just being a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, just to argue, if we are going on numbers and percentages, what percentage of Jews perform, or even know about Shiluach_haken? Do you think it makes sense that in this case Chabad.org might be a source? (I haven't checked, but assume it might be a reference or two.) It's on these types of articles that this RFC is proposing that we take out Chabad (and then in the future, the OU and other religious sources). I don't think that's a good idea. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia That is actually a stupid argument. I mean, scholars are less than 1% of the population, and still it is precisely the publlications of that less than 1% that are considered the best sources for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources should be preferred over sites like Chabad.org and myjewishlearning.com  , except where they are reprinting them. As to Shiluach haken a quick search came up with a section discussing the term in The World of Orthodox Judaism, which was one of only 7 hits on google scholar. Ultimately if Chabad is to be used it should be WP:INTEXT attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 1.5, I think I'm in agreement with Cullen. Chabad is probably one of the most widespread and well-known denominations within Orthodox Judaism, if not Judaism as a whole. Their views are, however, often idiosyncratic, and their popularity is largely due to a willingness to engage with people that do not fully see eye to eye with them on theology; anecdotally, the percentage of Jews that fully agree with Chabad's worldview is much lower than the percentage of Jews that belong to their congregations. All that having been said, I think that the framing of this discussion is poor: I think that it can likely be used as a source for non-extraordinary claims about Judaism and can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If this were a standard 4-option RSN survey, I'd say 2, but among the options presented here #2 is closer to a standard #3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Rosguill, to be fair, that could be because they are more vocal and they, as you say, do more outreach and they engage and are very proficient with media, etc. I do agree with you though that the RFC isn't written correctly, especially when Guy writes that Chabad is "fringe." Chabad is many things, but it's not fringe. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• For "non-extraordinary claims" there will always be many sources without getting into talk page discussions each time about whether attribution is needed or whether the claim is extraordinary. Pardon the comparison, but it's similar to why we shouldn't get used to citing Fox News. The easy stuff can be sourced far and wide. The rest will tie up talk pages and destabilize article text with unnecessary good faith disagreements. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 As per my own previous comments on the RS Noticeboard before this RfC was started. Also, agreeing with all the caveats explained by Cullen328 and Rosguill above. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: this isn’t a deletion discussion. Whats the logic here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye Jack, I mainly notified the WP:JUDAISM talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Chabad.org and then also placed a notification at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Miscellaneous for the same effort to inform Judaic editors. IZAK (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is a reliable source for anything related to Judaism. Its website is specifically meant for the wider public, and often brings points of view that are not specific to the movement. Even though the group itself is only one of many within Judaism, it is specifically geared towards outreach, and its information is not meant for the use of its adherents only. In addition, we would do the WikiProject Judaism a great disservice if we were to limit the use of one of the largest online resources about Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the outcome of this discussion will have wide-reaching repercussions for all online resources about Judaism, including OU.org and Aish,org, which are just as much not representative of Judaism as Chabad.org (even more so, since e.g. OU.org is a US organization, while Chabad is at least a worldwide organization). Debresser (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at our Chabad.org article: "Chabad.org has a comprehensive Jewish knowledge base which includes over 100,000 articles of information ranging from basic Judaism to Hasidic philosophy taught from the Chabad point of view." and "Chabad.org and its affiliated sites claim over 43 million visitors per year, and over 365,000 email subscribers." I mean, is this really a smart proposal...? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is an impeccable source on all things relating to Judaism. Ari L. Goldman is quoted in the New York Times, commenting on Chabad: "Obviously, it’s a house organ to some extent," said Ari Goldman, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a self-described fan who receives regular RSS feeds of stories from Chabad.org News. "But I also think it’s a reliable source of information."[136] Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Chabad has its own agenda and shouldn't be cited for general knowledge on Judaism, any more than I would support using Jehovah's Witnesses or Campus Crusade for Christ's websites for general information on Christianity. It's surely reliable for itself though.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Chabad.org's agenda includes foremost informing people about Judaism. Why would it not be a reliable website for precisely that? I really fail to understand all of you guys here. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—the comparison is not apt because Christianity engages in proselytization and Judaism does not. The only "agenda" found at Chabad.org is informational. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". Can you tell me what that "agenda" might be? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Chabad#Outreach activities Much of the movement's activities emphasize on outreach activities. This is due to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson encouraging his followers to reach out to other Jews.[110] Chabad outreach includes activities promoting the practice of Jewish commandments (Mitzvah campaigns), as well as other forms of Jewish outreach. Much of Chabad's outreach is performed by Chabad emissaries (see Shaliach (Chabad)). This is certainly a form of proselytism, even if it's only aimed at ethnic Jews or Jews of other denominations. Cf. also Chabad outreach Chabad Hasidic outreach is a Kiruv phenomena, whereby Chabad Chasidim attempt to encourage Jews to adopt Orthodox Jewish observance. It's already been pointed out that Chabad follows a different theology than many other Jewish groups. I'm not saying that's bad, it just affects how we should use them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Every group has its own opinions. But the information on the website is mostly general, unless it is specifically about Chabad subjects, of course. I get the feeling you are speaking from some kind of theoretical point of view, without any knowledge of the group or its website. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—if you know of a substantive difference between Chabad and standard Orthodox Judaism please bring it to our attention. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". You are linking to Chabad outreach. None of its activities involve attempts to convert anyone to Judaism. And this is hardly unique to Chabad. See Orthodox Judaism outreach. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They're trying to convert other Jews to Orthodox Judaism. I realize Orthodox Jews might not see that as proselytism because all the people who convert are ethnically Jewish, but it is as much conversion as changing from being a Baptist to a Roman Catholic, which is generally called conversion even though both are (religiously) Christian. Anyway, Chabad.org contains articles arguing for the literal truth of the Bible, for instance, which is in fact a substantive difference from Reform or Conservative Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is not the only Judaism, anymore than Evangelicalism is the only Christianity. Taking descriptions of Jewish practice by any partisan Orthodox source (i.e. a source that is encouraging others to see their version of the faith as the only correct one) and saying they're applicable as general knowledge about all Jews is akin to taking a partisan Orthodox Christian description of practice and saying it's generally applicable to all Christians. It's also been pointed out that Chabad is probably not entirely reliable for its descriptions of the Lubavitcher movement.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—it's hard to understand how you fail to make a distinction between that which is interreligious and that which is intrareligious. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural objection – while the options presented here are not the standard 4-option survey that RSN regulars are familiar with, the responses nevertheless look very similar to that format, which could cause confusion among participants that didn't read the prompt carefully. The wording of the option presented here as #2 is closer to the deep end of #3 in the standard prompt. I wouldn't go as far as to say that that we need to throw everything out and start over as there's been useful discussion, but I think that the framing was less than ideal and would thus suggest caution when closing or otherwise evaluating the outcome of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps this discussion should be closed and re-opened as a standard 4-option one. I for one also object to not having been informed at WT:JUDAISM till after 4 whole days of discussion here, which I consider an outrage. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The way it's written now, I'd say it's a reliable general reference for Judaism. I wouldn't use it as the sole reference on a Jewish topic and try to get other sources, but I do not think we should be throwing it out as a reference. If someone wanted to know what Passover was about, and Chabad.org had an article on it, I see no reason why we can't incorporate that as a reference into our articles. Are we going to next go and claim the OU or CCAR or the CJLS is also not reliable? We use what's best for the article and most have varied resources from multiple sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Chabad.org is a reasonably reliable source for Chabad/Lubavitch's views on Judaism (and other topics). That said, for almost any Jewish topic (including the topic of Chabad/Lubavitch itself) it is possible to find scholarly sources at a much higher point on the WP:RS scale (e.g. books published by University Presses). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. While Chabad.org often brings Chabad viewpoints, it is also a leading Jewish informational site beyond simply Chabad views (as quoted above from the Chabad Wiki article). As also mentioned, maybe a 1.5 would be a good options but alas). | MK17b | (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Option 1.5 I'm generally in agreement with Cullen and Rosguill. They are members of a fringe group, but their publication has a good reputation. As Alan Feuer, writing for the New York Times put it "With such diverse sources of information, Chabad.org News stands at the intersection of professional reporting, citizen journalism and movement boosterism, apparently pleased to have its feet in all three worlds. The stickiest question may be how to cover the institution that spawned it. While the outfit’s stories are broad in scope, they are rarely, if ever, critical of the Lubavitch movement itself." Bacondrum (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

off-topic bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, in the same New York Times article by Alan Feuer: “Obviously, it’s a house organ to some extent,” said Ari Goldman, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a self-described fan who receives regular RSS feeds of stories from Chabad.org News. “But I also think it’s a reliable source of information.” Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Note that “scholarly” articles are not always reliable in their depiction of Judaism either. The academic perspective is sometimes at odds with traditional Jewish scholarship. I would turn to academic articles for a critical perspective on ancient Jewish history, while I would favour Chabad.org for an understanding of normative Jewish views on Midrash, personal ethics, and divinity. Even if it has some small idiosyncrasies as a “house organ” as per Ari Goldman, Chabad.org today serves as a mainstream source within Judaism, with a lot of valuable general Jewish information, representing traditional Jewish practices and perspectives. Cohengulko (talk) 13 August 2020 (UTC)— Cohengulko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Chabad, like all Hasidic groups, are also at odds with traditional Jewish scholarship by definition. They aren’t a traditional Jewish group and never have been, their views are not normative Jewish views nor are their practices and perspectives representative of traditional Jewish practices and perspectives. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC) The idea that Hasidic groups are at odds with traditional Jewish scholarship seems, how do I put this nicely, erroneous? They obviously make up a sizable percentage of practicing Jews and while there may be differences of opinions, I find it hard to believe that someone can in good faith can argue that "their practices and perspectives representative of traditional Jewish practices and perspectives". Is there a perfect model Jew that we can get the true answers from instead? | MK17b | (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) The Chasidim only came into being in the early modern era, if they accepted traditional Jewish scholarship they would cease to exist as a sect. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @Horse Eye Jack Your point of view is, thank G-d, not accepted in the Jewish world of today. I don't know why you are so fervently opposed to Hassidism, but your attitude is, and I repeat myself, thank G-d, not representative of the attitude of other groups in Judaism towards Hassidism or Chabad, including the so-called Misnagdim. Please leave your personal issues out of this. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @Debresser:, when in this conversation were you planning on disclosing that you are a Lubavitcher Rabbi? I asked you to make one on the 10th and you still have not. You appear to be pretending to be a neutral voice on the issue when as a Lubavitcher Rabbi you are one of a few hundred of the most closely connected people on the planet to the subject and have a vested interest in your religious sect’s main website not being ruled unreliable. I am not opposed to Hassidism or Lubavitchers in particular, that Chabad.org is an unreliable source has little to do with their (your) particular variety of Judaism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Horse Eye Jack—a person can be a "Lubavitcher Rabbi" and still be "a neutral voice". I think there would naturally be a burden on a person such as yourself to articulate specifically where a presumably un-neutral voice is seen. Could you please to do that, Horse Eye Jack? Please try to articulate specifically where Debresser's input shows what might be called signs of biased input to this discussion. Even if they are a "Lubavitcher Rabbi", and I could say I'm a goose from Spain, that would not disqualify them from participating in this discussion, unless of course you can be a little bit more specific in what it is you are saying. Speaking of what you are saying, you say "they are not a reliable authority on orthodox Judaism". I completely disagree. Chabad.org is "a reliable authority on orthodox Judaism". But I would be interested to hear how you arrive at your conclusion. You say "they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field". Can you explain any of this? Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC) The question was addressed to Debresser not Bus stop. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC) That has been my experience and it is my impression of the outlet when it comes to their coverage of history. It would be nice to have links or something saved away with their direct rebuttals in mainstream academics also saved but I don’t have them. What I find interesting is you demanding detailed explanations and arguments when you own "Chabad.org is an impeccable source on all things relating to Judaism.” is but a sentence and provides no reasoning *at all.* Nothing so far has suggested that Chabad.org satisfies WP:VERIFY, doesn't some argument actually need to be made to vote 1 rather than just disagreeing with the adversary? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @Bus stop: don’t move your comment like that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Horse Eye Jack—I've updated my "vote". I added an evaluation of the Chabad website provided by Ari L. Goldman. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC) I hadn't noticed your question previously. This information has been visible for all on my userpage for about a decade, so I don't see why the sudden need for "disclosing". If you are insinuating a COI, I have to disappoint you, I am not working for or receiving any payment from any Chabad organization, and my opinion is my own. Now would you please disclose what movement in Judaism you are affiliated with, since I feel that will shed light on your overly zealous opposition here. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC) You don’t feel like being a leading member of the organization under discussion on this noticeboard was important to note when participating in a discussion about that origination? Just FYI COI is about more than payment or work, have you checked out WP:COI recently? Per WP:COISELF "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC) A rabbi is a teacher, not a "leading member of the organization". Would Alex Honnold not be allowed to edit about rock climbing? Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Precisely. I am a rabbi, and I am also an adherent of Chabad. Both these pieces of information are available on my talkpage, and neither constitutes a COI. Now please disclose your affiliation, as requested above. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC) The question is about the reliability of the source, not what we think of certain sects and who is or isn't a rabbi. The above debate about sects and rabbis is a forum discussion and totally inappropriate here. Take the sectarian bickering to Facebook or some other forum, it does not belong here. Bacondrum (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option "1.5", per Rosguill. François Robere (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Personal website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (and no reason to think it particularly performs them; I couldn't find any claims of an editorial board when skimming the site, say.) None of the comments arguing for using it as a source are actually addressing the WP:RS issue - they don't have any editorial controls, they don't perform any fact-checking, and so on. All they do is publish the opinions of the site's owners, which means they're usable only for that (with the usual WP:ABOUTSELF restrictions) and nothing else. "It is a large website" isn't an WP:RS argument. "It's a useful resource" isn't an WP:RS argument. "Some people like it" isn't an RS argument. If you want to make general claims about Judaism, go to a source that actually fact-checks what it says. --Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (chabad)

2010 ArbCom Chabad movement case, including Chabad.org

This subject was dealt with by the ArbCom about ten years ago, and they decided on no action. For more information please see:

• Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver
• Main case page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That ARBCOM case didn't address the question of Chabad as a wp:RS, only a wp:COI for some users and Chabad - or am I missing something?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a very long case that included my own complaints that Chabad.org was being over-used by pro-Chabad editors, you'll have to go through the whole case to pick up all its points, but the ArbCom decided to pass the buck, and required no sanctions, just some cautionary warnings to the pro-Chabad editors, as they (the ArbCom) glossed over anything the pro-Chabad editors were doing be it COI or using Chabad.org as a RS. You'll have to wade through all of this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver to find out how Chabad.org is involved in the complaints and case. IZAK (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich is correct, and that case was not about the resource, but about editors. And it remains in my opinion a repetition of the witch-hunt of the Hassidim by the Misnagdim and one of the poorer moves of IZAK, not to mention a chillul shem HaShem. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, don't get melodramatic. There were very good reasons for the original case, and Chabad.org was part of the original COI discussion. When pro-Chabad editors decide they WP:OWN an article, no one can get a word in edgewise, as is well-known, but this is not the subject right now in any case. IZAK (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is chilly or not is besides the point. It is a reliable and easily accessible source on almost everything pertaining to observant Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Belated notification

Why in the world was WT:JUDAISM not informed right away?! 4 days?! Debresser (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree! I was the one that did the notification [137] immediately after I belatedly came across this discussion. IZAK (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Global Times

What is the reliability of Global Times (globaltimes.cn  )? It is used in more than a thousand Wikipedia articles.

• 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?

(t · c) buidhe 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Global Times)

• Option 4 a tabloid newspaper known for disinformation, state propaganda, and conspiracy theories [138][139] (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: Almost all of the attention for the Global Times is focused on its outlandish editorials, which should never be used outside of WP:ABOUTSELF regarding its authors. Their factual reporting also has major issues and should be regarded as unreliable; so possibly a 3 for non-editorials, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Global Times' false reporting extended to its factual reporting. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. I wouldn't rely on the Global Times for anything except to get a sense of the most hawkish and nationalistic propaganda coming from Chinese state media. Only usable for WP:ABOUTSELF, I think. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. While Xinhua (RfC above) exhibits some of the highest-quality reporting that mainland China has to offer, the Global Times exhibits some of the lowest-quality reporting. The main factor that distinguishes the Global Times from other Chinese state-owned publications is that the content published by Global Times is not necessarily aligned with the position of the Chinese government. Often, the Global Times exaggerates to generate a reaction, which frequently leads to Western publications incorrectly describing what the Global Times says as China's stance on an issue. This is a mistake: even though the Global Times is owned by the more respectable People's Daily, the Global Times is just a tabloid that publishes polemic for the sake of polemic (or in other words, propaganda). The Global Times serves the same purpose as Breitbart News (RSP entry) in the US, but is state-owned and takes a stance favoring the Chinese Communist Party. Here are some quotes from reliable sources that describe the Global Times, taken from my previous comment in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271 § Chinese news sources:

Quotes about the Global Times from reliable sources

As tensions rise on the Korean Peninsula, the world’s eyes are on China’s response. And "China" has given plenty of answers. "China Offers to Defend Kim Jong-un If He Gives Up His Nuclear Weapons," read one National Interest headline. "China Warns North Korea Not to ‘Cross Point of No Return’ With Nuclear Test," claimed Breitbart. The problem is, it wasn't the Chinese government issuing these statements; it was a market-driven tabloid that strives for exactly this sort of attention. [...] By its own admission, the paper’s actual relationship with China’s levers of power is tangential at best. And while the Global Times and the Chinese government have interests that overlap, they aren’t nearly identical. Several current and former editors at the paper say business incentives drive it to be intentionally provocative whenever possible. Provocations that involve straying from the official line of the Chinese government are welcome, so long as they don’t entirely sever the illusion of a tight connection between it and the newspaper. "China's Angriest Newspaper Doesn’t Speak for China", Foreign Policy Few countries have invested more man-hours in suppressing awkward facts than China. Internet censors employ more foot-soldiers than some armies. Propaganda officials are so strict that, lest instructions faxed to newsrooms leak, they issue some orders to squelch stories by telephone, to be recorded by hand. Yet the rules do not bind all equally. The Global Times is a jingoistic tabloid that tackles topics shunned by rivals, even though it is a subsidiary of the Communist Party mouthpiece, the important-but-turgid People's Daily. [...] It is not fashionable in China to take the Global Times seriously. Mention it at dinner with Chinese intellectuals and fireworks follow. They deplore its sabre-rattling towards Taiwan and Japan, and its deep reservoirs of grievance (this week the paper peddled a largely confected tale accusing Swedish police of brutalising some rowdy Chinese tourists). "China's Global Times plays a peculiar role", The Economist (RSP entry) China's most belligerent tabloid, the Global Times, is certainly a one-of-a-kind publication. The Chinese- and English-language news outlet is published by the ruling Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) paramount mouthpiece, the People's Daily, but it goes much further than China’s typically stodgy state news. The Global Times is best known for its hawkish, insulting editorials—aggressive attacks that get it noticed, and quoted, by foreign media around the world as the "voice" of Beijing, even as the party's official statements are more circumspect. "Inside the Global Times, China’s hawkish, belligerent state tabloid", Quartz The tabloid that Hu edits is known for its nationalistic coverage and bellicose opinions, which are frequently quoted by Western media. Like all state media outlets in China, it operates within a heavily censored environment that is tightly controlled by Communist authorities. Published in both Chinese and English, the Global Times boasts a daily circulation of two million copies, and every month its website attracts around 30 million unique visitors. Where other state media outlets adopt a more measured tone, Hu's paper takes a combative approach to covering international issues by calling out perceived threats and slights to China from across the world. "The man taking on Hong Kong from deep inside China's propaganda machine", CNN (RSP entry) From the preceding discussion of Huanqiu Shibao and Global Times, we can see that the two newspapers operate within the broad boundaries of the Party-state's propaganda strategy. The domestic edition pursues commercial objectives and strives to differentiate itself from its official state-run parent publication, People's Daily. It also maintains propaganda discipline by upholding the Party-state's main melody on important issues that shape China's interaction with the rest of the world. The international edition seeks to bring a nonofficial, pluralist Chinese perspective to foreign audiences. When it comes to sensitive subjects such as human rights and democracy whether there is conflict between the official Chinese discourse and Western discourses, however, Global Times seems more likely to reproduce the main melody than to provide a venue for the expression of a plurality of Chinese perspectives. The Globalization of Chinese Propaganda, p. 149, Springer

If the Global Times is ever used (primarily under WP:ABOUTSELF), it should be attributed in-text as a biased or opinionated source. The attribution should be made to the Global Times specifically, and not to "China". — Newslinger talk 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per above and for the fact that Global Times has been criticised for its coverage by the Chinese government itself. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, one of the worst in the world among the major state media outlets. Deprecation benchmarks RT and Daily Mail are superior in almost every way to Global Times, I don’t see any wiggle room on this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per Newslinger's sources --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, Newslinger's sources make it pretty clear that its widely recognised as a state owned propoganda outlet at best, which is saying something. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per nom. That newspaper does not even pretend to provide reliable information about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This really is just a propaganda outlet. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 concerning its propaganda service nature, and how much the world agrees on its nature as a propaganda service.--1233 ( T / C） 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Straight propaganda. feminist (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 pure propaganda. Cavalryman (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 3 Propaganda. KONNO Yumeto 09:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Pure tabloid propaganda. Sometimes Global Times (or Hu Xijin, should I say?) takes on a straw-man role with extreme opinions that go beyond Chinese state propaganda as a means for the CCP to test the waters regarding particularly controversial positions. As a result we can't even say GT reliably represents Chinese government opinion. I thought for a while about GT opinion being so notable that they might be cited and inline-attributed, but on second thoughts figured out that more reliable news outlets will have covered those opinions if they were sufficiently notable (in the news media sense, not the Wikipedia sense). Deryck C. 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 There's long been a consensus in the reliable sources I've seen that the Global Times is essentially a propaganda outfit, and is not a reliable source for facts. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - They have been officially chastised by Chinese authorities for their publications before, so their editorial line cannot even be said to be in line with that of the Chinese government. Neither does it even match that of their parent company, whose standard of publishing is far, far higher. Couple that with the criticism over conspiracy theories and you have a good argument for being very careful with them. Perhaps they might be kept around when referring to perticularly jingoistic strains of Chinese society, though. Would be open to having that discussion, though it should be handled with care. Goodposts (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 The Global Times effectively combines the "reliability" of the Daily Mail and state intervention of RT with Chinese propaganda to produce a tabloid milkshake that is likely to be reliable for... uhh... "facts". JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Propaganda.--BlackShadowG^★（talk） 12:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per[140]. If you have the slightest doubt, follow the link and read as much as you can stand, and compare with a sane article about Lai here[141].Adoring nanny (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 CPC mouthpiece, plus high unreliability and spurious claims. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Global Times)

The votes above are amazing. Every single source listed by anyone notes that the Global Times is an important voice of hawkish elements within the Chinese establishment. If you take the sources seriously, its perspective is necessary to understand Chinese politics, but is obviously biased. Here on Wikipedia, editors cite these sources but then counter that we should deprecate the Global Times. What is the point of the categories Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, or Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, when we so often think in the binary terms reliable vs deprecation? -Darouet (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Options 2 or 3 are for sources like Xinhua not bottom of the barrel tabloids like the Global Times. I see no evidence that anyone is thinking in binary terms, can you say more about why you feel that way? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Right this isn't a binary thing, it's just that there's a consensus that the source is too unreliable to use for anything except possibly statements about itself. Oh, and it's a great source for alternative facts, but Wikipedia doesn't traffic in such things. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: China Global Television Network

What is the reliability of China Global Television Network (cgtn.com  )?

• 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?

(t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CGTN)

• Option 4 known for lies and propaganda: "It has a consistent record of blatantly and egregiously violating journalistic standards and encouraging or justifying hatred and violence against innocent people." The Diplomat, September 2019 Reporting things they know to be false is my benchmark for deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is an opinion piece, for what that's worth, much of the piece is dedicated to the reporting of CCTV in mainland China, not just CGTN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Sarah Cook is a subject matter expert, she’s Freedom House’s Senior Research Analyst for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and the author of their 2020 report Beijing's Global Megaphone [142] which features CGTN heavily. Also the 2019 report China Central Television: A Long-standing Weapon in Beijing’s Arsenal of Repression [143] which is what The Diplomat re-published. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (Contentious issues relating to China) Option 2 for Africa Bureau. I can understand why deprecating CGTN for stuff like Xinjiang is necessary, for stuff like this piece. CGTN has repeatedly aired forced confessions, see 1 2, which has been found to violate UK broadcasting rules 3 The Arabic language version of CGTN also ran a video pushing COVID 19 disinformation. 4. However, I think that it's coverage of issues unrelated to China like for instance its African Bureau are okay and can be probably treated in the same way Xinhua can. Over 1/8 of our entire references to CGTN are to its African Bureau per africa.cgtn.com  , there's not much reason to doubt their reporting that Singapore exploring feasibility for direct flights, as cited on Kenya–Singapore relations, is accurate, maybe these stories are be covered in other African outlets and therefore citing CGTN is redundant I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Re: your Xinjiang link, simply stating it as "deprecation-worthy" does not make it so; the only remotely objectionable quote begins with Can you believe your ears? "This is apparent"…Such sentences should never have been the language of a researcher!, which is clearly the opinionated voice of Liu Xin, not an attempt at "factual reporting". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: It's clearly an attempt at analysis, rather than just straight opinion. Stuff like Western media lies about China's Xinjiang is more blunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can overlook the "bias" and "negative media" soapboxing, Barrett is wholly correct about the metholodogy: Quartz admitted themselves that the common estimates of 1M+ detained first derived as follows: The estimate used most widely for over a year—of a million Uyghur Muslims held in Chinese camps—was arrived at using similar methods by a group called China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), and by Zenz. But how many CHRD interviewees actually provided estimates of detention ratios? Follow thru to the CHRD link, and navigate to The following table presents the data we have compiled based on interviews with eight ethnic Uyghurs. Their families reside in eight different villages in counties in the Kashgar Prefecture. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on Africa Bureau, per Hemiauchenia, on non-contentious issues in mainland China (snooker, opening of the Baoji–Lanzhou high-speed railway) and issues wholly unrelated to the PRC government, such as this piece on Fair Wayne Brant's life sentence in Louisiana, comparable to The Guardian. No opinion on contentious issues. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 due to a complete lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories like "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020 [144]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe. Cavalryman (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 1 Per CaradhrasAiguo. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for topics related to East Asian politics; Option 3 for other coverage. I don't think I need to rehash all the disinformation CGTN has purveyed in any topic related to the PRC/CCP. Beyond China and her neighbours, CGTN isn't much better either - for example CGTN Europe regularly cherry-picks and misinterprets evidence in order to present a narrative that unduly emphasises internal division within Europe, which fits CCP's strategic interests in the region, and often get their facts wrong in the process. Today CGTN churned out this sensationalist piece about the UK government's internal deliberations about refugees crossing the English channel, which tries to paint the UK's plan to deploy the military as more confirmed than it actually is, and France's response as more antagonistic than it really is (compare e.g. The Guardian (which is usually pro-refugee) and BBC (which is usually pro-UK gov't)), and seems to have misattributed Priti Patel's opinion to her colleague Chris Philp. Deryck C. 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• CGTN is effectively China's equivalent of the BBC foreign service and Voice of America. The BBC isn't exactly a reliable source to deprecate with here. One state funded news source shouldn't be used to deprecate another especially when they have a strong incentive to say that CGTN is unreliable. I would agree that CGTN has significant bias in favour of Chinese goals and opinions but that's only warranting option 3 and not full blown deprecation. There are many cases where CGTN can be used as a source, such as opinion pieces by Chinese writers, domestic Chinese news, or possibly its Africa bureau. For example this analysis piece on the China Basketball League [145] might be a good source and their coverage of Africa might be useful as well considering systemic bias in western sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Well said: "lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories". No, this is not BBC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-4: CGTN's reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. CGTN inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think CGTN should be split into multiple entries in the perennial sources list when it gets added there:

Option 1 for all African topics (except topics related to the Belt and Road Initiative). The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (with the exception of topics about the Belt and Road Initiative); in these regions, CGTN has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, Option 2). CGTN does not touch much on Central/South America as compared to Xinhua, so it is not included here.

Option 2 for topics about China's allies, the Belt and Road Initiative and CGTN documentaries. CGTN can be used for such topics but must have in-text attribution. Where other sources are available for the same topic, other sources should be used in lieu of or in conjunction with the CGTN source.

Option 4 for all topics where China has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and Western European topics, the politics of East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. At this point CGTN tends to go full-on propaganda mode and should not be used. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that China doesn't have an interest in Africa. They after all want African countries to sign on to the Belt and Road Initiative. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: That's true, but for other African topics not related to the Belt and Road Initiative, like | this, CGTN provides factual reporting instead of propaganda. Nevertheless, I've amended my !vote above. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI Africa is currently the primary focus of China’s information operations etc outside Asia... We call contemporary Chinese diplomacy Wolf warrior diplomacy after the Wolf Warrior series of movies, specifically Wolf Warrior 2. Where do you think Wolf Warrior 2 is set? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Buidhe and also per [146]. Per the NYT, It is controlled by the Communist Party and serves as part of what Mr. Xi has called Beijing’s "publicity front." We should not indulge such outlets by granting exceptions in certain areas. It is impossible to predict what might become important to lie about when, and our policies should recognize that. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: Echoing what I said in the recent RSN discussion about CGTN, it's a source that should only be used in limited circumstances, e.g topics that are non-political contexts like tourism information or uncontroversial cultural highlights. It should generally be WP:INTEXT-attributed and should not be used for anything remotely contentious. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe and Adoring nanny. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, as China's emulation of RT. feminist (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per buidhe. Willing to lie and misrepresent information, and impossible to use for due weight due to its lack of independence. Airs forced confessions. Also applies to Africa, where China obviously has interests. Some straight news doesn't make it reliable – the Diplomat analysis even mentions this: "While it initially aims to build local audiences with attractive and innocuous content, it can be mobilized at key political moments to attack CCP opponents." Genuinely notable events will be covered elsewhere. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CGTN)

• @Buidhe: Thank you for writing this! I notice Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn't include CCTV so I'm not sure if this RFC should cover CCTV too, or if that should be separate, or if it's worth doing? Also note CGTN was once CCTV's English operations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  WhisperToMe, I noticed that CCTV has dozens of stations so I was worried that it might become a WP:TRAINWRECK if one or two of them turned out to be not as bad. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe Ah, I see. I was thinking in regards to the internet presence (it's less likely people may use TV clips for sourcing). The foreign language CCTV pages are all now CGTN anyway and CCTV now only covers Chinese language content. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't actually true english.cctv.com   exists, some of the content is syndicated from Xinhua, but other stuff like this piece appears to be original reporting. We also appear to have a large number of chinese language citations to CCTV per CCTV.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have an RSN discussion on CGTN three months ago? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  That wasn't an RfC and doesn't appear to have settled the issue, with multiple users calling for an RFC above. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Quillette

Hello, previous discussions have marked Quillette as as generally unreliable and that opinions constitute undue weight. I think Quillette should be allowed, but require quote attribution. The simple fact that many prominent and mainstream academics like James Flynn (academic) write for Quillette make it a useful source. Do James Flynn or Steven Pinker really constitute undue weight? No one can argue that. Obviously caution should be taken with articles written by non academic / politically motivated "journalists" (as with any publication). Attribution required should fix this. I don't really think Quillette is all bad and the previous discussions about it seem hasty, especially when you consider that VICE and Salon have "no consensus". Perhaps a case-by-case clause should be added. Sxologist (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• The first thing I would say to that is "is there really anything that actual academics like Flynn or Pinker have said in Quillette that can't be sourced from anywhere else?". And you've got to be careful with attributing views, as Quillette has been known to very selectively quote from respectable sources to fit a narrative. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is simply another example of the unwritten rule that right-of-center publications get harsher scrutiny. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So anyone who disagrees with your view of this publication is biased? Seems like a broad and unfounded accusation of bad faith. Bacondrum (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Bacondrum, that's a non sequitur, and kind of a personal attack. Please tone it down. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know that I would characterize Quillette as right-of-center, so much as politically schizophrenic. Someone like Pinker is certainly "right-of-far-left", but you'd have a hard time characterizing him as right-of-center. Pinker is a liberal modernist, as opposed to post-modernist. GMG^talk 16:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Quillette right-of-centre? I don't know that it is, actually. It has some writers that have "unusual" views and quite a few conspiracy-theorist type stuff, and it has published stories that have a right-wing bias, but it's also published stuff from writers of all policial hues. We should be looking at its reliability rather than its political compass, and its reliability is suspect. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: I'd be interested to see examples of this. I don't really read the publication regularly. I know of it. GMG^talk 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I’ve never though of Quillette as right-of-center, more like eccentric centrist with an emphasis on eccentric. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Quillette, compared other off-mainstream works like The Intercept, seems to be more focused on writing op-ed than news stores, and op-eds, inherently, are not reliable sources. Their essays, while they may start on factual published material, verve fast into analysis by the writer, which may be appropriate based on the expertise of the writer per UNDUE but that should be judged by consensus and clearly used with attribution. I wouldn't judge it by a viewpoint issue, simply that it is a work primarily based around essay and viewpoints, and not news reporting itself. --Masem (t) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I've always thought of Quilette as a less prestigious version of The Spectator, it's an opinion magazine that's full of hot takes and contrarian opinions on contemporary topics and something that shouldn't be cited as a source of fact, only attributed opinions when it constitutes due weight (which Quilette pieces often do not). For instance this piece on Margaret Mead vs Derek Freeman over Coming of Age in Samoa goes against the academic concensus on the controversy that Mead was for the most part correct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on the author for such a publication. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the instance cited above by Hemiauchenia, the author is said to be "a writer currently completing a BA in Economics and Anthropology at The University of Queensland", and is thus completely unqualified to be cited for anything whatsoever. GPinkerton (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• This misunderstands WP:RSOPINION. Typically (as RSOPINION says), an opinion piece that can be cited is from an otherwise reliable publication, ie. we still depend on the publication to perform a degree of fact-checking and to ensure that the opinion pieces cited there are not blatantly inaccurate. (A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable.) Opinion is not automatically citable simply because it's opinion. Yes, an expert, speaking within their field of expertise, is sometimes citable for their opinion even when not published in an WP:RS (though it will often be WP:UNDUE, but that depends on the restrictions of WP:RSSELF, which means they can't be cited for exceptional claims or anything about a third party, and even then it is sharply lower-quality than when they publish eg. a peer-reviewed paper. Publication in Quillette itself lends no reliability, since they lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - it is functionally a group blog for people who share particular idiosyncratic ideological views. More generally I would usually be extremely skeptical of any attempt to cite opinion to a lower-quality source like this, even from a subject-matter expert; in the modern world we are drowning in a surfeit of opinion, so my intuition when someone wants to cite one from a low-quality source is that it is marginal or even WP:FRINGE, since it isn't covered anywhere reputable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What Aquillion said; endorse 100%. Beyond that, interestingly, Quillette explicitly views its mission as providing a platform for minoritarian, heterodox, and non-mainstream viewpoints. Therefore, if an idea appears in Quillette, that is evidence that the idea is not mainstream and should not be accorded a ton of weight on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • RSOPINION can also be read to allow opinions from those from non-RS sources when those opinions can be considered DUE, as determined by consensus. (I have tried to bring to discussion at both WT:RS and WT:VPP this year, but discussions went nowhere)
  • But let's consider that Quillette has an editorial team, so I assume when facts are published, they are fact-checked (I have not heard or seen any major controversies over bad information out of the work) and other editorial stances that otherwise we expect, the same type of things that the paid writers for NYTimes op-ed page go through. It makes the work a "reliable source" but one with very few facts. So if you want to take the stance that RSOPINION starts that the work must be a reliable source, Quillette does apply though the works it publishes are nearly all essays and thus should be treated like RSOPINIONS just like everything published on the NYTimes op-eds. --Masem (t) 00:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:RS - Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). It doesn't say anything about what is or isn't an acceptable ideology reflected in the source or professed by the author, and we certainly should (Redacted) care if we are adhering to NPOV. It further states: If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. This is exactly why context is so important when determining what we can or cannot include in an article. Attempts to reject opinions because we don't agree with the politics is a form of censorship, or it could also be WP:PROMO, and we need to exercise caution to prevent that from happening. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ^{underlined is copy editing to fix fragmentation and word displacement - WTH? 03:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)}

Ideology is irrelevant; we should neither exclude sources nor seek to wedge them in based on their ideology (which includes, of course, never adding sources purely for WP:FALSEBALANCE.) What matters is, first, are they published in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; second, when discussing opinion, does the person expressing it they have any published expertise in the topic at hand; and third, is the opinion noteworthy or WP:DUE (generally reflected by WP:SECONDARY coverage.) The bit you quoted is an additional restriction or requirement for opinion pieces - it doesn't negate the basic requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, which all sources, with only very limited exceptions, must adhere to. "It's just an opinion, man" is not, itself, a broad exception from WP:RS. Beyond that, a major problem with opinion sourcing is that people tend to use their own personal beliefs as a roadmap for "what are the noteworthy opinions here, which we must cover?"; if they don't see an article representing an opinion they personally endorse (and which they therefore tend to overestimate in terms of its importance, impact, or academic acceptance, as most people do with opinions they hold), they think the article is biased and frantically Google for opinion pieces they can toss into it, regardless of quality or WP:DUE. What we need to do is to get people to stop and say "wait, if this opinion is only represented in low-quality / non-WP:RS sources or ones that do no fact-checking, perhaps it isn't as notable as I thought." --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Actually, Quillette has fallen for obvious hoaxes in the past [147][148] (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The first link is about an article that was retracted when its falsity became evident, which is a good thing. I've seen other sources here readily get forgiven for such retractions. The second link is an article about Andy Ngo, which says he no longer works for Quillette. I can't see where it mentions a specific hoax of his in Quillette. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not an RS: the status should continue as is, per previous discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Usable in some cases per WP:RSOPINION, with whether it is WP:Due being decided on a case by case basis. The WP:RSP listing for it claims, There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight. The first discussion listed says nothing of the sort. The second discussion only talks about Quillette in two comments, one of which is an assertion based on no evidence that it is unreliable, and another is a criticism of one line in a single article - hardly the sort of thing that gets a source listed as red and called generally WP:UNDUE. (Incidentally both of those comments are by users who are now indefinitely blocked.) By that standard every source would be in red and all RSOPINIONs would be undue. Certainly no consensus of unreliability or of undueness yet - so let's check the third discussion. Most negative comments there are just assertions, but addressing the evidence presented, we have an opening comment presenting a story where Quillette was hoaxed, and it was claimed to be embellished by Quillette prior to publication. However, the source for this is Quillette's enemies ideologically speaking, the socialist pundits at Jacobin, so I'm going to take the embellishment claim with a grain of salt. (Indeed, they claim Quillette suggested that DSA meetings "would drag on forever...", but then they say ""I included this as fish bait," Carter said." So did Quillette or Carter say it? Someone else above linked to Vox's good coverage of it. They don't mention embellishment, only editing out, and they had access to the original submission and the emails with Quillette.) Another editor noted that the piece was taken down and retracted, and that this is something we look for. Another opinion piece was mentioned, but again, this isn't enough to say Quillette is generally undue. The other negative comments in that discussion are just assertions. It's pretty common for notable and reputable figures to publish there, so such articles certainly could be used in article sections where other op-eds are being used. As editors we need to be careful not to confuse "has due weight" with "agrees with my political beliefs".
• I propose this RSP listing: [yellow] "Quillette should be handled in accord with WP:RSOPINION, and given in-text attribution. Whether an article from Quillette constitutes due weight should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Crossroads ^-talk- 04:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Crossroads here. Quillette has all the elements we want in a source (editorial review, a history of retractions when needed etc). It also is clearly a source based largely on Op-Eds so we generally will not use it as a source of fact, only a source of commentary. As such we have to ask if inclusion of the commentary in a Wikipedia article is DUE and much of the time it likely is not. Springee (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, what we want from a source is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't see any indication that Quillette has such a reputation. I don't even understand what Masem and others mean when they say that Quillette is "fact-checked"—it is purely an outlet for opinion pieces, which are rarely fact-checked even at more reputable publications. There is no indication of any formal pre-publication fact-checking process at Quillette. So, considering this as a source of opinion, it's clear that virtually all of what it publishes is heterodox & non-mainstream—that is in fact part of their explicitly stated mission—and thus very unlikely to warrant much weight in our articles, per basic site policy. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • They list an editorial board, which means, these people are double checking to make sure the opinion pieces posted are simply not flat out slanderous or making up false info, as I would expect the editor-in-chief of NYTimes or any other newspaper's op-ed department would do. They aren't going to be as rigorous as the fact-checking one would see if this was a newsroom piece, but they aren't going to let poorly-written opinion pieces seep through (and here, I've not seen any issue on Quillette with past work). The works produced should be seen to have the necessary editorial control and fact-checking to not be treated like unreliable sources broadly, but because it is focused mostly on opinions and essays, we have to classify it as an RSOPINION and use UNDUE to determine when appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 23:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, their editorial board credulously fell for and published a pretty obvious hoax (probably because it fit so neatly into their preconceived ideology), so you'll excuse me if I don't find their editorial control and "fact-checking" as robust as you do. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Which, as Crossroads has pointed out, they quickly redacted ("a few hours later" as Vox states, far better than Fox). That's editorial control we want to see; yes preferrably more upfront before publishing but being quick and open (eg including the redaction) when they have to edit post-publishing. We've seen RS-for-fact have issues like that too. I'm not trying to say "We must accept Quillette for fact", just that RS is not about being factually-right but about a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control and that seems to be in place here. Just that what they publish is maybe 20% fact at best to support the other 80% that is opinion. --Masem (t) 01:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• I think Aquillion's comment above is essentially how I would put it. Opinions are cheap, and the world is drowning in the writing of them. Without further details of how their editorial review actually works, and without a terribly long history to judge from, I am hesitant to conclude that they have a reputation for high standards. That's not to say we should instinctively embrace the position that they have a reputation for low standards (retracting a story is probably good, while having to retract a story they should have caught before publication is probably bad, and if the only sources to report on the incident have a partisan lean, it's arguable that not enough people have cared for us to say they have a "reputation"). XOR'easter (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Quillette is not a mainstream or reliable source, it is pushing an agenda and opinions in Quillette that have not been substantially reported on elsewhere, are undue. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. When we cite attributed opinion, we should do so from reputable sources, not sources devoited primarily to opinion. Opinions in mainstream sources engaged in reporting on the hurly-burly are fine. Opinions in sources that are a deliberate part of the hurly-burly, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction, Most people have assholes. GMG^talk 11:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable in the extreme. First they are most widely known for publishing racist pseudoscience - Human Biodiversity - where they claim Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites. Second - they have fallen for multipul hoaxes and even expanded on one of them they also participated in another. Third their staff have been involved with extremist groups, one of which (disgraced journalist Andy Ngo) was caught out colluding with neo-nazi's attempting to stage a violent news story - it was a pure partisan farce. Third they are hyper-partisan. Fourth they publish nothing but opinion...and the occasional hoax and staged news stories etc (as already mentioned). Quillette is the very definition of a unreliable source. I'd accept a Youtube video as a citation before I'd accept Quillette. They're a better dressed version of a right-wing conspiracy outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of claim that would require citations. Springee (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bacondrum, please be sure to mark substantial edits to your comments. I don't want people thinking I just ignored your citations vs they were added after the fact [[149]] Springee (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Some editors really love this rag, lol. Bacondrum (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, will do. Sorry about that. Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Just going on your first link. So first off, have we reached the point where we can just call Steven Pinker a racist without a link or qualification? This is the same Pinker who is so polite and carefully spoken that he basically is a walking Canadian stereotype?

Second, the article it references that declared its support for Charles Murray’s 1994 book The Bell Curve. Umm...no actually. The conclusion the article actually reaches is that it is not irresponsible to forward reasonable, cautiously worded, and testable hypotheses. More so, the part The Nation piece quotes isn't actually making any original statement. It's a header trying to summarize what the book says.

This is, in my experience, fairly par-for-the-course for people who criticize Pinker. (And I'll be honest, I've been reading Pinker for the last 20 years.) Take something out of context, label it as racist or sexist, and no one actually bother to check the argument they were actually making. GMG^talk 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't care about Pinker, the fella isn't on my radar, you'll have to forgive for knowing nothing about him. This discussion is about Quillette. Bacondrum (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, and the piece you cite goes full-on Fox News in taking things completely out of context and drawing the conclusion they want to reach regardless of what the facts are. Did you bother to read the source you cited beyond the headline? GMG^talk 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your second link is from a highly partisan opinion outlet, which I addressed above in my comment. Jacobin contradicts themselves about the supposed embellishing and Vox reported on the same incident with all the information and never mentioned embellishment. The hoax article was retracted when it was exposed. Your third doesn't mention Quillette falling for a hoax at all; it talks about them supporting the people behind the Grievance Studies hoax, which was akin to the Sokal hoax in its stated purpose. The hoax was on certain academic journals, not Quillette. Your fourth source only mentions one "staff" - Andy Ngo - and he left Quillette right after the incident described. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

First, Jacobin is a reliable source with a reputation for reliable reporting, end of story (certainly fat better than Quillette). But, if you insist here's another [150] and there's plenty more if you do a quick google search. Doesn't matter if they retracted a hoax after it was exposed, quality outlets don't publish outright falsehoods like this, proper editorial process would pick it up without question. You are right the third source does not say they fell for a hoax it notes that they participated in one, quality outlets do not stage or take part in a hoax, they deliberately deceived their readers, how are we supposed to trust such an outlet? The publication's staff participating in the behavior that Ngo participated in is obviously absolutely scandalous and again brings the outlets reputation into question - he was working as a sub editor for the publication at the time and was clearly sacked for it (thought the outlet denies this). Really, Quillette is a joke of a publication, it is the antithesis of a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The third source says they came down squarely on the side of the so-called grievance-studies hoax, in which three scholars punked humanities journals by submitting creative nonsense cloaked in social-justice buzzwords. Says nothing about staging, taking part, or deceiving their own readers. And such publishing stings have been praised, as was this one, not just condemned. Your comments about Ngo are confusing - it's scandalous that Ngo did what he did, but then they fired him for it, and they're still in the wrong? So, what were they supposed to do when they found out? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view. Reliable outlets absolutely do not mislead their readers by participating in or publishing hoaxs, participating in a hoax in such a manner is unethical and dishonest, publishing one is plain incompetent. Quality outlets don't employ people like Ngo as sub editors, in fact very few outlets of any kind would hire such a character - what's worse, he was a sub editor, a member of the editorial staff. Besides there are a great many issues with Quillette. Bacondrum (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The doublespeak here is troubling. The grievance studies affair simply showed that a number of critical theory journals do not have a proper enough editorial process to pick up outright falsehoods that were submitted to them. When Quillette took a supportive role in this, it means that they backed the claim that these journals, despite the retractions, remained unreliable. Does that position sound familiar? By your logic, you should be considered untrustworthy for "participating" in the Archie Carter hoax. Connor Behan (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The rhetoric surrounding the fourth link is worth a look as well. The evidence that Andy Ngo was "caught out colluding" with these extremists is really just evidence that he decided not to film them which could be for any number of reasons. And while I find Patriot Prayer unsavoury, I don't see how you can call them "neo-nazis" when the SPLC doesn't even list them as a hate group. Connor Behan (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, editorially incompetent - as noted above, their extensive editorial board has repeatedly fallen for hoaxes, and had to scrub contributor's entire histories from the site when they got caught out. It turns out that LARPing at putting forth the trappings of a proper publication doesn't make you more than a group blog with pretentions. I'm not sure I'd even trust Quillette for statements about themselves - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth quoting directly from the Vox article at this point: Vox was once an understaffed, short-on-editors website too, and I remember how easy it was for stuff to fall through the cracks then. Take this article I wrote when I was 24 where I completely misread a legal filing, for instance. Online publications are faster-paced, and more lightly staffed, than traditional magazines, and anyone who tells you that that’s compatible with a low rate of errors is trying to sell you something. As Vox has staffed up and gotten larger and more mature, with more comprehensive editing policies, we’ve had fewer errors like the one I made. That’s something I’m proud of. Even at a size like ours, though, huge errors are possible; for example, the Washington Post recently had to issue 15 corrections to a single story. I was never fact-checked during my time as a Post staff writer, and most newspapers operate similarly. But the broader lesson I hope Quillette learns from this [Archie Carter hoax] is a sense of humility about tribalism and confirmation bias. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That doesn't seem to address any of the issues with Quillette repeatedly showing themselves editorially incompetent - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads You are WP:BLUDGEONING the debate, please stop. Bacondrum (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Number of comments by Bacondrum in this section: 8
• Number of comments by Crossroads in this section, including this one: 6

Crossroads ^-talk- 23:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Look I know you think that's a real gotcha moment, but responding to comments addressed to me is not WP:BLUDGEONING the process. Going to every response you disagree with and basically making the same argument is. You should read the guideline and please stop. Bacondrum (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC - Quillette

What is the reliability of Quillette

• 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

Bacondrum (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Quillette)

• Option 4 they publish falsehoods. First they are most widely known for publishing racist pseudoscience - Human Biodiversity - where they claim Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites. Second - they have fallen for multiple hoaxes and even expanded on one of them they also participated in another. Third their staff have been involved with extremist groups, one of which (disgraced journalist Andy Ngo) was caught out colluding with neo-nazis attempting to stage a violent news story - it was a pure partisan farce. Third they are hyper-partisan. Fourth they publish nothing but opinion...and the occasional hoax and staged news stories etc (as already mentioned). Quillette is the very definition of a unreliable source. I'd accept a Youtube video as a citation before I'd accept Quillette. They're a better dressed version of a right-wing conspiracy outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3–4 track record of publishing obvious hoaxes (see above, also has a history of accepting submissions from fraudsters, for example:[151][152]) where it suits their narrative, no useful non-opinion content. Even where there are expert contributors (and most would not meet WP:SPS), there's no benefit to citing Quillette as we ought to use the expert's actual research output, published in scholarly sources. As Quillette states its mission is to promote non-mainstream opinions, any opinions published in Quillette should be assumed to be undue unless proven otherwise, keeping in mind that WP:NPOV requires "the significant views that have been published by reliable sources", and Quillette is not a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Clearly a terrible source for most things. The couple of high-profile individuals who have published/interviewed with it could probably be cited on a primary basis rather than on the reliability of Quillette itself. However, much like with The Post Millennial (though with a fair bit more evidence here), I think that there lack the strong statements by outside publications about the status of this source as outright propaganda or lies. This is not RT, nor is it the Daily Mail. Indeed, though it has plenty of problems, a few users above describe behaviours that demonstrate that this source scrapes at least the bare minimum of editorial control. A bad source, but not so bad as any source deprecated so far. Jlevi (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Often divisive and used to support particular victimization/persecution complex narratives. The sources at its article have more information. May sometimes be used for the opinion of a person where considered due, with attribution. —PaleoNeonate – 03:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. It basically consists entirely of opinion pieces, to which WP:RSOPINION applies. We therefore wouldn't want to use it for reporting or for any material lacking WP:In-text attribution. Option 2 (unclear/additional considerations apply) covers that they don't do typical reporting, and there's no solid evidence they misrepresent their contributors like the Daily Mail, so they do relay that material reliably; but option 3 covers that they shouldn't be used as a source for unattributed fact per RSOPINION. Option 4 is not warranted and deprecation needs to be reserved for sources that are literal fake news per Jlevi. Briefly answering Bacondrum's 4 links: The first link was addressed by another editor here and here. The second about the Archie Carter hoax is in a highly partisan socialist source, and they contradict themselves in their claim of embellishment, as I explained here. Vox reports fairly on the same incident with all the evidence at hand, and never talks about embellishment. The hoax Quillette article was retracted, which is a good thing. His third link talks about how Quillette supported the people behind (not "participated in") the academic publishing sting called the Grievance studies affair, which was inspired by the Sokal hoax. Supporting such stings, and the 'grievance studies' one in particular, is by no means a fringe position, as those articles' sources show. The fourth link talks about how Ngo stopped working at Quillette right after this incident, so it is unclear how this is supposed to reflect badly on Quillette. With Buidhe's two links, it's clear that this article which they were hoaxed by was also taken down, which is the right reaction, and the same deception took in another outlet as well. Overall, I'd say it's fine to use Quillette as a source of attributed opinion, but whether it is WP:Due will have to be decided on a case by case basis. In many cases it won't be, but sometimes it will; many contributors are academics. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 It is principally a work of essays and opinions that should not be taken as factual pieces on their face but opinions. Whether they are RSOPINIONs to be included is a matter of DUE weight evaluation (who wrote it, how much their opinion matters to all other opinions, etc.) They do not purport to be a factual news outlet as DM did so this is where trying to compare it to the DM makes no sense (though they do seem to want to have their seat at the political/media table). --Masem (t) 05:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 An opinion site, and a deliberately contrarian one at that, is not a place we should go for factual information. Nor are there really indications that having one's opinion articulated at Quillette is automatically enough to make that opinion noteworthy. That can be decided on a case-by-case basis, relying upon whatever secondary sources might report on the fact of items being published there. (Which does happen sometimes.) And in such cases, we're better off citing those secondary sources instead. XOR'easter (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I should add that I don't think listing an editorial board on their website is a sign of reliability; after all, predatory journals do that all the time, as part of the masquerade. What matters is if those editors do anything. Nor is being shamed into retracting a story that a basic sniff test would have rejected upon submission a sign of good editorial standards. That's evidence of a broken process, not a functioning one. Indeed, since at the very least they trimmed the most obvious tells and published anyway, their editorial process is actively duplicitous in effect if not intent. I find myself sympathetic with JzG's point below: We should not be using rabble-rousing websites as sources for Wikipedia articles, especially when the only plausible uses are precisely those articles where random opinions are not in short supply. Likewise, having slept on it, I think Aquillion is pretty much right to say citing opinion from there is no different from citing it to a random YouTube video or to a Wikipedia talk page. Those comments are from !votes for option 4, which I'm not convinced is necessary; the ordinary practice of not using opinion pieces for claims of fact and including opinions based on reliable secondary sources would seem be enough without the extra formal step. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, contrarian opinion site.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4; they clearly have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, but this in particular is alarming because Lehmann's reaction when contacted implied they do no fact-checking at all, especially combined with the Archie Carter Hoax. WP:RSOPINION doesn't free a source from the requirements of WP:RS; the example it gives for WP:RSOPINION is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. A source (like this one) that simply publishes everything that is handed to it as long as it fits within their narrow ideological bubble doesn't count as meaningful publication at all, since publication there lends no reliability or weight (given the clear lack of fact-checking, it means nothing beyond "this person shares Lehmann's ideology.") Since they don't appear to verify the statements or even the identity of the people publishing there, I don't see how they can meet RSOPINION's standard; citing opinion from there is no different from citing it to a random YouTube video or to a Wikipedia talk page. Even for WP:RSOPINION, the source must meet a bare minimum standard to qualify, which this source plainly fails. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - unreliable, editorially incompetent, repeatedly caught publishing false information, conspiracy theories and hoaxes, UNDUE for opinions. They claim to have an editorial board, but this appears to be LARPing at being a media outlet, rather than what they are: a fringe group blog with pretensions. Nor would I trust Quillette for statements about Quillette - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide specific references. Springee (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I do expect you to have read the discussion of this source in the section above, which lists them extensively. If you are unable to do this, you should not be commenting on an RFC following the discussion above. If you are merely unwilling, you should not be commenting either - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. Unusable as a source of fact due to a history of publishing nonsense, unusable as a source of opinion due to the indiscriminate nature of the opinions included. Any genuinely significant opinion will be found in a more reliable source. If an opinion first published in Quillette can be shown to be notable by reference to reliable secondary sources, then that can be handled by exception. We should not be using rabble-rousing websites as sources for Wikipedia articles, especially when the only plausible uses are precisely those articles where random opinions are not in short supply. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Quillette has all the items we generally require for a RS. They have editorial control, they retract/correct stories etc. However, the material they publish is basically Op-Eds. Some of the accusations of "false" etc would be true of editorials published by other RSs which is why we treat opinion articles as something different than factual reporting. Since Quillette is basically entirely op-ed work it appears some editors confuse op-ed publications for a publication based on factual reporting. Since this is all Op-eds DUE and if the author is an expert become a big problem for general inclusion in articles. Having read a number of their articles I'm not sure I can think of a time when it would be DUE to cite one (other than the one related to the Google Memo and that because of the reaction by others to the Quillette article). Then again, how many times has Quillette been used as a reference for factual reporting? Anyway, per policy this source should be option 2 because it has the elements we expect of a RS but due to the op-ed only nature of the publication I would apply Option 3 since per policy we can't use Op-Eds as sources for factual reporting. The arguments used to claim this source should be option 4 don't hold up to scrutiny. Springee (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 If everything that's unreliable should be deprecated then what's the point of having four options? Quillette is of course an opinion site so that means it should not be used very often. But, in addition to fringe writers, it also publishes essays by peer reviewed academics, contributors to The New York Times and at least one presidential candidate. If James Flynn and Jerry Coyne are subject matter experts for a particular article, their opinions published in Quillette could easily be notable. Connor Behan (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Like the deprecated Taki's Magazine (RSP entry), an unreliable opinion magazine that has been repeatedly found to have published hoaxes and factual errors. Due to their contrarian nature, their opinions are unlikely to constitute due weight and should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Option 2|3. It's basically a site for publishing opinion pieces, with little/no real editorial oversight, so each article has to be evaluated from that perspective, that the articles are opinion pieces by authors who may be idiots or liars, or may be subject matter experts. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Jayjg, we are not in the grip of a world shortage of opinions published in reliable sources. The problem with using opinion-only sources like Quillette is that people who want to include some batshit insanity in an article can mine the Internet, find a quote or three ion these sources, and crowbar it into the article. Exactly as we saw with FreeKnowledgeCreator and his crusade to include comments by far-right hacks about the withdrawal of books on reparation therapy from online sellers. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, I hear what you're saying, but (perhaps unfortunately) in this case WP:RSOPINION pushes us towards 2. To keep Quillette entirely out of an article, in the case where the specific piece was written by a relevant subject matter expert, I think you'd have to rely more on WP:DUE. Of course, if it wasn't written by a relevant subject matter expert, then it can't be included because of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Deprecated sources (option 4) already allow use for opinions of noteworthy people - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Addressed below. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  As Crossroads points out, in theory that's the case, but based on what I've seen recently on Wikipedia, in practice that is never permitted. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Jayjg, where has anyone tried, please? The most I have seen is edit-warring, not substantive discussions on talk pages aimed at establishing consensus to include or exclude specific attributed quotes. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  JzG I don't have a specific case at my fingertips, but I also don't know of any cases where "Option 4" sources have ever been allowed, for any purpose. Based on the discussion here, though, I've changed my !vote to 2|3. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. Obviously case by case, with an expectation that we would normally attribute. They publish plenty of experts there. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Should be allowed on case by case basis for the opinions of experts, that's all it needs. A clause for quote attribution should be added. Sxologist (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Deprecated sources (option 4) already allow use for opinions of noteworthy people, you don't need option 2 for that - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  This is de facto not the case. Deprecated sources end up systematically purged from Wikipedia except for a couple of WP:ABOUTSELF uses. Any attempt to use a deprecated source in this scenario would end up facing major opposition because it's deprecated and therefore must be fabricated or undue. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Crossroads, they do, because deprecated sources are deprecated, and there's obviously a bar to inclusion. That bar can be met by consensus on Talk. Oddly, that rarely seems to happen... Guy (help! - typo?) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (or 3): For a source to be considered WP:RSOPINION it needs to be a reliable source. Which is to say, it has to do any fact checking whatsoever. There's good reason to believe (based on things other editors have said), that Quillette does not. That alone would push towards 3, but the fact that it's also published conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and pseudoscientific nonsense inclines me towards 4 instead. Loki (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 The original question was about sourcing the opinions of notable people to articles they wrote for Quillette, and I think Quillette is perfectly acceptable as a source under those circumstances. They don't seem to publish factual reporting, so they certainly shouldn't be used for unattributed statements of fact. But no one has alleged that they falsify opinion articles. We can trust that whatever they publish is an accurate rendering of what the named author submitted to them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Quillette mostly contains opinion pieces, not factual reporting. If a notable person publishes an opinion on Quillette, one can reliably state in that person's biography that "NN believes that ..." and cite that to the published opinion piece. Facts and claims regarding science and history need other sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• 3-4: given their record of publishing misleading or false (hoaky, pseudoscientiic) information, besides just biasedinformation, as in the examples cited by others above, they are generally unreliable. As others have said, anything (even valid ABOUTSELF content) that is DUE inclusion on Wikipedia will have been published in more reliable places. (And given that they state that they aim to publish heterodox / fringe views, I think the existing statement at WP:RSP that "Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight." is reasonable.) -sche (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Let's go with Option 2 or 3.. I'm not very familiar with whatever strengths or weaknesses this site has, but I've read the discussion above and I see no need for Option 4. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Looks like a team of about 25 people as of 2018[153] with about five editors. They did retract [154] after falling for the Archie Carter hoax, so that's both a bad sign (falling for it) and a good one (retracting). Most of their articles read like opinion pieces. Not buying claims that they are big into racism. They do quite a bit of complaining about what they see as excessive zeal of anti-racism and/or anti-sexism, i.e. [155][156][157]. But that's not the same thing, and it's misleading to pretend otherwise. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 3. Quillette basically consists of opinions and publishes original essays. If, for example, it published a piece written by a BLP subject, this original work would be an acceptable WP:RSOPINION by the biographical subject. As such, it would be a legitimate source for use in the BLP. Quillette is not a news source and does not compare with Newsweek or Time, or other news-based media outlets. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3/2 depending on the writer. They do maintain editorial control, but as a deliberately contrarian/libertarian(?) editorial site they opt not to exercise it much with regards to content. I see no evidence that Quillette is fabricating identities of op-ed writers; in other words, I can trust that a Quillette opinion piece attributed to Jane Doe was actually written by Doe herself. Beyond that, whether to cite the opinion piece depends on the standing of its writer. It is perhaps inappropriate to apply a scale of reliability designed for publications of reportage to a publication that focuses solely on opinion. feminist (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or possibly option 4 if we think editors are not taking note seriously enough. Nothing has changed since 2019, and WP:RSP's current descriptor couldn't be more accurate: There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight. It's an outlet designed to stir shit. It has no other purpose. It has no interest in facts. Its associate editor is Toby Young, who supports—in his own words—a type of eugenics, and more recently has been deliberately spreading false, unscientific descriptions of the coronavirus disease affecting us all. As for its other contributors, there's plenty of evidence above of its factual unreliability. Editorial opinions are only significant if they are based on fact and Quillette does not do remotely appropriate factual vetting of its content. It is usable for one thing: "X wrote in Quillette that Y". Even then this does not establish due weight, so we would need reliable coverage to back up any such content. It is only reliable for fact if the same author writing the same content in a blog post on (e.g.) tumblr would be reliable, which is a rare case indeed. — Bilorv (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As per above. I have absolutely no faith in their editorial oversight, given what we've seen. Parabolist (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 they are a high-quality opinion site whose writers regularly support their opinions with evidence, hence why its articles can be reliable sources on some topics. Its likely best known for the work critiquing the criticism of James Damore's Google memo. I would be concerned if Editors justified a downgrade based on the fact they don't like its right-wing/conservative politics because that isn't an acceptable criticism. The statements that Quillette editor Toby Young supports eugenics are themselves inaccurate and may even be libellous. They are also irrelevant to its reliability. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The statements that Quillette editor Toby Young supports eugenics are themselves inaccurate and may even be libellous Sir may care to review the extensively cited statements at Toby_Young#Eugenics, and probably also WP:NLT - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 The site generally publishes opinion pieces, so if the writer is notable and due weight is met the writer's opinion can be noted with attribution. In terms of factual reporting, I have never used this source. I would look at articles on a case-by-case basis. However, based on the fact that they take non-mainstream positions, I would be pretty cautious in relying on them for facts. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Quillette)

• https://www.cjr.org/analysis/quillette-antifa-journalist-smear-campaign.php

Good case for it being depreciated. They are clearly not interested in factual reporting. Bacondrum (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Archie Carter Hoax: "It turns out, shockingly, that Quillette, the last bastion of enlightenment rationality on the web, had failed to do the lightest amount of fact-checking on Archie’s story."

https://theoutline.com/post/7759/quillette-archie-carter-hoax

• and another:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/quillette-duped-by-left-wing-hoaxer-posing-as-communist-construction-worker

• More on the Eoin Lenihan scandal:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154205/quillettes-antifa-journalists-list-couldve-gotten-killed

• Racist psuedoscience:

https://theoutline.com/post/8104/phrenology-hirevue-quillette?zd=1&zi=rptzeehv

• There's plenty more about this outlets dubious history online. Bacondrum (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't examined the others yet, but that article from The Outline has too much nonsense in it: phrenology was nevertheless deeply influential on the development of modern anthropology, criminology, and evolutionary biology... No, it was not. I remember learning things in philosophy of mind classes that may as well just have been phrenology without the bumps: in analytic philosophy of mind, it is common to identify the mind with the brain — an identification that phrenology pioneered. So immaterial souls are real now? The idea that parts of the brain have discrete, localized functions remains common in contemporary neuroscience, in which the equivalent of callipers is the only somewhat more accurate MRI scanner. It is common for news articles to report that neuroscientists have discovered, based on MRIs, “which part of the brain” is responsible for a certain mental activity — but neuroimaging studies have long suffered from small sample sizes, low statistical power, and a lack of replicability. Neuroscience denialism = fail. They also fall prey to the is-ought fallacy: A phrenological logic is lurking in any intellectual discipline that attempts, whether deliberately or otherwise, to depoliticize the human world. They contradict themselves about Quillette: Quillette...has literally defended phrenology....neither of these examples defend phrenology wholesale. On the basis of the literally-stated, surface-level meaning alone, it is perhaps more accurate to suggest that these evidence Quillette's willingness to publish pieces which speak well of certain aspects of phrenology. Guess they don't "literally defend" phrenology after all. And regarding one of their examples, progressive magazine Mother Jones sides against the claim Quillette promotes phrenology: [158] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I fail to see the contradiction in the Outline story. The quoted paragraph concludes, But true meaning always goes deeper than mere surface. And while they might all personally, as individuals, deny it: In the most accurate sense possible, when you boil things down to the fundamentals of their logic, these people really are just doing phrenology. XOR'easter (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It seems with that we basically have 'they literally do phrenology, well they don't literally do phrenology, but my interpretation of their real meaning says they really are doing phrenology'. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I do not think that criticizing media sensationalism about neuroscience is denial of neuroscience itself, any more than criticizing hype about cryptocurrency is computer-science denial. Plenty of actual scientists have disparaged "neurohype" or "neurobollocks"; recall the dead salmon fMRI. XOR'easter (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm all for criticizing media sensationalism, but the Outline piece doesn't talk about the media's treatment of neuroscience. It treats something "common in contemporary neuroscience" as equivalent to phrenology, generalizes all neuroimaging as invalid, says the MRI is equivalent to phrenologists' calipers, and talks about the brain being the origin of the mind as a tainted phrenological idea. If the religious right makes these arguments, they are rejected; they do not get a free pass because they come from the left. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
        • It is common for news articles to report that... is talking as much about the media as anything else. I'm having a hard time reading that bit as more than a critique of sensationalism, some of which has been propagated by (whisper it) the sloppier among the scientists. To say that a field has long suffered from small sample sizes is not to call it invalid, but to admit that there's a lot left to do. The "deeper meaning" part of Outline story goes further down some rhetorical paths than I would, but setting that aside, documenting a willingness to publish pieces which speak well of certain aspects of phrenology is enough to indicate there are problems. XOR'easter (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Ah, I double checked and still somehow overlooked that phrase. Still, the rest of it is framed as against neuroscience itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I won’t comment any further, editors can read the sources and make what they will. I will say Outline is a high quality reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Relitigating the Archie Carter hoax is fine because it was stupid for Quillette to fall for it. But the incident I jut learned about does not appear to damage their reputation any further. Let's go through the CJR article. Lenihan has no association with any previously known organization that researches extremism? Well independent researchers are a thing. And the fact that he was blanket banned for “violating rules against managing multiple Twitter accounts for abusive purposes.” is irrelevant so let's keep reading. His claims... that a website that posts court documents is a “doxing site,” creates a false dichotomy since you can certainly use the public record to "dox" people at least according to a loose definition that is also used by critics of Quillette. Next, the article refers to baseless reports that tech platforms discriminate against “conservatives”, a topic on which they have faltered in the past. It is common sense that such bias will, often unintentionally, creep up at institutions that have very few conservatives and Jack Dorsey has admitted as much on the Joe Rogan podcast. The Quillette article was circulated approvingly on white supremacist forum Stormfront? Well that's unfortunate but it's also guilt by association. And then, they quote a social media researcher who undermines their claim by saying that any media—right, center or left would have the same fact-checking difficulty on this topic as Quillette. Moreover, Lenihan specifically says in his essay that these degrees of separation were not to accuse them of bias out of hand, but rather to identify them for further study. Connor Behan (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:APPNOTE, I am pinging all the participants of the pre-RfC discussion to weigh in who have not done so yet: Sxologist, Black Kite, Adoring nanny, GreenMeansGo, Horse Eye Jack, Masem, Hemiauchenia, Emir of Wikipedia, GPinkerton, Aquillion, MastCell, Atsme, K.e.coffman, Springee, XOR'easter, JzG, David Gerard. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging editors involved in previous discussions that saw Quillette depreciated in the first place. Rosguill, Blueboar, Snooganssnoogans, Neutrality, Nblund, Simonm223, Keith Johnston, wumbolo, Kusma, Rhoark, Jytdog, Connor Behan, Obsidi, MjolnirPants, Ad Orientem, Red Rock Canyon, Newimpartial, Newslinger, EvergreenFir Bacondrum (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bacondrum, EvergreenFir, Newimpartial, Newslinger, and Rosguill are not at any of the three discussions at WP:RSP on Quillette. So why did you ping them? I am highly inclined to view this as WP:Canvassing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

search the RSN archive. They have been involved in discussions about this source. I’m pretty tired of the aggro I cop from you, mate.Bacondrum (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bacondrum, Wumbolo, Jytdog, Obsidi and MjolnirPnats are all permabanned now. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

cool, thanks. I just pinged the names in the discussions, doesn’t really matter, if they are blocked I assume they won’t know they were pinged anyway. Thanks for letting me know.Bacondrum (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a question for anyone who thinks this is a good (or even usable) WP:RSOPINION site. Can you give me some examples of sites that you feel don't qualify for use under WP:RSOPINION? Can you explain why they don't qualify while this one does? What criteria doe you feel a source has to meet to be citable as opinion? I'm scratching my head here because it seems like some people have interpreted some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact to mean "as long as a source is qualified with an in-line citation to make it their opinion, WP:RS doesn't apply." That has never been how I read RSOPINION - as it states, a prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable, which, to me, means that good RSOPINION sources must meet that or a comparable standard, and must therefore be otherwise generally recognized to have a high standard of fact-checking and accuracy. I'm baffled here because failing to verify the identity of the people published there or failing to do even token fact-checking for opinion pieces making exceptional claims (two major issues implied above) seem to trivially fail the most basic requirements we'd need to consider something a reliable source for opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Replying since I selected 3 and mentioned that it could sometimes be used): like any non-RS, it could sometimes be used for a non-self-serving statement about the person (WP:ABOUTSELF) or for a relevant opinion in the case where the author is prominent, expert or notable for the topic (subject to WP:DUE, WP:YESPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc.) Like other sources that are not considered reliable, other than in such restricted cases it should indeed be avoided. —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PaleoNeonate's suggestions here. '4'-ing the source would in practice push it beyond the ability to use it for these purposes. Jlevi (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Responding to Aquillion's question, I think it is rare that we need to deprecate an opinion site, although I would draw the line if someone tried linking to Stormfront. (If someone notable tried publishing their opinions on a site like that, I think that fact would be covered by other news sources. If it weren't, that person would probaly just be a non-notable extremist.) Quillette publishes some opinion pieces that are disturbing, but other things are quite mainstream moderate-to-conservative views. When we deprecate newspapers such as the Daily Mail or The Sun, and websites such as Breitbart, it is because they purport to be doing factual reporting, but are being so sloppy with it that the information they contain is too unreliable and/or biased for us to use while upholding the WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. Quillette doesn't claim to be doing factual reporting, the articles they publish are obviously op-ed material. We can rely on the standard WP:RSEDITORIAL policy for sites like that, without having to deprecate the site. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is jihadintel.meforum.org a reliable source?

See these uses. We discussing meforum.org last year briefly with no conclusion about it, but this is a different related site. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, is this really a question that needs to be asked? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely unreliable. See [159]. I say that We should remove all citations to it, remove most or all claims that are only cited to it, and put it on the banned sources blacklist so that nobody will be able to add new links from it.

This should also be applied to the other aliases they use:

• Israel Victory Project
• Middle East Quarterly
• Campus Watch (needs to be distinguished from other organizations with similar names)
• Counter Islamist Grid
• Islamist Watch
• Jihad-Intel
• Middle East Intelligence Bulletin
• Legal Project (needs to be distinguished from other organizations with similar names)
• Washington Project (needs to be distinguished from other organizations with similar names)

This will require some research. For example, citations to the Israel Victory Project may use the URL [ https://www.meforum.org/israel-victory-project/ ] -- making it clear that they are part of the The Middle East Forum, but they may use the URL [ https://www.israelvictory.org/ ], which only has a small light grey on dark grey meforum logo on the bottom of the page.

[[Also see Middle East Forum. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see no evidence of editorial review or fact-checking, and plenty of evidence of ideologically driven content that has little basis in fact (see the claim here about "suicide factories", for instance). As such I'd say they're completely unreliable, and a deprecation RfC might not even be necessary given that there's little a priori evidence of reliability in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• First of all we do allow WP:BIASED sources. It seems that it authored by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi also MEFORUM itself has editorial board.The opinion of these site should be attributed.--Shrike (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• That is... differently wonderful. "Jihad Intel educates law enforcement and the general public with intelligence on radical Islam" - hardly sounds alt-right at all then. No named contributors. Why would we consider this reliable? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, Did you actually looked at [160]? Shrike (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Shrike, yes. They go to great lengths to imply - without actually saying - that it has editorial oversight from the main site. Given that its mission is to push far-right "radical Islam" stuff, I think that's a bit of a red flag. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation although defunct, it is probably an acceptable source in some cases due being mostly written by an expert[161] and editorial review by Middle East Forum. The content is what symbols are used by jihadists, which is not super controversial as far as I'm aware. These websites differ significantly in quality and shouldn't be subject to blanket actions, for example Middle East Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal that simply takes a viewpoint not liked by certain WP editors. (t · c) buidhe 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe your expert has a wikipedia article, if its the same Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I already linked him above.He seem to appear on WP:RS quite extensively he not some fringe lunatic Shrike (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I still see no evidence of editorial oversight, I would be comfortable treating this as Al-Tamimi's defunct blog but I want to stress that Al-Tamimi would be reliable not jihadintel.meforum.org. Many of the entries don’t seem to as much articles as facebook style reposts [162]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Can the Qur'an be used as a reliable source on what it teaches?

I'm posting this question here as WP:RSPSCRIPTURE references discussions on this page. My question is whether the Qur'an can be paraphrased without any reliable secondary sources. The following example is being discussed at Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#More_original_research. Qur'an 2:223 says (Yusuf Ali's translation):

Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand.

Grufo inserted:

Quran 2:223, which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth" and allows him to approach them "when or how [he] will", prescribes to "do some good act for [his and his wives'] souls beforehand"

I think a reliable secondary source is needed for such paraphrasing, especially the phrase [Quran 2:223] defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth". Grufo disagrees that a reliable, secondary source is required and believes the Qur'an is a sufficient source for this statement.

Grufo has argued that WP:RSPSCRIPTURE does not always require reliable secondary sources for summarizing scriptures. Grufo also seems to believe that WP:RSPSCRIPTURE only forbids "scriptural analysis" of the Qur'an but allows wikipedians to do "textual analysis" of the Qur'an without a reliable, secondary source. I strongly believe that any analysis of the Qur'an requires a reliable source and the Qur'an can't be considered a reliable source by itself.

A similar discussion recently happened at Talk:Islam_and_blasphemy#Periodic_vandalism with Eperoton, Grufo, myself and an IP. Given that this issue keeps popping up, I think a wider community discussion might be helpful.VR _talk 18:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy texts and their translations are considered primary sources. Scholarly secondary (and sometimes tertiary sources like non-user-generated encyclopedias) should be cited to support text on any interpretation. —PaleoNeonate – 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The attempt to distinguish "scriptural analysis" as a different concept from "textual analysis" doesn't hold water. We should not be using religious scripture as anything other than a primary source to provide quotes to better contextualize the content highlighted by secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE states “Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate” (emphasis mine). So it is clear that some discretion is left to the editor of the page to judge whether a POV has been added (in which case secondary sources are needed) or not. Furthermore Rape in Islamic law § Marital rape contains both the indirect quotation and the direct quotation right below. --Grufo (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: “We should not be using religious scripture as anything other than a primary source to provide quotes to better contextualize the content highlighted by secondary sources”: I believe that is exactly what the current version of the page does. --Grufo (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, I'm stating my own opinion on this issue, not citing RSPSCRIPTURE, which is merely a record of prior consensus. In the most recent relevant discussion, if I recall correctly, the two main camps were editors who felt that scripture could be used as a direct source for uncontroversial summaries of narrative, with the key example at issue being the narrative summary at Exodus. I and other editors in the second camp argued that this opened the door for wikilawyering over interpretations (and that truly uncontroversial parts of scripture are few and far between, even when limiting oneself to pure narrative); this discussion vindicates that position IMO.

But, to address your wikilawyering head on: using the Quran directly here is not appropriate. Find a secondary source that paraphrases the text this way and cite that if you can. In my opinion, scripture should be cited as a supplement if and only if a reliable secondary source explicitly cites a passage. While a source in the article does cite Quran 2:223 on this issue, it does not provide the paraphrase that Grufo is advocating for. Including a Quran quote is appropriate; including parentheticals that attempt to interpret what the Quran is referring to is not, at least in the absence of a source that connects the same dots. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

“In my opinion, scripture should be cited as a supplement if and only if a reliable secondary source explicitly cites a passage.”: Rosguill, I would like that we focus on the current paragraph Rape in Islamic law § Marital rape (which is the version after my edit). Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah (secondary source) uses Quran 2:223 in support of an argument. I then added the actual Quranic passage (2:223) and wrote a short introduction to it. What exactly do you think is not OK with what I have done? --Grufo (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo there is big difference in how Dar al-Ifta introduces that verse and how you introduce that verse. Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah says "The Islamic Shari’ah advised that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love and made such amicable conduct as a sign of piety. [Qur'an 2:223]". That's very different from you adding Quran 2:223, which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth".VR _talk 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that everything after "intimacy and love" is unnecessary and borderng on OR. A better revision would read ...intimacy and love, and cites Quran 2:223 to support this position. Depending on questions of how much weight al-Misriyyah's perspective deserves relative to the rest of the section (I have no opinion on this), it may be appropriate to cite the actual Quran verse, but the introduction of which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth" and invites him to approach them "when or how [he] will", prescribes to "do some good act for [his and his wives'] souls beforehand" suggests a framing through the use of "although" that is not directly attested in the secondary source (in addition to being ungrammatical and largely redundant with the quote itself). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Can we adjust the language of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE to prevent future wikilawyering? I propose removing the "generally" in Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources... VR _talk 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, there's already a discussion related to this started at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#May_WP:RSPSCRIPTURE_discussion. I would love to simply cosign this version, but we do need to respect consensus when summarizing them, and I'm not sure your suggested change really reflects that consensus even if I personally agree with it and would advocate for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• On any topic that is contentious, a secondary source is absolutely necessary. Religious texts require both translation and interpretation, not just as to their content, but as to which sections are significant. Making arguments based on the primary source text is entirely inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah (secondary source) uses Quran 2:223 in support of an argument (and this has been added to the page by Vice regent), I only added the actual Quranic passage to the page, plus a short introduction to it. --Grufo (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No you didn't. Look as this diff:[163] Search for the sentence that follows the words "which although defines". Leaving aside the question of whether the edit was appropriate, you clearly added a source that interprets the Qur'an, not just "the actual Quranic passage to the page, plus a short introduction to it". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The secondary source (Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah) was added by Vice regent before the diff you mention, and in Vice regent's addition there was already Quran 2:223 used in support by Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah. I added only Quran 2:223 (the actual Quranic text) and an introduction to it. --Grufo (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Just click on the diff[[164]] and search for "which although defines". If somebody else had added it that phrase would be found on the before and after sides. It isn't. It is only on the after side. therefor you added it. Please stop saying things that are not true. Did you think nobody would check? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, could you please confirm to Guy Macon that you have added to the page the text “Islamic law advises that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love; this is supported by Quran 2:223” and that before your addition there had never been a mention to Quran 2:223 in the page? This is just for the sake of clarity and for any question I have pasted our two different versions below. --Grufo (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you have edited your comment, so my previous comment was an answer to the previous version of what you wrote. The answer to your new version of the comment instead is yes, starting from “which although defines” is all my addition. --Grufo (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo The secondary source, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah says "The Islamic Shari’ah advised that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love and made such amicable conduct as a sign of piety. [Qur'an 2:223]". That's very different from you adding Quran 2:223, which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth".VR _talk 21:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I advise waiting a while to see if any of the experienced editors at RSN respond to Grufo instead of instantly responding. If an hour goes by and nobody has responded, then post your response. Give the system time to work. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93 is correct. Any claims about scriptures -- even if they seem obvious to the editor -- should be supported by scholarly secondary sources. Treat WP:RSPSCRIPTURE as if it was scripture. (that last bit was a joke, but please interpret RSPSCRIPTURE strictly; a lot of thought went into it). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  So, endlessly fight over its interpretation while treating every single word choice as if it's filled with infinite significance and portent?_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• To all: please stop pinging me. I am watching this thread and being notified again and again to look at something I am going to look at anyway is annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd go even a step further that quoting any of these holy books, which have gone through how many telephone games in terms of translations (albeit with care by theologians), that we should not be quoting the books directly but always using quotes as presented by the secondary sources so that we are relying on their selected translation and not the one we feel is correct in context. --Masem (t) 21:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Often secondary sources do not give directly their holy quotation, they just tell you the chapter and the verse where to look. --Grufo (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If they don't feel the need to quote the work, neither should we. --Masem (t) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

According to this rule there would be basically no direct quotations from the scriptures on Wikipedia. And without primary sources in front for judging and balancing the secondary sources, the choice on what secondary sources to include will become even harder than it already is, and and we will have to make tertiary sources mandatory (since we will have no other means to discern). --Grufo (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per PaleoNeonate, Rosguill and Vanamonde. Scripture is often hundreds - if not thousands - of years old, with language, cultural and geographic contexts far removed from ours. We cannot pretend to read it in an encyclopaedically-meaningful way without interpretation. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To make things clearer

Vice regent's version (revision as of 14:09, 16 July 2020):

According to Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, Islamic scholars condemn when a husband uses violence to force his wife to sleep with him, asks his wife to have sexual intercourse during her menstrual period or in an abnormal sexual position or during fasting hours in Ramadan. In response the wife has the right to take her husband to court and he must be punished for the act. According to this opinion, a wife has numerous grounds to refuse sexual relations with her husband, including if he has a contagious disease or if sexual intercourse hurts her body. Islamic law advises that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love; this is supported by Quran 2:223.

Grufo's version (current):

According to Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, Islamic scholars condemn when a husband uses violence to force his wife to sleep with him, asks his wife to have sexual intercourse during her menstrual period or in an abnormal sexual position or during fasting hours in Ramadan. In response the wife has the right to take her husband to court and he must be punished for the act. According to this opinion, a wife has numerous grounds to refuse sexual relations with her husband, including if he has a contagious disease or if sexual intercourse hurts her body. According to him Islamic law advises that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love; this would be supported by Quran 2:223, which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth" and invites him to approach them "when or how [he] will", prescribes to "do some good act for [his and his wives'] souls beforehand":

Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

— Qur'an, ^{[Quran 2:223]}

P.S. I made a mistake by using “he” to refer to the Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah instead of using “it”, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. --Grufo (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The above does not, as you previously claimed, "just add the actual Quranic passage to the page, plus a short introduction to it". BTW, why did you cite the same source four times and two different ways? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph

"which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth" and invites him to approach them "when or how [he] will", prescribes to "do some good act for [his and his wives'] souls beforehand"

is an interpretation of the passage from the Quran

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe."

"As a tilth" does not equal "his own personal tilth". "So approach your tilth" does not equal "Invites him to approach them". "Your souls" does not equal "For [his and his wives'] souls". These may seem like reasonable interpretations to you, but everybody thinks that their interpretation of scripture is the only reasonable one. Please stick to the interpretations found in scholarly secondary sources rather than rolling your own. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, although I believe we are within the discretion allowed by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE (see above). But, anyway, since I think I am minority at this point, I believe that I will keep only the verbatim Quranic quotation and remove the introduction to it. This answer also to Rosguill. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Can the Qur'an be used as a reliable source on what it teaches? A good commentary is certainly needed, because many Qoranic verses have been abrogated (superseded) by others. Also, many verses have been modified or further explained by hadith, and you need to see the whole picture befrore you can interpret individual verses. Law students know that all law codes (especially civil law) possess voluminous commentaries, and it is impossible to learn or understand the law without them. The same holds true for religious codes, whether Bible or Qoran (actually Islamic law, only partly based on the Qoran). AFAIk there is no critical edition of the Quran comparable to critical editions of the Bible (but see Corpus Coranicum). Biblical scholarship is much older and wider disseminated than Islamic studies.

The issue here is not about individual verses, but the topic of women in Islam. I would recommend reading the article al-mar'a in the EI2 (Vol. 6), which answers many of the questions and uncertainties winding through this thread. --83.137.6.248 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hadiths and Quranic self-abrogations are all things that concern only Islam and say nothing about the Quran itself. As I already stated elsewhere, the Quran can also be reliably commented from a completely different perspective even by an atheist philologist (but of course an academic, not a Wikipedia editor) – exactly like it has happened with the Bible and other holy texts. --Grufo (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given how much controversy and disagreement there is over religious texts, I would say that anything but the most uncontroversial and obvious of statements needs to be sourced to a secondary source; otherwise we're almost always going to be presenting interpretation or analysis. An added issue is that these are not in English, which means that translation is always required. And on top of that, I would be extremely skeptical about pulling out any text that isn't particularly well-known, especially if it's done in a way that makes it seem like it's making a particular point or presenting the faith in a particular way - those risk delving into WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. An added reason to emphasize this requirement is that many editors are going to feel that the personal reading of a religious text that they follow is "obvious" (it is a tenet of faith among some religious groups that their interpretations are axiomatically not interpretations but the only possible literal meaning of the text, even though from our perspective their beliefs obviously involve interpretation and numerous other people read it differently.) Especially in this context, where the editor is plainly connecting that line to Islamic laws about rape - there's absolutely no way that can be read as anything but inappropriate interpretation and analysis of a WP:PRIMARY source. A secondary source is required for that sort of implication to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• There are plenty of scholarly sources which discuss marital rape in Islam: Apparently it is allowed: (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If these conditions for obedience are met, the wife is not allowed to deny her husband sexual intercourse, and therefore the concept of marital rape does not exist within the law. Disobedience (nushuz) by a wife may be grounds for a divorce, according to Islamic law, but not rape by the husband. An Islamist informant explains the prevailing perspective:

Some consider it rape when a husband has sexual intercourse with his wife when she does not consent. In Islam we do not consider it as a rape. In Islam there is a contract between the man and the woman. To provide adequate support [nafaqa] is obligatory for the husband. The other part of the contract is that a woman should obey. Therefore, a woman cannot refuse sex. It is obligatory for her.

• Another source also states that most interpretations of Islam have no conception of marital rape because a wife's duty is to obey her husband (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• • There are a fair number of recent statements and fatwas by religious authorities, covered by reliable news reports, that condemn violence against women in general including within marriage [165],[166], [167], [168]. I'd be a bit hard pressed to find sources that explicitly condemn r.a.p.e, just like I'd be to find those that explicitly condemn murder and I'm sure I can find Islamists who disagree as well. (The edit filter is going beserk) 39.37.159.63 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    Condemning violence against women isn't incompatible with not accepting the idea of marital rape, if your belief is that women are obligated to provide the husband with sex. I think you are also engaging in WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    • • It's important to actually read the sources in detail rather than just skim them for pull-quotes (part of the reason why reputable secondary sources are needed for this sort of thing is because they tend to provide full context.) Both the sources you quoted specifically state that the interpretations they cite are disputed and not universal. From Hajjar: However, such interpretations are neither universal across Muslim societies nor universally accepted even within societies where intrafamily violence is sanctioned on the basis of shari'a. I elaborate on these differences with examples from specific countries in the final section of this article. Here, I would stress the point that interpretations of religion are social and have a history. In this regard, the problem of domestic violence in Muslim societies and struggles against it are comparable to those in other societies, because they raise common questions about the relationship among religion and culture, the state, and women's rights. Moreover, in the contemporary era, the importance of comparative analysis is boosted by the ways that local contestations over women's rights are shaped and affected by the impact of global legal initiatives under the rubric of human rights to regulate and restrict violence. Note specifically that she says it's comparable to other societies, ie. most other major faiths have comparable religious authorities who likewise argue against the concept of martial rape. Since that source specifically says this issue in Islam is "comparable to other societies", it would be misusing the source to use it without that context in a way that presents this as a problem unique or specific to Islam, and outright misrepresenting it to present it as saying that that position is universal within Islam (I did not, at a glance, see where Hajjar says that "most" Islamic authorities allow martial rape - could you cite the specific quote? She seems to me to be saying the opposite, since she emphasizes that the interpretation she describes is contested.) Similarly, Tønnessen says that There are conflicting claims regarding women’s legal rights under Islam on the key issues of consent and obedience. Women activists advocate that marital rape should be criminalized in the Criminal Act and that the requirements for female obedience and male guardianship in the family law should be abolished. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

        OK, I did not read both sources in depth, I have a life outside of WP. One of the footnotes in Tønnessen states, "According to Lisa Hajjar (2004, p. 11), marital rape is “uncriminalizable” under dominant interpretations of Islamic law." And in Hajjar, p. 11 states, "Marital rape is another form of domestic violence for which justifica- tion on the basis of shari’a can be found. Although rape is a punishable crime in every Muslim society, nowhere is the criminal sanction extended to rape within marriage, because sexual access is deemed elemental to the marriage contract. Under shari’a, there is no harm-and thus no crime-in acts of sex between people who are married. Thus, marital rape is literally “uncriminalizable” under dominant interpretations of shari’a. For example, Sura 2, Verse 223, provides a Qur’anic basis for men’s unabridged sexual access to their wives. This verse stipulates that “your wives are ploughing fields for you; go to your field when and as you like.” Although other Qur’anic verses and hadith instruct men not to force themselves sexually upon their wives, this tends to be undermined by the principle of female obedience (see El Alami 1992; El Alami and Hinchcliffe 1996). Indeed, a wife’s refusal to have sex with her husband can be construed as “disobedi- ence,” thereby triggering legalistic justification for beating." That does not exclude alternative interpretations, which are stated to be minority interpretations by Hajjar. (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

      • The first and fourth news reports above do seem to clearly condemn marital r.a.p.e [169][170] (the other two are about harassment) and the claim that they somehow sidestep the issue seems to be OR. We have some scholarly sources like Brown who make the same point as well.
      • Another problem I have with some of the sources is that some of the Feminist sources cited, like Ayesha Chaudhry, are Muslim themselves. I highly doubt that they would support blanket statements like "marital r.a.p.e is allowed in Islam", rather than a much more qualified point that, just like some interpretations of other religions, some traditional interpretations of Islam/Islamic sources/Sharia, which they regard as patriarchal and sexist, and which they (as Muslim scholars) oppose, allow for or ignore the existence of marital r.a.p.e, when defined under the terms of consent rather than harm. It's a fair bit lengthier but the nuance is kinda important here in capturing what the sources are saying. 39.37.174.170 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
        • • Aquillion, buidhe and the IP, can we continue this discussion at Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#Marital_rape_section_again, where buidhe has already started a discussion? This is not the best place for it.VR _talk 12:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Addendum: Grufo did something similar over at Islam and Blasphemy changing:

However other passages are less violent and do not directly prescribe any earthly punishment for blasphemy, only to "not sit with" those who mock the religion (cite)

• • to:

Other passages are less violent and do not prescribe directly any earthly punishment for blasphemy, only to "not sit with" those who mock the religion (cite) - although the latter are admonishments directed towards a witness of blasphemy, not towards the guilty of blasphemy:

• • Grufo's personal additions are found nowhere in any source and he admits as much, but he still maintains that his additions, which actually seem to contradict the citation, ought to be included and uses the same arguments he uses above. This OR should be removed or tagged too. 39.37.159.63 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Religious texts are notoriously open to interpretations and should never be presented without a secondary source explaining them. Of course it is fine to say when writing about religious people how they interpret scripture without mentioning other interpretations. We might say for example that a Christian sect preaches corporal punishment because Solomon said. TFD (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• If the issue here is edits like this one, then that's pretty cut and dry. I'll admit that a newspaper is not necessarily the best source for theological claims, given the libraries that have been written on the subject, but it is a secondary source. We do not replace secondary sources with personal exegesis using primary religious texts.

Personally I would go a step further and say that we shouldn't generally be using primary religious texts even for direct quotes, where the selection and presentation of those quotes is not based on use in secondary sources. The sheer volume of primary religious texts, along with their many translations, is sufficient that merely the selection and presentation of even direct quotes can become an avenue for original research. GMG^talk 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is your opinion of articles such as Psalm 1 which include the primary text of the Biblical passage, along with a centuries-old translation? Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah / www.dar-alifta.org

Is Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah a reliable source for Islamic beliefs? (used as a citation in the section above this one).

• Here is their "about": page:[171]
• Here is their Wikipedia page: Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah
• Here is an article about Dar al-Ifta in the NYT:[172]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Gave notification of discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Is_Dar_al-Ifta_a_reliable_source?.VR _talk 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• No, this organization functions as a branch of the Egyptian government. There are many different factions of Islam and this only represents one of them. At best, it could be used as a primary source on the beliefs of itself. There are plenty of scholarly sources on Islam and these should be used preferentially. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for opinions of Sunni Islam. Their reliability stems from them being under the purview of Al-Azhar University, probably the most well-known institution of Sunni Islamic learning. This book says Dar al-Ifta "has throughout the 20th century been a central player in the bargaining over the role of Islam in Egyptian society." Their association with the Egyptian government is a double edged sword. On one hand it means they represent "mainstream" views (and Egypt is a large and moderate Muslim-majority country). On the other hand it means they can't say anything against the government, and I would treat any of their political opinions with caution. I would use them with attribution in most cases.VR _talk 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If you're trying to find an organization that represents every single creed of a given religion, you won't find it anywhere. You'll find vastly different interpretations of Islam across the world, as well as many nations harbor differing majority views, even if they're all Sunni. For example - you'll find that the majority strains of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia diverge significantly from those in Egypt, Kazakhstan or Bosnia. Furthermore, many significant religious institutions are affiliated with or at least funded by the government of the nation in which they operate. I don't believe that either of those should be sufficient grounds to discard a source. Instead, it's best to rely on how much they are mentioned in other sources, the history and influence of the institutions and their perceived credibility with regards to how well their opinions are respected by the worshippers in their respective jurisdictions. Goodposts (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, which is why scholarly sources are helpful in distinguishing commonalities and differences between Islamic teachings in different countries and/or other variations. I agree that Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah is reliable for what Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah teaches, but it shouldn't be used for anything other than what Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah teaches (which can be used in any article where WP:DUE, although scholarly sources are preferred). If I were writing an article about Sunni Islam I might start with something like this book. (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  buidhe we might be on the same page (I think). I've been reading this book and it seems Dar al-Ifta is a body of Islamic scholars, most of whom are associated with Al-Azhar University, for issuing opinions on Islamic jurisprudence on contemporary topics. These scholars are rigorously trained in various disciplines of Islamic studies and supervised by their peers. I agree that they are only a reliable source on Islamic jurisprudence (and maybe Islamic theology) and nothing else. For example, I wouldn't use them as a reliable source for history of Egypt. And I would use them with attribution in most cases.VR _talk 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think that they would necessarily meet the WP definition of scholarly source because they're unlikely to publish, say, in mediums that are peer-reviewed by people outside the organization. I mean, maybe the Chabad website is reviewed by Chabad Jewish law scholars but it does not necessarily make it a reliable source for Judaism in general. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  The issue with chabad was that they were at the fringes of orthodox Judaism. By contrast, Al-Azhar is the foremost center of Sunni religious learning.VR _talk 22:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  There are about 1.4–1.5 billion Sunni Muslims in the world. The population of Egypt is 98 million. Even if this institute has significant influence beyond Egypt, it hardly speaks for most Sunni Muslims. The purpose of this institute is not to explain what Muslims have believed throughout the world and throughout history, but simply expound the beliefs of a particular school of Islamic thought. Which is why we rely on publications which meet secular academic standards to write about religious topics. (Note that many people of faith publish in secular media, but on the other hand we should rely on independently published sources, rather than Catholic church publications, to tell us about Catholic theology.) (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Both Dar al-Ifta and Al-Azhar cover all four Sunni schools of thought. And we need to distinguish between "teachings of Islamic scholars" and "views of the Muslim masses". Just like we'd distinguish between "teachings of Catholic church" and "what Catholics actually believe". Dar al-Ifta looks at the "teachings of Islamic scholars" throughout history and is a reliable source for that. They are not a reliable source for the opinions of 1.5 billion Sunnis today - Pew research center is a better source for that. They meet the standards for WP:RS: their scholars are specialists and experts in their field, their work is vetted and supervised by academics from Al-Azhar university, their Islamic opinions are widely cited in academic literature and media. In fact, medical journals, when discussing Islamic views on a medical topic, cite the opinion of Dar al-Ifta: African Journal of Urology[173], BMC Womens Health[174], The Journal of Sexual Medicine[175] and Journal of Medical Ethics[176].VR _talk 05:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, per Buidhe. We should not be using in-universe material, least of all one part of a state apparatus. Use with attribution only, do not use at all for historical information about Islam. GPinkerton (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Toronto Guardian

Is Toronto Guardian (not to be confused with The Guardian) reliable? This article is supporting basic factual coverage in Monica Pearce (currently at AfD). It looks like a blog or promo site to me, especially given that it describes itself as "reaching over 3 million unique viewers per month". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It has over 22,000 followers on its Twitter account yet its tweets almost invariably have no responses, It's https://www.instagram.com/torontoguardian/?hl=en Instagram account] receives some engagement in terms of likes but relatively few comments. It's definitely marginal in terms of establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't thought to check follower counts. For comparison, blogTO—analogous site in terms of audience—has 670k+ Twitter follows. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks very like a tiny local news source. The blurry line between group blog and local paper ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No. There is no indication that there is an form of fact-checking. The articles are contributed by volunteers as far as I can determine and no one involved in the site seems to have experience in journalism. That may change if they are successful, but in the meantime there are lots of other sources for culture in Toronto. TFD (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No. As The Four Deuces says above, there is no indication of fact-checking. Authors on the site appear to be volunteers and it appears anyone can contribute if they email the site. Only one editor is listed in the "About Us" section and one person can't fact-check every article. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Religions a reliable source?

Is MDPI's journal Religions (website) a reliable source? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Questionable1 says MDPI journals are "hit and miss". JzG's User:JzG/Predatory implies that good journals would appear in "ISI JCR" and "DOAJ". Religions is listed at ISI JCR and listed at DOAJ. And I don't find it listed at this version of Bealls list. But the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable seems to flag it as "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements".VR _talk 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As it says above, you should provide the article used as a source, the information it supports and the article it is used for. The North Toronto Town Crier for example is probably a good source for local restaurants that have just closed down but for the Middle East peace process or inter-planetary travel not so much. TFD (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The stats are not encouraging (IF 0.45 and dropping), it's safe to say that it's not going to be considered generally reliable., so it will depend on the authors and the specific content as TFD says. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Beall never listed journals when he could list publishers instead. Beall listed MDPI in 2014, but removed it in 2015. The main issue with MDPI, much like Frontiers, is that their editorial boards are pressured to accept crap and mediocre articles. So it'll always be a borderline source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

LivingInKigali.com

Hi all

Just wondering what people think about the website LivingInKigali.com? There are some things in it that would be useful for inclusion in the Kigali article, but I'm not certain if it's a reliable source or not. On the one hand, it looks like it's published by an amateur enthusiast - "I’m Kirsty, and I started this website as an attempt to fill the giant, gaping hole in online information about living in Kigali as foreigner". However, it also does publish maps of the city, and obviously there's editorial oversight by the founder and I suspect most of what it says is accurate. It is also mentioned as a possible source of information by sites which are reliable themselves, such as National Geographic and Fodor's Travel. Examples of what it might be used for at Kigali, include some annual events and festivals, maybe the food and drink section for cuisine (factual information of course, not the author's opinion on which are the "best"), and area guides to flesh out the geography section a bit. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I can tell from looking at that site that it is a commercial endeavor. That is, the author Kristy is most likely getting paid for writing glowing reviews of cafes and restaurants in Kigali. That doesn't mean that the information is inaccurate, but it means that some of it may be biased. Another problem is that Kristy doesn't reveal her surname so you don't know exactly who is behind the site. I can tell you that the site is a weak source. I'd say if you use it, use it with caution and only when it makes sense.ImTheIP (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: ah, good point, I hadn't considered the paid review angle. Thanks for the advice.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stock photo captions — reliable or not?

I just removed citations to shutterstock and alamy from John Major, where they were used to support claims in the text. Check out shutterstock.com  , alamy.com  , gettyimages.com   for hundreds, possibly thousands, more of the same.

1. Is this an inappropriate use of sources?
2. Should shutterstock, alamy, getty and similar sources be considered generally unreliable for sourcing information in text? (t · c) buidhe 09:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think questions of this nature should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This certainly seems to me to be a sculpted bust of John Major, as does this. I don't think we need a blanket rule on this. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Where captions are included (as in these examples), I think the stock image could be used if the stock company demonstrates editorial control and fact checking. Alamy says it does not edit contributors' photos and appears to rely on contributors to provide accurate captions, indicating there is no additional editorial scrutiny. I would treat Alamy as user-generated, although individual contributors may be reliable (the onus should be wholly on editors wanting to add such refs to demonstrate they should be white-listed). Shutterstock says they review "titles and keywords...for accuracy and relevance...", so they might be reliable. I am not convinced that such photos could be used to support notability or DUEness of a statement, however. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Captions are generally reliable for identifying the subject of an image, since we routinely allow Wikimedians to exercise WP:OR when identifying their own images. However, I wouldn't use them for sourced prose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Can an entry from MissingPortraits.Info be used as a RS

Source: http://ccgi.nehoc.plus.com/Sitters/sittersa-d.html

Article: Lionel Barnett Abrahams

Thre are few cited sources for Abrahams, and those give little detail. This source expands the available info significantly, but I am not sure it can be considered to be reliable. The info on the work of Abrahams in establishing the Gold Exchange Standard, and the connection of Abrahams with the early career of John Maynard Keynes would be highly relevant. Sources do confirm that Keynes worked in the India Office during the period when Abrahams was a senior official there, but none i have found specifically mention a direct connection between them. But those sources that I can check seem to confirm this. Some info on this site matches that in the entry from the unreliable Geni genealogical site. Any advice? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As the writer is not a historian and the site is not known for fact checking, I don't think that information not available elsewhere can be lifted from it and plunked down in our article in Wikipedia's voice. But I think the site itself can be mentioned. And I think assertions found at the site can be mentioned in the Lionel Barnett Abrahams article if any such material is clearly identified as having originated at the site called "MissingPortraits.info" with of course an WP:INTEXT link to that site. Pinging DESiegel Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bus stop. Sinc I wrote the abovce I have gotten several additional clearly relaible sources, which i am using to expand the article. The subject proves to be a more interesting person than i ahd tho0fuyht, and the Keynes connection is now supported directly by clear RS. Some details mentioned in the "MissingPortraits.info" site are not yet supported elsewhere, although none of them conflict with any RS I have read, and where there is overlap the "MissingPortraits.info" site agrees with the other sources. Anything I use from "MissingPortraits.info" will be used with direct in-text attribution, as if it were a quotation. Thank you again. Most of it should in principle be confirm-able in late 19th or early 20th C newspaper archives in England, Particularly the death of Abrahams's son in combat during WWI. Deaths of officers were reported. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed

copied from WT:RSP for discussion here - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I appreciate your copying it to the correct venue Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Increasingly cited in articles in India. LiveMint appears to be a mixture of syndicated press releases (example from Bloomberg) and byline articles (example). I am not confident that the byline artices are more than putting a byline on a press release, however. As a former PR person in real life I used to write articles in this manner and send them to jouranlsist for them to 'tidy up' before they put them in their paper.

Please can a discussion be held by wiser heads than mine in order to place this correctly on the list with a categorisation. The increasing use of this publication is concerning since it is being used "both ways" at AfD (example) and its reliability is in dispute. Obviously context applies, but guidance from here in the table is very helpful Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That's annoying - I've found it sometimes useful. But I do know the sort of churnalism you mean - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Greetings. While an independent discussion on Livemint is surely good, this specific case I want to clarify that (the example being cited) is a syndication from this Bloomberg article which is a named article with a dedicated by-line and not a press-release. (additional link here). So, this is a syndicated article (from Bloomberg) that LiveMint has published, perhaps, with due commercial agreements for Syndication rather than a press release that has been picked up. Ktin (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

So... why not cite Bloomberg directly? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, They, i.e. LiveMint, are actually citing Bloomberg if you see here. Ktin (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, no, they are not citing Bloomberg. They are taking a syndicated article from Bloomberg. There is a difference. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, Yes, you are right. I agree. I meant to say they are 'crediting' Bloomberg. Thanks.

They are syndicating an article (not a press release) from Bloomberg and rightly crediting it. This is no different from any other newspaper syndicating from Reuters, AP, etc. I would assume the have the right commercial agreements in place to be syndicating these articles. And, syndicating an article does not necessarily decrease their reliability. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. The example byline article does not look like a press release, a company's press release is not going to contain an assessment on its own internal conflicts. The both ways use in the AfD looks fine to me, one is a passing mention, one is an interview and another is a not so insignificant mention, none of them look like press release but that's not the only factor to be considered. Livemint is just the online variant of the Mint which was founded through a partnership between The Wall Street Journal and The Hindustan Times, which is a 96 year old mainstream newspaper. From my experience at least, the Mint is much better than any other financial newspaper in properly attributing press releases which they attribute through HT Brand Studios. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Mint's assessment. Find them to very good at attributing press releases and advertorials. Definitely in the top three financial newspapers in India and reliable imo. Ktin (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable: Livemint is probably the most trustworthy source for business (and very often) general news in India. I would rate it higher than Economic Times or Business Standard or even Times of India (lol, that's pretty easy), as it has a solid fact-checking team, so says my journalist friend at Hindustan Times. I realise my personal experience is irrelevant in this discussion but whatevurrr... :) I have also observed them openly declaring conflicts of interest, and pointing out connections with parent group, on front pages under news stories. For example: a story on Domino's pizza had something like "Jubliant Food Group is the sister company of Hindustan Times Media (which owns Mint)" - because the husband of HT boss runs Domino's in India. Plus they always clearly point out "This is a paid feature", and it's not buried in fine print. They also issue corrections and apologies in print edition as well as online (like here at the bottom - "An earlier version of the story had erroneously mentioned ICRA when the SAT order was in the matter of India Ratings. We regret the error."). Not many online Indian news sites would bother with that after changing a thing. So Mint (print edition) or its online avatar Livemint is pretty transparent in that regard. Hope that helps! MaysinFourty (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Seems Reliable The fact it is a partnership of the Hindustan Times and WSJ is a good starting point, and they actually publish their code of journalistic ethics they try to follow. I would say that if they are repeating from a known RS that we should just source that RS first and foremost (as we should do when there's one story that originates it). --Masem (t) 17:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as it identifies press releases and coi, no evidence of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Seems Reliable I had read a report some time back by the press trust of India. They rated Mint as a highly reliable source, I believe more so than any other Indian news publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Reliable for domestic reporting on factual news, policy/political analysis. Questionable for international reporting (a lot of syndicated feeds) and entertainment news. Very wide circulation and reach in India due to the parent Hindustan Times' backing. - hako9 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Question does that definition seem like one that could or should be formalised here? Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment; Digging into their international news, I wouldn't call it questionable per se but rather just preferably directly sourced if possible. The syndicated articles are by large sourced from news agencies like Reuters, Associated Press, AFP or Bloomberg News with some Indian origin ones like Press Trust of India and Asian News International; of these only ANI seems problematic. They all have proper attribution anyways so I'd say its still usable and should just be judged on the basis of the reliability of the feed source. They also have a whole set of articles republished from WSJ and some original reporting mostly in relation to Indian foreign affairs (see this). Although I did find some rather odd entertainment (?) articles (example 1 and example 2) attributed to Staff Writer. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are government publications to be considered self-published sources?

WP:USESPS says that "government publications" are considered "self-published" Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Identifying_self-published_sources. Many government agencies in North America publish high quality reports like StatCan, USDA, US State Department etc. In my opinion, StatCan reports have a similar quality to those published by Pew Research Center (considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Both collect their own raw data and have internal experts analyze and interpret it and then publish the reports on their website. Both Pew and StatCan have their own internal mechanisms to ensure accuracy. And given the strong reputation both have, those mechanisms clearly work. So StatCan doesn't seem any more self-published than Pew.

My question is less motivated by a specific example and more by a desire to better understand what it means to be a "self-published" source and how to determine if a government publication should be considered self-published or not.VR _talk 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Being self-published does not mean a source is unreliable, but we have to consider the authors and the context in which the report is being used. Some government websites clearly state that they do not ensure their reliability and these should not be used. TFD (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Government sources have always been sort of an exception. For example, WP:GEOLAND states that any populated place that verifiably exists is notable, even if we know absolutely nothing about it other than information provided by the government. In that case it is perfectly acceptable to create an article using only sources created by the same government that willed the populated place into existence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I’m beginning to think it would help to divide SPS into two sub-genres: “individually self-published” (ISPS) and “organizationally self-published” (OSPS).

Either of these can be reliable (or unreliable) depending on who the individual or organization is... but with OSPS there is a greater chance that there was some form of fact checking. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar This is probably a dumb question, but what exactly is the difference between OSPS and a website like Pew Research Center? Pew might have their own employees collect raw data, have internal experts analyze and interpret it, have it edited internally, and then publish the report on their website. That sounds like OSPS to me.VR _talk 12:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would classify it as an OSPS. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar Just to be clear, you would classify Pew as OSPS and reliable? And their reliability would be based on the fact that they're reputable and widely cited for the work they do, or a different reason? I'm trying to determine how we would distinguish reliable OSPS from unreliable OSPS.VR _talk 14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• The answer is, it depends. Like pretty much any other source, it largely depends on whether the authors are subject matter experts, writing within their field, who exercise editorial independence from the agency acting as the publisher. For example, when the US Park Service commissions a survey of a wilderness area, they normally operate in the role of selecting qualified experts, funding their research, and making that information available to the public once complete. They would not normally exercise undue editorial imposition upon the results. So there is often still some division between author and publisher. If we have reason to believe that the Park Service is exercising undue editorial imposition on the...I dunno...current state of protected species within the Sabinoso Wilderness, then we would have reason to believe that there is no such meaningful division and the source could be considered unreliably self-serving and truly self-published. GMG^talk 12:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• There is a proposed revision of what an SPS means in progress, which differentiates between the current model of "author = site owner", to one that is better seen as "author = one that publishes without further action". To that end, this means that some government works will remain SPS, but mostly those being matters of first record - like transcripts of courts, hearings, court filings, etc., things that published with minimal review, and then separately you will have actual non-SPS that underdo review and checks like government reports, court decisions, legislation, and so forth. In either case, these are all still primary documents and should be used with care.
  Additionally, when getting to some of the reports that are published by EPA or the more scientifically-minded organizations, these often are written from universities, national labs, or equivalent organizations for that agency, with the agency adding their name as the issuing agency. Those should not be seen as self-published regardless (and would fit in the proposed scheme), and here would no longer be primary works, though issues of independence could be raised if that's a topic matter. Eg if the topic is about a chemical , such a report discussing its toxicology would be fine, but if the topic was about specific pollution of that chemical in a certain site in the US, such a report might be "tainted" depending. --Masem (t) 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I just looked at it. I like Zero0000's definition of SPS, it makes things clearer. I also like FactOrOpinion's examples, they are helpful.VR _talk 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, a while back on the WP:USINGSPS talk page, I'd tried to start a discussion, Are government publications often SPSs and should this be addressed on the main page? Ultimately, the answer depends on how "self-published" is defined, and hopefully there will eventually be a consensus about that, and if there are still questions about government publications, we can come back to them. More generally, the text on the USINGSPS page should be updated once there's an agreement on a better way to define SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on CNN

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per the Snowball Clause. There has been immediate and overwhelming consensus that CNN News is generally reliable in both of the categories set forth and that CNN opinion shows are already adequately covered by existing policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Endorsed - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Inspired by the closure of our recent RFC as to the reliability of Fox News, and after some preliminary discussion (here), this RFC seeks to assess community consensus as to the reliability of CNN in the following specific areas:

1. news excluding politics and science
2. politics and science
3. talk/opinion shows

Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CNN news excluding politics and science)

• I think that, similar to Fox, CNN is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• CNN is reliable for factual reporting, including politics and science. There is no evidence to the contrary. Not reliable "like Fox", actually reliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for reporting, including politics and science. Guy says it best. No evidence to the contrary. Mistakes can and have been made, because humans are not perfect, but are also typically corrected promptly and within editorial guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. A review of CNN controversies seems to show some problems with specific reporters (who were generally fired with a retraction), as well as with specific stories. This is the case for most sources. I see no evidence of systematic problems and I see clear indication of editorial control.Jlevi (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• CNN is reliable for science and politics. Smeat75 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for factual reporting per WP:NEWSORG, CNN is a well respected outlet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable – As good or better than most sources in reporting news. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - this section (at a minimum) should be WP:SNOW closed. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per Guy, Oknazevad, Smeat75, Hemiauchenia, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Ian.thomson. GPinkerton (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) Reliable. Routine news coverage is about as reliable as you can ever get for cable TV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• There's kind of a default way that we handle news channels in general -- they're generally considered reliable, but not top quality. CNN has its moments of sensationalist garbage, but I haven't seen any reason to treat it differently than that default. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• relible — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable. This is a waste of time and borderline WP:POINTy given that the discussion above already made it clear that there is zero chance CNN would be found anything but reliable. Nobody has presented any reason to doubt its reliability, and it obviously has an extensive reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but more generally the purpose of these RFCs is to assess sources that we have reasons to doubt, not to engage in pointless tit-for-tat theater. --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and this shouldn't even have been brought here. Hopefully we won't have the New York Times or the Washington Post brought here as well. The fact that news sources occasionally make mistakes just shows nobody is perfect. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable per all the above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Absolutely. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable Generally reliable, meets WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, per Rhododendrites, Aquillion and others. François Robere (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - Snow, sleet, and hail. O3000 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Same reliability as Fox News and MSNBC. There's very little that differentiates CNN from Fox News, except that instead of catering to Republicans, it caters to centrist Democrats. 20 years ago, I would have given CNN a higher rating, but faced with competition from the openly partisan cable news channels Fox News and MSNBC, CNN has also identified its target audience and caters to their political views. Just as with Fox News and MSNBC, I believe its factual reporting in its news section is mostly accurate, though just as with the other cable news channels, its choice of which stories to cover and which aspects of those stories to emphasize reflects its target audience's political preferences. The community decided, in the case of Fox News, that this sort of news organization should be used "with caution to verify contentious claims," and that "[t]here is no consensus on the reliability of [its] coverage of politics and science." I argued against that decision, because I believed it was motivated by narrowly political considerations (keeping conservative American viewpoints out of Wikipedia and limiting negative coverage of Democrats on Wikipedia). But the community should be consistent and politically neutral, and rank CNN, MSNBC and Fox News in the exact same way. They are the same thing, just catering to three different political viewpoints in the US. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable in general as per above. Do not rush to use new articles in developing situations and BLPs though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable per Aquillion. Armadillopteryx 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable per above. Is there even any evidence of fabricated material? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable No evidence they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CNN politics and science)

• Similar to Fox, I think we should use CNN with caution to verify contentious claims. I think CNN is biased and opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• CNN is reliable for politics and science. Unlike Fox, it has no history of (e.g.) climate change denialist talking points, COVID-19 insanity, promoting Russian talking points over Ukraine and other geopolitical issues. There is no evidence that CNN is anything other than an honest news gathering organisation. Its editorial lean is to the left of the centre of US politics, but that is as much an effect of the Overton Window as anything. Even if it were unreliable for politics (it isn't), it is still reliable for science. CNN is not the opposite of Fox, certainly not since Fox's Breitbart-driven shift to the hard right post-2015. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable in these areas per Guy's comments. There's no comparison here. It's false equivalency to suggest otherwise. oknazevad (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• CNN is reliable for politics and science.Smeat75 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• I wouldn't consider CNN reliable for medical (per WP:MEDPOP) or other scientific content because it's not their expertise, but this is true of all mainstream news sources, including gold-standard sources like the New York Times. I would consider CNN reliable for politics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, with a (historical?) *minor* caveat on climate programming. A 2013 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that while 80% of CNN climate coverage was accurate, 1/5 segments contained misleading claims, and that these segments tended to be from panel discussions and interviews. This issue of false balance was quite common at the time, so though I think care should be used regarding specific CNN segments, I do not think this is an indictment of CNN climate coverage overall.[177][178] A 2019 Columbia Journalism Review article found that false balance remained an issue, but one that had shifted from (in our language) reliability to bias. Though promotion of climate denial is less common on cable networks, the amount of coverage remains low. In addition, the piece describes a disconnect between climate change coverage and the political solutions to it (such as framing the Green Ne Deal from a political angle alone). But again, this is a very specific detail, and it concerns bias more than reliability.[179]Jlevi (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for politics. Unreliable for technical detail in science and especially medicine. Reliable for non-technical news related to science and medicine. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Until someone can write a book on deliberate misinformation being willfully published by CNN, CNN is reliable except where contradicted by policies like WP:MEDRS or WP:DUE weight from comparable but opposing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for science. Scientific claims should be cited to reputable journals, not news outlets. Is not MEDRS complaint for medical science (MEDPOP). You can probably use news sources for the mundane details (who, what, when, where, why) in science articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for politics per Guy. Reliable for science except where superseded by WP:MEDPOP, WP:MEDRES This section is only here because of CNN's critic Fox's long-standing anti-science(/reality) agenda inherited from the political and religious right it serves and from whom comes the shrillest and most hypocritical pearl-clutching. No history or pattern of rigorous misreporting as evidenced by Fox (and friends). GPinkerton (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) Reliable. I don't see how stating that CNN is reliable for obviously lay science news reports could lead editors into thinking MEDRS or science RS suddenly now include cable TV... Their politics reporting is moderate, quite a lot less sensationalist than Fox, and they don't regularly prop up conspiracy agitators or act as a government mouthpiece. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, i.e. do not carve out an exception for politics/science as with Fox News. All entries on WP:RSP fail stringent scientific sourcing requirements such as WP:MEDRS, and CNN isn't materially worse than the average mainstream news outlet, so there is no need to mention it like for Fox. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I'm fairly sure JAMA (RSP entry) passes MEDRS. Hemiauchenia (talk)

• There's kind of a default way that we handle news channels in general -- they're generally considered reliable, but not top quality (e.g. it certainly doesn't meet MEDRS, but there's no reason to specify that because no news channel would meet MEDRS). CNN has its moments of sensationalist garbage, but I haven't seen any reason to treat it differently than that default. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• relible, concur with Rhododendrites — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable and not biased to the extent that any cable news source can be considered such. The fact that it is reliable is trivial and already discussed above, but beyond that, nobody has given any particular reason to consider them WP:BIASED. This is a WP:POINTy waste of time created as time-wasting theater in response to the Fox RFC; in that case, we had extensive sourcing detailing how the network was originally created and has been run, from the beginning to the present day, to push a particular point of view. There's no such sourcing for CNN - it's considered biased by people who only trust Fox, because such viewers consider any network that wasn't specifically created to court their point of view to be "biased". That's not a point of view we can reasonably use when evaluating sources ourselves, since by that definition all sources would be biased (technically true, but WP:BIASED refers to a more specific and extensive bias that could taint their reporting, which is not present here.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable, per above, of course this wouldn’t discount MED guidelines. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Absolutely. (Retain MED guidelines where applicable.) Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable I agree about MED guidelines, and where it comes to science I'd prefer to use peer reviewed papers in some speciality subjects such as genetics and archaeology, not because of reliability issues but because we should avoid using newly released information until it's been discussed within the scientific community. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable Sensitive information already have stricture guidelines applicable to them, CNN hasn't engaged in widespread manipulation about scientific facts, unlike some other "institutions" and generally is reliable. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per Guy and others, with the usual caveat that specialized publications are preferable to general purpose news. François Robere (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Same reliability as Fox News and MSNBC, as I explained in the previous section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Use with caution, especially when using new articles or claims about BLPs. Obviously attribute opinions and keep in mind the biases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per Ian.thomson. Policies like MEDRS always apply and generally have the same bearing on most, if not all, media sources. Armadillopteryx 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW reliable per above. Is there even any evidence of fabricated material? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable No evidence they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, though obviously not MEDRS. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: Of course, they do indeed have a point of view; practically all news stations do. However, they do not knowingly broadcast false information. 0qd (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CNN talk/opinion shows)

• CNN talk/optinion shows, including (but not limited to) Reliable Sources (Brian Stelter, Anderson Cooper 360, Cuomo Prime Time, and CNN Tonight, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that the "reliable sources" in the above sentence is not to be confused with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• There's no reason to treat CNN's talk or opinion shows differently to any other form of op-ed in a mainstream news organisation. CNN.com and CNN broadcast are mainstream news outlets. CNN cable is a progressive cable channel, but its bias is moderate, certainly compared with MSNBC or, on the right, Fox. However much the right hates CNN, it is a perfectly normal perfectly respectable news organisation. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Opinion is governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG, CNN does not have a reputation for hosting people who promote conspiracy theories. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• I coulda sworn the result of the discussion was not to have an RfC on this. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Treat as any other op-ed – Attribution should be required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Existing policies on op-eds work already, this discussion is pointless bureaucracy and whoever started it needs trouting. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Opinion pieces to be handled in the same way as The Guardian op-eds per Hemiauchenia and Guy. No comparison is to be made with Fox (the elephants' elephant in the room). GPinkerton (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) Op-eds are already covered by policy, and CNN is one of the more reliable opinion news outlets. This should be closed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• No evidence here that we should apply anything other than the default opinion content guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW close with no action; opinions can be handled by the standard policies per the above. No specific reasoning has been presented for why CNN would be treated differently, so there is nothing to discuss here. This is a waste of time and the RFC's creator deserves a trout. --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW close, we already have policies for this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW close, we already have policies for this. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW close per all of the above. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do not use for facts. Can be used for opinions possibly if attributed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW close per above. Existing policy on op-eds is sufficient. Armadillopteryx 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW close per above. No reasons given why CNN should be treated special. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable As any other opinion piece, with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC on CNN)

• I have left notice at the WP:RS talk page. Please add a notice to any other venue you think would be appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is WP:POINTy and needs a WP:SNOW close. Discussion already made the outcome overwhelmingly obvious - why are you wasting everyone's time on an RFC solely for theatrics or to make a point? --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have added it to CENT, we currently have 57,731 citations to CNN per cnn.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Why would CNN not be good for science reporting? The issue with Fox was pushing climate change denial and other conspiracy theories, has CNN ever done that? The logic on the political side works for me I just dont understand the science part. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence they falsify material?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

3 hours and no response, I shall assume there is not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So patient. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Like I said below, its was more then enough time at the Fox RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

TBH, at that point we've already been past several discussions of Fox, and a lot of evidence had already been presented, which served as the backdrop of the FN RfC. Not the same here. François Robere (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Kind of why I gave it only 3 hours, as we have been here before as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for snow close

There is a snowball's chance in hell of additional time changing the overwhelming consensus we are seein on all questions.

On User talk:Blueboar/drafts Both I and "The Other Guy" strongly advised Blueboar to delay posting this RfC until after the MSNBC RfC closed. I think the MSNBC RfC might be a reasonable test of the oft-heard complaint that we have a double standard for conservative and liberal sources, but throwing CNN into the mix despite it being head and shoulders better than Fox news or MSNBC is WP:POINTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I would snow close this myself as I see literally nobody (Blueboar included) expressing an opinion that is not already well described by the current WP:RSP summary, but as a non-admin I'd expect to be reverted. Additionally, it is not so long since past discussions on this subject. I recommend that an admin snow closes this. — Bilorv (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Support WP:SNOW. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Support SNOW close. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:50, 16 August 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.

RFC on MSNBC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per the Snowball Clause. There has been immediate and overwhelming consensus that MSNBC news is generally reliable in both of the categories set forth and that MSNBC opinion shows are already adequately covered by existing policy, and multiple calls for closure under the snowball close - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Inspired by the closure of our recent RFC as to the reliability of Fox News, and after some preliminary discussion (here), this RFC seeks to assess community consensus as to the reliability of MSNBC in the following specific areas:

1. news excluding politics and science
2. politics and science
3. talk/opinion shows

Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MSNBC news excluding politics and science)

• I think that, similar to Fox, MSNBC is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• As I note below MSNBC's website doesn't carry any written reporting, all links to news stories are to the NBC News website. This is solely about the reliability of their cable reporting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is not a thing. MSNBC is the opinion side, the news is branded NBC and is a mainstream reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• I kind of thought this wasn't a thing, but a 2013 PEW report says that MSNBC ran 15% news programming.[180] So many this is a valid question? Or maybe they're just referencing 15% of rebroadcast NBC programming? Jlevi (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

TBH what matters for us is their written stuff, I've never actually come across a citation to primetime television news. I'm sure they must exist somewhere on Wikipedia, but they're bloody rare. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable – As good or better than most sources in reporting news. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• NBC News is reliable; per Guy MSNBC is not a news outfit itself so this doesn't really apply. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• reliable — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. They seem to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and nobody (that I can see) is presenting anything to call that into question. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, per Aquillion. AFAIK MSNBC, unlike Fox, never promotes debunked conspiracy theories or disputes mainstream science. Insofar as they report current events, they report them correctly. François Robere (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable in general as per above. Do not rush to use new articles in developing situations and BLPs though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Behaves like and is a highly reputed WP:NEWSORG. Armadillopteryx 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. No case presented that they are often wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lack of evidence to suggest that they are unreliable in the absence of evidence, why does this exist other than in false balance? Koncorde (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable No evidence they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as other mainstream sources, unlike Fox. -- Valjean (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MSNBC politics and science)

• Similar to Fox, I think we should use MSNBC with caution to verify contentious claims. I think MSNBC is biased and opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• There is a specific reason why Fox is considered unreliable for science, which is separate from the reason it is unreliable for politics. That reason does not apply to any mainstream site outside the right wing media bubble. Only the right has an issue with science. You need to split the question, because the responses are different. NBC is also reliable on politics. Only the opinion shows should be treated as opinion, and even then it would be absurd to equate Maddow to Hannity, for example. Read Blowout and Live Free Or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink. Maddow's book is painstakingly researched and footnoted, Hannity's is pure bloviation - the depth of his research is exemplified by the draft subtitle of the thing, which was a Google Translate word salad of meaningless Latin. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. A 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists media study found that MSNBC had by far the best coverage on climate of the 3 networks we're discussing. They found that only 8% of climate segments included scientifically misleading claims, and that those segments "all overstated the effects of climate change, particularly the link between climate change and specific types of extreme weather, such as tornadoes."[181] Pretty good for 2013!Jlevi (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for politics. Unreliable for technical detail in science and especially medicine. Reliable for non-technical news related to science and medicine. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Coffeeandcrumbs, we're not assessing it per WP:MEDRS - all news sources fail that. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, then you have my answer. It is reliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unless someone could write a book on willful misinformation from them (I don't just mean "I disagree with their presentation"), they're reliable except where contradicted by policies like WP:MEDRS or WP:DUE weight from comparable but opposing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, i.e. do not carve out an exception for politics/science as with Fox News. All entries on WP:RSP fail stringent scientific sourcing requirements such as WP:MEDRS, and MSNBC isn't materially worse than the average mainstream news outlet, so there is no need to mention it like for Fox. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per KOH above. Again, this is an RFC without any suggestion that there is an issue other than POV. POV is not an issue of reliability. We trust reliable sources to present their POV with fact checking. We don't expect reliable sources to be neutral or absent of having a POV. Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• (EC)Reliable. Per Guy, the only reason we even have such "reliability for science news" sections in these RfCs is because of the rampant disinformation campaigns perpetuated by anti-intellectual media. Coverage by center and left-leaning sources generally pretty much lines up with lay interpretation of scientific consensus. Their politics are also reliable--echoing Guy, the alarmist lowest-common-denominator pandering by Hannity and other Fox commentators is just not comparable to the opinion shows on MSNBC. JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• There were reasons why politics and science were separated in the Fox RfC, which makes this RfC seem like an odd exercise. As with Fox, lots of evidence/citations needed to show it should be handled any way other than the default. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• relible — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, including for science and politics, at least to the extent any cable news source is. As above, they seem to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and nobody (that I can see) is presenting anything to call that into question. I would note in particular that I would not generally consider them WP:BIASED the same way as Fox News is - while for a time they tried to position themselves as a left-wing alternative, that was solely marketing (unlike Fox, which, as is documented extensively, was founded with a mission to push a particular brand of politics and has that as its overarching goal. MSNBC's overarching goal is to turn a profit.) MSNBC's branding was always more focused on its opinion section (as opposed to Fox, where it affects all coverage) and since then it has backed away from it and made efforts to court conservatives. When it comes to news, it's no more biased than any other cable news source. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, per Guy, JoelleJay and others. Specialized publications are always preferable to general purpose news channels; MSNBC is no different here. François Robere (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply (for politics). In the 2012 election cycle, a study by Pew Reserch Center stated that Fox News and MSNBC stood out from the rest in terms of partisanship. MSNBC made up stuff for partisan reasons: MSNBC's in Trouble for Selectively Editing Romney's Wawa Moment, Politico: MSNBC mischaracterizes Romney remarks, The Slate: No, Mitt Romney Didn’t Fail to Start a “Romney-Ryan” Chant. Journalist Dylan Byers had this to say in Sep 2013: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. -- Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. I don't know if they have improved since that, or if the Trump-era is just generally different for the whole media field, but Wikipedia uses hundreds of citations to MSNBC from that period for which there could a caveat in any case. --Pudeo (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the first survey you link has much bearing on this discussion. It talks specifically about pro-Obama or pro-Romney bias, which is not a reliability issue. It does, of course, point towards the need for attribution in at least some political contexts (which I think is generally accepted anyway). The other links you provide are potentially better proof, though I haven't reviewed them yet. I think the Slate article at least is pretty weak--check the update at the bottom. Jlevi (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Use with caution, especially when using new articles or claims about BLPs. Obviously attribute opinions and keep in mind the biases. I acknowledge that we should also keep in mind the additional considerations mentioned by Pudeo too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. No case presented that they are often wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per Guy and JoelleJay. Armadillopteryx 14:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable No evidence they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for politics. This story [182] promotes the myth that there is a commonly-agreed-on definition of what constitutes a "no-go zone." I explain in more detail in discussion and won't repeat myself here. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's like saying there is one commonly agreed definition of what constitutes a "myth" amrite? So while we are suggesting that the word "myth" is problematic enough to mark down MSNBC, we are in some serious trouble for any euphemistic reference. Koncorde (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable as no evidence is presented that they are not. Unlike Fox, MSNBC does not allow anti-vax BS, and COVID-19 minimalization. Regardless of its bias, MSNBC still comes down on the right side of politics, science, medicine, and history. -- Valjean (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Don't be so quick to nominate MSNBC for sainthood. For example, see MSNBC controversies#Mitt Romney video an MSNBC controversies#Coverage of the 2020 Democratic primary. The claim that Tulsi Gabbard'scampaign was benefiting from Russian state media is just as much a conspiracy theory as anything on Fox. And their treatment of Yang should disqualify them from hosting any future debates. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MSNBC talk/opinion shows)

• MSNBC talk/opinion shows, including (but not limited to) MPT Daily, All in with Chris Hayes; The Rachel Maddow Show, and the Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Who's using them for anything else? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Treat as any other op-ed – Attribution should be required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Existing policy for op-eds covers this, this is pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Citations needed for claims that MSNBC's programming is comparable to Fox News in terms of accuracy, research, fact-checking, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Usable for opinion. As mentioned above, individual talk / opinion people have biases (many of which were well-known) and MSNBC has at times used them for branding exercises, but there's no reason that I'm aware of to doubt their general fact-checking and reliability sufficient to be citable for opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Existing policy for op-eds covers this, this is pointless. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW as covered by existing policy, per all of the above. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do not use for facts. Can be used for opinions possibly if attributed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Treat as any other op-ed. Armadillopteryx 14:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Treat as any other op-ed. Reliable for attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Treat as any other op-ed, but recognise journalistic integrity is a thing Opinion is opinion of the person with the opinion. We should be clear that there is a difference between an "opinion show" / "talk show" (like Morning Joe) and a journalistic exercise which is presented by someone with an opinion (i.e. Maddow). There is nothing to suggest Maddow is in and of herself unreliable, or that she is presenting only her opinion rather than facts without any semblance of fact checking, that would require attribution any more than using most other news sources - however it is good practice to probably do so. Maddow and MSNBC talking heads in general are not associated with the fabrication of facts, or blatant misrepresentation (which is the accusation against Hannity and Fox in general). Koncorde (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Treat like opinion shows. With kudos to JzG and Guy Macon (who originated some of the following elsewhere), MSNBC's opinion shows are as biased as Fox shows, but more accurate; CNN's are not as biased as Fox, but far more accurate than Fox for politics, science, medicine, and history.

Unlike Fox, MSNBC does not push Russian talking points, defend Trump's flood of lies, allow anti-vax BS, COVID-19 minimalization, conspiracy theories, and twisted history that favors the racists in Trump's base. Regardless of its bias, MSNBC still comes down on the right side of politics, science, medicine, and history, and quite thoroughly debunks numerous conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and the GOP. This whole RfC amounts to a vacuous "Is it okay to doubt that the sky is blue?" Duh! Who in their right mind asks that?

Several have called for a trout to the OP for wasting our time with this, and I agree. Unfortunately, my caution to them was written one minute too late. That several commenters have even entertained the false equivalency of claiming MSNBC and Fox are somehow on the same reality playing field is rather worrying, as the ability to vet sources for accuracy and connection to reality is essential here. Trouts for them would also be in order. Reality checks need to be waved in their faces. MSNBC bases its reporting and opinions on facts, and Fox bases much of its reporting and opinions on political talking points and extreme spin. The times that the Fox "NEWS" desk doesn't do that are often notable and worth reporting because they are the exception that proves the rule. The "opinion" shows are a disaster of gross misinformation. It is unsafe to even listen to them, as our minds work by first believing what is said, and then must use effort to debunk and change that mistaken belief, and that only happens to those with strong skeptical filters in place. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC on MSNBC)

• I have left notice at the WP:RS talk page. Please add a notice to any other venue you think would be appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added the discussion to CENT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• We currently have around 3,300 citations to MSNBC per msnbc.com  . Written news stories on msnbc.com are links to NBC News, which we have 14,000 citations to according to per nbcnews.com  . NBC News is considered separately from MSNBC on the RSP list and is considered generally reliable (RSP entry). Written content on the MSNBC website includes opinion content like MaddowblogHemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Blueboar: Once again I don't understand why we're discussing science when there don't appear to be any issues with the source's coverage of science. Can you explain where you're coming from? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence they falsify material?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 3 hours and no response, I shall assume there is not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So patient. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well its not as if over at the Fox RFC we did not find evidence in less time, just judging by the same standards.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You do not need to engage in Whataboutism. One of the two can reliable, both of them can be reliable, or neither. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not, I am applying the same standard, its why I asked and waited.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Then wait patiently, not just 3 hours. People might have gone to sleep or not woken up in that time. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Or people could have looked (its not as if this thread has not been active), moreover there is no requirement for me to even wait (or ask for evidence). Hell its not as if this was not launched yesterday with no evidence being produced to support it is it? Based on the evidence produced in the last 14 hours my "vote" would have been the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given that we have an entire article devoted to MSNBC controversies... I think there is enough doubt about the outlet’s bias and fact checking to justify periodically ASKING the community how reliable it is in various situations. I don’t care what the community’s answer is... What I DO care about is that the question gets asked. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A concrete example of a misleading story by MSNBC is here.[183]. Different people can quite reasonably have different definitions of what constitutes a "no-go zone." It is entirely reasonable for MSNBC and other sources to say they don't exist and Fox and Angela Merkel to say that they do. Because different people can have different definitions, with plenty of room for gray areas, both may be correct in their own terms. What is unreasonable is for either to say that the other is promoting a "myth" by their position. A semantic difference is a more likely explanation. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• That is a perfect example for the headline RfC elsewhere, as the headline given to the video uses a term ("myth") that is not said once in the actual broadcast. In the actual content, the story presented examples of Fox news decrying no-go zones, followed by examples of Fox apologizing for those same statements. I don't think this example supports "misleading story". Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for snow close

Like the CNN RfC, this is another waste of time at best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 16 August 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.

Classification of whiteblacklisted media outlet Smashing Interviews Magazine as a reliable source

• smashinginterviews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello,

I was referred to this page by David Fuchs. I'm the publisher of Smashing Interviews Magazine (smashinginterviews.com), which is highly cited by worldwide mainstream media and is a notable media outlet that conducts 1-1 interviews with high profile people of all genres. We have been established for over a decade. We have been whitelisted for "spamming" for the best part of our existence and considered an "unreliable source" by Wikipedia, which has led to embarrassment, when others attempted to cite our articles and inuired about our being classified as "unreliable." We have been ongoing targets of hacking, which likely led to the original spamming whitelisting and the classification as an "unreliable source." My mission is thusly twofold: (a) to be reclassified as a reliable source. (b) to be removed from the whitelist.

Here are examples of our Smashing Interviews Magazine (smashinginterviews.com) articles being cited by major press outlets:

Source: Adweek

Article: https://www.adweek.com/tv-video/ed-asner-mary-tyler-moore-show-lou-grant/

Source: The New York Times

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/movies/candida-royalle-maker-of-x-rated-films-dies-at-64.html

Source: The Washington Post

Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/george-kennedy-oscar-winning-character-actor-of-cool-hand-luke-dies-at-91/2016/02/29/f4451a92-df2f-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html

Source: People magazine

Article: https://people.com/movies/kelly-mcgillis-returns-to-acting-on-her-own-terms/

Source: ABC News

Article: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/things-knew-princess-bride/story?id=25248519

Also, here is an interview by the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada, Reno, NPR radio/podcast "Open Room Media."

Source: Open Room Media

Article: https://openroommedia.com/2017/04/004-smashing-interviews-a-smart-pivot/

Open Room Media about page: https://openroommedia.com/about-2/

Thank you for your consideration,

Marc Parker Publisher Smashing Interviews Magazine— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

Note (which has not necessarily anything to do with reliability, though may give context to above claims): this was blacklisted (not whitelisted) by user:Ckatz back in 2010 after spamming by site owners. In 2013 someone with a conflict of interest asked for delisting. I am checking for continued attempts to spam now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just adding to this that the original reason for the blacklisting by Ckatz was 'history of self-promotion, IPs adding links', not a judgement of the site's reliability. Jr8825 • Talk 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I agree, I cannot find any judgement regarding reliability, though showing that one is a reliable source does increase your chances at whitelisting / de-blacklisting (though, we generally do not grant that when site-owners request that).

@all: IP claims here that the spamming was due to being hacked (in other words, a kind of a Joe Job?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for what, exactly? Interviews are very low down the list of sources Wikipedia accepts (they are primary and affiliated with the subject, we prefer sources that are secondary and independent). The site was blacklisted due to spamming, which is unlikely to change. Any requests for whitelisting of individual links would need to come from a member of the Wikipedia community in good standing, and would be specific to single URL with a credible rationale for inclusion. Wikipedia is not here to improve your reach or SEO. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra is correct. This all happened early on in the publications existence, 10 years ago. The magazine is one-on-one interviews only. The interviews are the primary sources for numerous articles by major media outlets, a sample of which I provided links to above. A rep for one of our interviewees attempted to add an interview link to a Wikipedia page and was told they couldn't because we're an unreliable source, which we obviously are not. No one from our outlet has ever added links to any page, nor have we self-promoted. This situation is an ongoing source of contention and embarrassment, which is amplified by the fact that we are dealing with high-profile people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk)

We don't want a rep for an interviewee adding it to their client's Wikipedia page - they have a conflict of interest as well. That sort of thing is part of the reason your site ended up blacklisted in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Three things: I don't have any control over the actions of a famous person's rep. Why should that get my org banned from Wikipedia? Also, that's not the point. I only mentioned that story due to the fact that it was that particular situation which brought it to my attention that we were not considered a reliable source. lastly, if we weren't a reliable source, why would a famous person's rep want to deal with us in the first place?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

If interviews (which are the backbone of journalism) are considered to be very low down on the list of sources Wikipedia accepts, why then does Interview magazine (Andy Warhol's publication) have a Wikipedia entry and not us? Why are we being held responsible for something hackers did to sabotage our publication's reputation 10 years ago? We have many questions, but no real answers. How can we rectify this ridiculous situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

By walking away, because it's not actually ridiculous. Wikipedia uses reliable independent secondary sources, your magazine is not one of those, your only proposed use case is a violation of our policies as well, and no Wikipedian in good standing has made any request for a link. Case closed. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous, and case is not closed. Hackers sabotaged our site 10 years ago. They have not done anything since then to sabotage the site. No one has. We certainly have not. There is nothing there to warrant a lifetime ban. You have absolutely no proof that we are an unreliable source. We are cited by major media outlets around the world, in textbooks, in academic papers and magazines. We are a primary source for secondary sources as shown to you in several links. Your argument holds no merit, so this appears to be a personal vendetta you have against us personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

To get your publication removed from the blacklist you need to post to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. The blacklist for spam was 10 years ago. I think enough time has passed that whatever problem it was meant to address is no longer an issue.

The source is not mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so there is no determination of reliability. There is a distinction between reliability of a publisher and those of people interviewed. What we expect from a publisher is that their published interviews accurately reflect what the person said. Rarely would we consider statements made in interviews to be reliable. Journalists however have the expertise to determine what is or is not reliable and we accept their judgment, but use their articles as sources rather than the original interview.

TFD (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree with TFD's "I think enough time has passed that whatever problem it was meant to address is no longer an issue" – A WP:COI editor comes to this noticeboard explaining that they want the behaviour that led to the site's blacklisting in the first place (which afaics is rather the IP spamming than it being hijacked 10 years ago) to be resumed ASAP. Yes, the place where that can be asked is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, but with a link to this WP:RSN discussion in that request, I suppose a chance for the site being whitelisted would be rather low. And it is, of course, of little use to discuss the reliability issue (which is indeed a separate & undecided issue) in the appropriate place, i.e. here, as long as the site is blacklisted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, we were blacklisted 10 years ago due to hacking/spoofing sabotage, not because we were deemed unreliable. We were told it was because of "spamming" and that the ban would never be lifted. After that initial sabotage by hackers, nothing else has occurred over a 10-year span. So why should we continue to be blacklisted for that? We should not be. As far as being a reliable source, our interviews absolutely accurately reflect what the person said. Each person is recorded on the phone or in person. We have their exact words when we transcribe each interview and have never been told "I never said that" or anything like that. Also given to you here were many links to mentions and citations from major news outlets that absolutely would not use us as a source if we were not reliable. Colleges would not use our interviews in their curriculum of study, textbooks would not use us as a source if we were not reliable. Example: From the "Life" book titled "Fleetwood Mac" using our interview with the band's producer Ken Caillat - "Who's this? Oh yeah, you're the guy from 20 years ago, Caillat told journalist Melissa Parker on Smashinginterviews.com in 2012." The editors of Life magazine are the authors of the book. Link - https://books.google.com/books?id=RF7UDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT103&lpg=PT103&dq=%22journalist%20melissa%20parker%22&source=bl&ots=ouNdUi1CWI&sig=ACfU3U2aKxYQ3Z45sx9GUHnuAhuse3xMaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjK1dzSnqfrAhWSiK0KHbS2BakQ6AEwC3oECAEQAQ&fbclid=IwAR3euchJGplv4E9qK81-bjPsPH9yHSk8zKF5-ijw3Zgy1qrrl484peW5YNg#v=onepage&q=%22journalist%20melissa%20parker%22&f=false Publisher and journalist Marc Parker's Google knowledge panel - https://g.co/kgs/aU8ENz Marc Parker, Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, Journalist verified at Muckrack - https://muckrack.com/marc-parker Smashing Interviews Magazine - verified at Muckrack - https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/smashinginterviews Melissa Parker, founder - https://muckrack.com/melissaparker Muckrack is a peer-reviewed journalistic database that requires its entrants to be verified by other journalists. Smashing Interviews Magazine is and always has been a reliable source and unequivocally deserves a Wiki entry as do the founders, Marc Parker and Melissa Parker (credentialed journalists, current publishers of Smashing Interviews Magazine, former publishers of a news magazine and authors of a book published by The History Press/Arcadia, a biography on famed industrialist Daniel Pratt and the city he founded, which is an installation of a series of American books called the "brief history series.") Link to the book - https://g.co/kgs/zZGqkf -- Melissa Parker— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

• As user:Francis Schonken, and out of experience, I also disagree with user:TfD's assessment that they 'think enough time has passed'. We have cases of 10 years on our list. Spam/COI editing/promotional editing/paid editing does not just go away after a bit of time. Having yourself positively expressed on Wikipedia pays your bills, some of these 'spammers' (to put them under one flag) come back every (other) year asking to be delisted, or they find workarounds and/or use other domains. For other sites it is not the company itself that is necessarily responsible, but people who 'use' the site (compare it to petition sites and porn sites, I am not aware of cases where owners/representatives spamming porn sites, but the sites get heavily abused).

The above discussion suggests that this site has limited use as a reliable source. I would therefore suggest editors who want to use this to ask on the whitelist for their specific case.  IF we have consensus that this site is of general use (as a reliable source), or we get overwhelmed with whitelist requests that get granted we can revisit the blacklisting. Until then:  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the website is NOT a spam site, and it is NOT used as such. It has NEVER been used as such. The reason for creating the site was as a pivot from the news magazine we were running which was well established. This pivot is detailed in the link above regarding an interview that was done on us by the Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas Reynolds School of Journalism on us being journalistic media entrepreneurs. Again, the publication would also not be used as a reliable source for major media outlets, etc., if it was a spam site. It was founded as an interview magazine, and shortly after we started the magazine, we became aware that hackers or competition of ours posted a couple of links on interviewee's pages to sabotage the publication. That was 10 years ago. They have not sabotaged us since, and publishers Marc Parker and Melissa Parker are not spammers. Thus, there is no reason for the blacklist. And why would you say that the site has a limited use as a reliable source? Should we post here NUMEROUS links to mentions and citations? Do you not see Muckrack as a reliable source? What other proof do you need? Please give us answers to these questions. -- Melissa Parker— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

If the website is blacklisted, why is it used a source for a few Wikipedia articles? I performed a search for "Smashing Interviews". It is cited in the articles James Maslow, Laura Harring, Rebecca Da Costa, Footprint (album), It's a SpongeBob Christmas!, Lexi Thompson, The Happys, Gary Wright, Carol M. Highsmith, If You Believe (George Harrison song), and The Answer's at the End. With Melissa Parker cited as the writer/interviewer in most cases. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I notified the original blocking administrator of this discussion.[184] TFD (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you check their edit history? User:Ckatz was last active on 20 April, 2020. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, Dimadick. The magazine is a source for several Wikipedia articles, but we were told there wouldn't be any hot links to our publication because we were blacklisted in 2010. For example, here's the article on James Maslow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Maslow - Under reference #6, you will see my name and Smashing Interviews Magazine, but then it says missing or empty url. We've had several interviewees say they tried to put a hot link on Wikipedia to their interview and was unable to do so. If the publication is not a reliable source, why were they trying to post the link from their interview in our magazine to their own Wikipedia article? We should not be blacklisted. Smashing Interviews Magazine is a reliable source. We truly need this issue resolved as soon as possible.-- Melissa Parker

From reading your comment, it sounds like your main issue is your website not being directly linked from Wikipedia, which leads me to wonder whether your concern may be partly about SEO or generating hits. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and not a space for promoting or showcasing your publication - see WP:PROMOTION. We strongly discourage individuals with a conflict of interest from adding content, as has already been said above. You are welcome to tell your interviewees this, and that your blacklisting is not a judgement of the reliability of your publication. Jr8825 • Talk 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, thanks. I won't be telling my interviewees anything of the sort. They already know our magazine is reliable, or they wouldn't be interviewing with us. If they happen to ask us why they can't share their own interview on their own Wikipedia article with a hot link, I will tell them the truth, that we were blacklisted 10 years ago because hackers sabotaged us, there's been no sabotage since, yet we're still paying the price of being blacklisted 10 years later, which is totally unfair. That doesn't say anything negative about our publication. And if my defense of our publication, and only wanting to be treated fairly as everyone else, appears to you as wanting to "showcase," then I ask you, do you tell everyone else (millions) when they write Wiki pages or when they post links that they only want to "promote" or "showcase"? We're really starting to believe we are being singled out due to some personal issues you may have with us. I certainly hope I'm wrong. But we are being treated unfairly here.-- Melissa Parker

Coverage on Wikpedia isn't the be all and end all, ultimately your twitter account only has less than 4K followers and most of your tweets recieve 0 engagement, something I don't think wikipedia links will fix. Breitbart is also blacklisted but that doesn't have any impact on their popularity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Melissa, I am a little bit unsure of your motivation here. You seem to be conflating three distinct goals: 1- Getting your site deemed reliable (which allows it to be CITED in an article) 2-getting it off the blacklist (Which allows it to be LINKED to in a citation), 3- Having an article about your website on Wikipedia. Each of these three goals are separate judgements and governed by different policies. Achieving one does not guarantee the others. It is quite possible for a blacklisted website to be deemed reliable (it can be cited without including a link to it), it is possible for it to be whitelisted, and yet not be deemed notable enough for us to have an article about it (or vise versa). Please read our policies on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability. You already know where to go to appeal your blacklist. Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My motivation, as I have stated many times, is to be treated fairly, just as everyone else wishes and to correct your defamatory label of "unreliability." There is no reason for our magazine to continue to be blacklisted after 10 years because of sabotage perpetrated by hackers at the very start of the magazine. There have been no further incidents since that happened 10 years ago. So why are we still blacklisted? At the time of blacklisting, there was absolutely no talk about the magazine being unreliable, yet when an interviewee tried to post a link on her own Wiki page, admins told her the site was unreliable. It us not. I've asked you over and over how the magazine is unreliable and have received no answers. NO media outlet likes to be called unreliable when they are not. Marc Parker and I have given you the case of reliability. I have asked, what other proof do you need? And I've received no answers. Our magazine has received in the multiple millions of unique views over its lifetime, so we're not looking for any kind of a "fix," as you call it. The magazine is extremely popular, especially as a primary source for news gathering purposes. Many articles are built around our interviews. As I said, it is and always has been a very credible and reliable source. It's quite befuddling that you talk like it's odd that we'd want Wiki pages (just like others do), so not understanding where you're coming from there. Why wouldn't we? Do you question others why they'd want Wiki pages, or tell them that Wikipedia "isn't the be all and end all"? Just curious. And under those guidelines you've noted, both Marc Parker and I (who are also published authors) and our magazine would be eligible for entry into the encyclopedia.-- Melissa Parker

You're conflating different things. You say that your magazine is a reliable source for interviews and cite several reliable sources that cite your magazine. Fine. That doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to cite it, because on Wikipedia, interviews are considered primary sources, and we prefer to cite secondary sources. That means that Wikipedia would cite those sources that cite your magazine for any statements made by your interview subjects, because we trust the journalists in the secondary sources to make judgments about what is appropriate to reference. If a good secondary source is available, we defer to that rather than cite a primary source.

This isn't the venue for discussing blacklist removal. The correct place is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. But don't waste your or our time doing that. Removal requests are seriously considered only if they come from a trusted high-volume contributor, not someone with a conflict of interest. And, as someone who helps manage that blacklist pointed out above, any request for removal would be closed as  Defer to Whitelist, which means, a request to poke a hole in the blacklist to whitelist a specific link must be made on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Nothing stands in the way of a Wikipedia article being written about you or your magazine, if it meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:CORP notability guidelines, respectively. In fact, you could even write the article yourself, by following the instructions at WP:AFC and submitting a draft for review. The draft would be reviewed by another editor before deciding to publish it in main article space or not. If not, you can still revise and improve the draft.

You stated above "A rep for one of our interviewees attempted to add an interview link to a Wikipedia page and was told they couldn't because we're an unreliable source." So, a rep for one of your interviewees tried to violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines and was prevented from doing so. That sounds to me like the blacklist is working as intended, and an excellent reason to keep it blacklisted, to prevent further attempts to violate our guidelines.

If you're hung up about reliability, sure, I have no problems agreeing the magazine is reliable given the citations provided above. But that has nothing to do with blacklisting. The blacklist includes other reliable sources. If one of the interviews you publish has something in it worthy of mentioning in a Wikipedia article, then it would be picked up by a secondary source and we'd cite that; no need to cite the primary source, so there should be no concern whatsoever about being blacklisted. If a trusted, high-volume contributor requests blacklist removal, we'll consider it then, but not before. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc, Melissa, since you both use the same IP, and don't always mention your name, it might be a good idea that at least one of you takes a user name (see WP:USERNAME). Please also follow WP:TPG (talk page guidelines – e.g. use indentation when replying to the post that precedes your reply), and sign your comments with four tildes (see WP:SIG). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Blueboar that looking into an editor's motivation would be germane on this page. This page is about the reliability of sources: a source is reliable or not, and that has nothing to do with a co-editor's motivation. Marc and Melissa disclosed their COI, and that should suffice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: While motivations aren't germane to this page, they are absolutely germane to the topic of blacklisting, which unfortunately seems to be an underlying reason for this discussion here. Marc/Melissa has stated twice already that their interview subjects tried to insert links to their pages in violation of our COI guidelines. Those attempts failed due to the blacklist, but the subjects were apparently confused when someone told them the site wasn't reliable. I have no problem agreeing it's a reliable primary source for what subjects say about themselves. The reliability of a source is irrelevant to the blacklist, it is the intent of the links added that matter, and so far, there hasn't been one single bit of evidence offered that the intent of any link to this magazine is for any purpose other than serving a COI. Until we have such evidence (like a request from a trusted contributor to add such a link), then there is no reason to remove the site from the blacklist. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As said in nearly all replies to the site executives, the blacklisting is not a topic for this page. This page, WP:RSN, is not about intentions. This page is not about motivations. For COI issues there's a separate noticeboard, WP:COIN, which can include motivations in its assessment. But that is not here either. Nor do I see a need to go to COIN: the COI is declared without a shadow of doubt, so there's nothing to investigate in that respect afaics. So, about the motivation topic I propose to get off the site executives' backs, at least on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My error here... I used the wrong word when I asked about “motivation”... I should have said “goal”. The website executives seemed to have multiple goals, and they seem to think that all of them hinge on being de-blacklisted. I wanted them to understand that the three motives/goals/whatever were NOT interconnected.

Being blacklisted has nothing to do with whether a website is considered reliable/unreliable (a reliable source can be blacklisted if misused)... and being blacklisted has nothing to do with whether a website is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it (a notable website can be blacklisted if mis-used). Blacklisting, reliability, and notability are separate determinations, governed by different policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that something that can be assessed on this page is the use that has been made of the Smashing Interviews Magazine as a source on the pages listed above by Dimadick (to wit: James Maslow, Laura Harring, Rebecca Da Costa, Footprint (album), It's a SpongeBob Christmas!, Lexi Thompson, The Happys, Gary Wright, Carol M. Highsmith, If You Believe (George Harrison song), and The Answer's at the End). So far I checked only the first of these, for which I have two remarks (that is: preliminary remarks, before even looking at the source):

• For both of the instances where the Smashing Interviews Magazine is used on that page, it is not indispensable (there's a second reference in each case).
• For the first instance where the reference is used, it is for things the celebrity said in an interview about his own youth (also the second reference for that sentence is a self-declaration in an interview). Not seeing any particular reason to doubt the celebrity's self-declaration, it is however a fact that far bigger celebrities (e.g. Jim Morrison comes to mind) have been known to fib about their youth, so the statement should better not be in Wikipedia's voice (rather: "Maslow said that ..." or something to that effect) – until there's a reliable secondary source for these assertions (on the other hand, if no secondary source gives any bandwidth to these recollections about the subject's youth, they may not be really encyclopedic content either). The other sentence using the Smashing Interviews Magazine source is OK from the in-text attribution perspective: it starts "He has described himself ...".

Any candidates for looking at the use made of the source in the 10 other listed articles? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a self-published book by Wakeel Allah a reliable source for Five-Percent Nation?

It's used 31 times in the article. Not just self-published but by a minister in the organisation (and I'm not sure he's notable enough for an article). Doug Weller talk 13:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's probably fine for uncontentious and directly attributed statements about the organization, per WP:ABOUTSELF. That is, I would start any passage cited to it with "According to Wakeel Allah..." In cases where his information is disputed or shown to be wrong, cite those too. --Jayron32 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Aboutself is only for basic, non-controversial info. A self-published source by a member of the organization should not be used 31 times in its own article (3 might be ok). We should rely on reliable secondary sources instead. (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with buidhe. It may be usable in a very limited capacity to fill some kind of gap, but we must ask ourselves - if reliable sources aren't talking about something, why on earth would we include it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As above, only reliable for what Allah has to say and no real good reason to use it.--Hippeus (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim with no source

I am having some difficulty at the article on the Grande Loge de France (One of several branches of Freemasonry in France)... the opening line contains a statement that the organization is the “oldest” masonic jurisdiction in France... a claim that I have repeatedly tagged as being dubious. Unfortunately, the tag is repeatedly removed. I have opened a discussion on the talk page so that this can be discussed, but the removers refuse to engage. What is my next step? Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It its unsourced remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Reuters Institute Digital News Report

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.

---

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has released its 2020 Digital News Report conducted by YouGov. The survey seems to show that the general populace has different standards from Wikipedia editors. For example, have a look at the results for CNN and MSNBC which Wikipedia editors recently endorsed unanimously with what we call a snow close. The survey shows that 47% of Americans trust CNN and 37% don’t trust it which is at the lower end of the trust range. In addition, 49% of Americans trust MSNBC and 34% don’t trust it which is around the middle of the trust range. Burrobert (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's a good thing that Wikipedia has standards that don't depend on the opinions of random poll respondents, and instead has higher standards based on actual reliability of the sources. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sure that is what we would like to think about ourselves. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to, they have to be better standards than "polling random Americans" --Jayron32 17:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert:, firstly, the snow closes above aren't unanimous endorsements. They are reflections of a very clear judgment by a goodly number of experienced editors that those two sources are generally acceptable as reliable sources. The former is a blanket position, the latter is a much more limited recognition. Any citation of either source can always be challenged as not reliable or not useful or even flat-out wrong in a particular context and usage. Secondly, there has been a continuing propaganda campaign in the USA dating back to the Vietnam War to convince Americans not to accept what "mainstream" new reports for political reasons so the lack of trust is not at all surprising. I think the articles on CNN and MSNBC already adequately cover this aspect. Thirdly, even if we ignored the issues Jayron32 raises, it is not clear at all what we are supposed to do with this information. Do we now say: "We must deprecate CNN and MSNBC because a poll says so."? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes there were a lot of votes in the endorsements of CNN and MSNBC. Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general public? Your explanation involves the existence of a propaganda campaign which is affecting the judgement of the general public but which Wikipedia editors are presumably immune to. There are other, less self serving, explanations.
• Jayron’s explanation seems to be that the opinions of Wikipedia editors are better than those of the average American.
• Regarding what to do with the information - take it on board, ponder, ruminate.

Burrobert (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert:, you missed the point completely. The point wasn't that there were "lots of votes" the points was that those "lots of votes" weren't an "endorsement" of those outlets. If you don't understand that distinction, please re-read WP:SOURCEDEF and WP:RSCONTEXT. As to the propaganda campaign, I offer this book or this one or this one or, well, any of literally thousands of media studies, history and social sciences papers on the topic over the last 50 years. I'm not claiming that Wikipedia editors are "immune to" anti-media propaganda but they at least tend to be aware of its existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• My use of the term “endorsement” seems to have sent you off into the wilderness so I’ll rephrase my statement to “Yes there were lots of votes supporting the view that CNN and MSNBC are reliable sources. Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general public?
• Regarding this propaganda campaign of yours: when did you conduct your poll of Wikipedia editors to determine that “they at least tend to be aware of its existence” and that’s why they regard CNN and MSNBC as reliable more often than members of the public?

Burrobert (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Point #1: See point #2. Point #2: Spend 15 minutes reading the posts of the community members replying on this noticeboard (with certain glaring exceptions). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

My question was "Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general public?" Your answer is to read what Wikipedia editors write. In other words the view of Wikipedia editors is different from that of the public because they write things that are different from what the public would write. It sounds like circular reasoning but maybe there is something else in your argument that I haven't found. Burrobert (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: See my comment below. Jr8825 • Talk 23:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"30% of Americans say they trust Trump to get facts right on coronavirus" Reality: Trump repeatedly spreads misinformation on coronavirus [185] [186][187] That's why we don't rely on polls of random US citizens to determine what is a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 19:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Have you conducted a poll of Wikipedia editors to get a comparison?
• You consider that 30% of the public are wrong on that topic and you extrapolate that to conclude that the opinions of Wikipedia editors are better than those of the public in general.
• The Reuters Institute study looked at what sources people find trustworthy on COVID-19. 83% of people trust scientists and doctors. The national governments sit of 59% and 35% of people regard individual politicians as trustworthy. (p. 12)

Burrobert (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Nobody above is comparing the views of Wikipedia editors vs. those of the US population, or inferring anything about their relative value. They are pointing out that opinion polls are not a good way to judge the reliability of sources. Editors, acting in good faith, are attempting to judge sources against the standards of reliability which Wikipedia uses (e.g. WP:RS). While individual editors' views on media sources may influence how they make this judgement, ultimately it is about measuring evidence against criteria, not gut feelings or innate trust. Jr8825 • Talk 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Nobody above is comparing the views of Wikipedia editors vs. those of the US population, or inferring anything about their relative value". What about "It's a good thing that Wikipedia has standards that don't depend on the opinions of random poll respondents, and instead has higher standards based on actual reliability of the sources" and "That's why we don't rely on polls of random US citizens to determine what is a reliable source"?
• “They are pointing out that opinion polls are not a good way to judge the reliability of sources”. This seems to be another way of saying that the opinions of Wikipedia editors are better than those of the general public.
• "The point is that editors, acting in good faith, are attempting to judge sources against the standards of reliability which Wikipedia uses. While individual editors' views on media sources may influence how they make this judgement, ultimately it is about measuring evidence against criteria, not gut feelings or trust". What about this: "The public, acting in good faith, are attempting to judge sources against the standards of reliability which they use. While individuals’ views on media sources may influence how they make this judgement, ultimately it is about measuring evidence against criteria, not gut feelings or trust"?

Burrobert (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Burrobert: are you under the impression that all or most english language wikipedia editors are American? Our "general populace" is the global community of english speakers, not the American populace. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you pointing out the possible difference in populations that the two samples are drawn from - that the Reuters Institute poll that I quoted sampled from US residents only and the Wikipedia poll sampled from Wikipedia editors whose location is generally unknown? Yes, the question should be altered to: "Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general US public?" Burrobert (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a better question: "Why is the view of the general US public relevant to anything this board does in any way whatsoever?" Also, "Why is Burrobert clanging on about this and what do they think this achieves?" Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Its a massive actual difference rather than a possible difference, wikipedia is only 20% American editors. I will answer your new question with a question: "Why would we ever expect the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors to be the same as the view of a large sample of the the general US public?" Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Its a "possible" difference because we don’t know the background of the editors who voted on the reliability of CNN/MSNBC. It is possible that they are predominantly from the US even if the total percentage of editors who are from the US is say 20% as you state.
• "Why would we ever expect the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors to be the same as the view of a large sample of the the general US public?" I don’t expect anything and haven’t said anything about my expectations. I have asked a question to see if there is an explanation of an apparent anomaly. I’ll try to read between the lines of your question because you seem to be hinting at what you think the answer is. You are hinting that you are not surprised that the two groups have different views on the reliability of CNN/MSNBC because they are different groups. I think you have only shifted the question: what possible differences between that two groups would explain why they view the reliability of CNN/MSNBC differently?

Burrobert (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert:, what is the relevance of what you are saying to this board? Are you proposing some change, or just making conversation? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This section seems ripe for a WP:NOTFORUM close. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

112.ua

112 Ukraine is currently listed as deprecated and unreliable.

1. Should deprecation continue
2. Is blacklisting justified

Guy (help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

The site was blacklisted following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites. This has now been challenged at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § 112 domains removal because 112.ua was not included explicitly in discussion of state sponsored disinformation sites, but only in a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § news-front.info. There were several hundred links, mainly in the now-deleted timelines of the war in Donbass ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)).

Opinions (112.ua)

• Support continued deprecation and blacklisting. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason not to assume its as bad as the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support no brainer, I don't see the need for an RFC on this. (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the most important reason for this RFC is that the entry WP:RSP#112 Ukraine is flat-out inaccurate, as it states that 112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, although the RFC linked there doesn't mention the site. Given this, it's a fairly awkward situation at the blacklist noticeboard that some people cite the RSP entry and some the RFC. So as long as deprecations require a RFC. --Pudeo (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per 112 Ukraine. What is really needed can be discussed (probably best here) and then whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support continued deprecation and blacklisting - I note that the original disputant has glaringly failed to provide example links that would be good Wikipedia references, even when asked - that is, he has failed to actually make a case specifically for the source, instead of general free-speech arguments (despite WP:NOTFREESPEECH) and aggressive attacks on other editors - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You got in upside down, colleague. The blacklisting was in blatant violation of due process, and I do not have to jump thru the hoops to prove that someone stopped beating their wife.. general free-speech arguments -- I provided real arguments you chose to ignore. aggressive attacks -- oh, really? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • After all these words, you've still supplied zero examples of why this would ever be a good source to use in Wikipedia. This suggests there aren't any - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I can provide a general argument and then a couple specific uses:

• In general, this source may be useful when discussing a wide variety of local issues in Ukraine (at least prior to last year, and maybe since then). Most of the sources I'm looking at for UBO talk about hot-button issues like war and corruption. If the BBC, The Independent, and The Guardian all thought Ukraine 112 suitable for these purposes at the time, it is well worth asking whether it'd be useful for us here, as well as why these outlets would be using it.
• It appears that 112 is currently used on a variety of articles right now to support claims about Ukrainian politicians, Russian political and military maneuvers, and various other things. For instance, it is used on Serhiy Pashynskyi to talk about a corruption trial, on Telegram (software) to discuss a leak of personal data of Ukrainians on Telegram, and to discuss Ukrainian policies on Travel restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• I'll look for random articles to see what might be useful. Oh, I intended to use 112 (dot) international/politics/council-of-europe-trial-over-savchenko-illegal-3685.html to improve Nadiya Savchenko ((can't link due to the edit filter)). However, I see that 112 Ukraine previously supported statements, demonstrating in an even stronger manner the usefulness on wikipedia that existed until very recently: diff.

So, to summarize: I don't think the argument that there are no use cases for this source is convincing. Many RSes have used the source, as I show in the links below. The source is used in a fair number of places on wikipedia currently. And when I searched for a random 112 article that might be useful, when I checked the relevant wp article's history, I saw that 112 Ukraine had supported statements until very recently. Jlevi (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation and blacklisting as it seems to be a propoganda outlet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is definitely too complex a topic for me to come down on strongly, given my unfamiliarity. Nonetheless, I am surprised to find that I agree with the original poster that this deprecation appears hasty. There was indeed no specific discussion of Ukraine 112 on the previous RSN RfC, and it is unclear to me how it was highlighted (it looks like Guy first mentioned it in the RSN conversation? Perhaps you could trace your steps?). Nonetheless, I figured I'd find something significant on the wp page. There, I saw two main sources that were being used to describe 112 Ukraine as propaganda: this (super-interesting) report from King's College and a couple specific examples from EU vs Disinformation.

In the case of the report, I did a very dumb search--I just Ctrl-Fed for '112'. I did not find any examples of the source describing 112.ua as propaganda. Indeed, 112.ua wasn't mentioned much at all, only appearing on pages 94 and 95. These pages did not describe 112.ua as explicitly Russian-linked, but rather as one of a couple "news outlets based in Ukraine" that were being scraped and analyzed to explore the possibility of some mirrored reporting between (explicitly labeled by the report) Russian propaganda and Russian-linked agencies. A key finding was: "The resulting report identified no instances of content from RT, RIA or TASS being replicated on the Ukrainian sites, but multiple instances of Russian sites using Ukrainian content to report on the parade." It's totally possible that I'm missing something from the report, but in terms of what in means for 112.ua, I don't think it's evidence of much.

In terms of EU vs Disinfo, I noticed only one example from the wp page. I first wanted to get a sense of how many reports on EU vs Disinfo involve 112.ua compared to the site's reporting overall, so I searched for all uses of '112.ua' on the site here. I saw that it had fewer than ten failed factchecks. In contrast, there are ~9000 total reports on the site. I do not think this is strong enough to suggest deprecation alone.

I then decided to look at the specific fact check from the wp page to see the level of egregiousness. I took a look at Disinfo: The government in Kyiv is sabotaging peace in Donbas, only to find that the linked article from 112.ua is just an interview. This is not the case of 112.ua spreading propaganda in its own voice, and we certainly have examples of high-profile liars in our own countries who get interviews. I may be missing context here (in fact, I am sure I am!), but I find this weak.

Anyway, I've dug enough for tonight. I highly recommend this discussion be re-opened, because I find the evidence discussed so far extremely weak. It's totally possible that I'm missing something (wrong search terms?), but I simply fail to see any sources directly pointing to this source as worthy of deprecation. The bar for deprecation needs to be set somewhere, and right now it seems to be at "No media sources owned by Russians that make mean noises at Ukraine." I really didn't expect to come to this conclusion, but I highly recommend we check more carefully to see how we got to this decision. Jlevi (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, that is why I opened this discussion. But it is still a site owned by pro-Russian oligarchs., and several academic sources describe it as promoting bogus pro-Russian talking points. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

​ Oh, I agree that it certainly seems worth talking about. If its only prior use was to make terrible articles on those Donbas timelines (just going by your description in the AfD--I can't pull them up, of course), then it might just not be a very useful source, and might tilt towards poor uses such as this. At the same time, there seem to be very itchy trigger fingers to deprecate this. And given that I have personally seen even weaker evidence for deprecation here than in the case of The Post Millennial or Quillette in the recent discussions, I just don't see that as appropriate.

Also, would you mind describing the multiple academic sources? I think I've adequately addressed one previously described source as almost entirely innocuous, as far as I can tell. And the second is the one you link below, which I haven't yet sorted through. Is there another that makes it multiple? Thanks for your thoughts.Jlevi (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I'd support a separate RfC. The Independent describes 112 as "a network considered by some to be pro-Russian" [188]. The Independent has used 112 as a reference in its own reporting: [189][190] (the second is minor). The BBC has used this source: [191][192][193]. The NYT has used this source: [194]. WaPo: [195][196] Jlevi (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

- Al Jazeera: [197][198]. AP: [199][200][201]. The Guardian: [202][203][204][205].

- Oh! And this article on Bellingcat (which is at times quite critical of Russia) seems to compliment Ukraine 112's investigative methods:"this post will explore the open source research techniques employed by Makarenko and her team at 112 Ukraine in their investigation of the assets of the seemingly corrupt ex-prosecutor and how this research can complement traditional investigative methods used in newsrooms across the world." Jlevi (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Clarification: Bellingcat collaborated with Channel 112 on this report, so this is non-independent. It is unclear to me who did what, though it looks like the channel did a fair bit. Jlevi (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

- The Daily Beast has highlighted a couple of more anti-Ukraine, biased reports that 112 has highlighted or attempted to highlight over the last year. There's this Oliver Stone documentary called Revealing Ukraine that the channel intended to push pretty hard, but protests led to the channel cancelling that plan [206][207]. Medvedchuk (the guy who recently bought Ukraine 112) himself is prominently featured in the documentary. TDB says: "In the last 18 months he has taken over the 112, Zik and NewsOne television channels, swiftly changing their output to his favor, with rumors of moves on at least two other major broadcasters in the works. Ihor Krymov, a broadcast editor at Zik, told the independent Hromadske TV channel that channel bosses had banned coverage of protests against the registration of pro-Russian candidates for upcoming parliamentary elections as they were 'not interesting.'" Jlevi (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, propaganda outlet.--Hippeus (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Accusations are false. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support continued deprecation. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support continued deprecation and blacklisting per David Gerard --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The evidence presented above has convinced me that 112.ua is not blacklisting worthy, but still isn't generally reliable, claims made by 112.ua should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per previous reasoning. ~ HAL333 19:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (112.ua)

112.ua was owned by pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk. It has been identified as a source of pro-Russian disinformation, for example by the European External Action Service’s East StratCom Task Force, an EU body specialising in Russian disinformation. (see [208], [209]). It is now owned by a member of the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform — For Life, and continues to promote pro-Russian talking points, e.g.

Use of the Ukrainian television channels and other media to broadcast pro-Russian narratives (Example: In September 2018 Ukrainian TV channel website 112.ua posted a quote of the representative of the party “Za Zhyttia” (For Life) Serhiy Bogolyubov: “Ukraine does not fulfill the Minsk agreements”21)

— Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management

As the sources in our article on 112 Ukraine show, this is a site owned by pro-Russian political activists and that is a red flag in the only content areas where it's likely to be used. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oy. Didn't see this comment before writing my comment above. The JISOM article is definitely the strongest source against 112.ua I've seen so far. I'll need to take a look once I get back. Jlevi (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh. The entire part of the linked document that pertains to 112 is quoted here. That's it. It was a single sentence, and the citation points to a single news story in 112. I think there needs to be a delineation between 'pro-Russian talking points' described in this document and the 'conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda' label described in the RSP entry. Jlevi (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe a similar omission happened with WP:RSP#Lenta.ru. It wasn't mentioned in the RFC either. The RSP entry even has a date for when the unreliability began (12 March 2014), although none of this was discussed. The entry was written by ToThAc. Lenta.ru probably even has a lower standing than 112.ua, but still probably not appropriate. --Pudeo (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• All accusations are without merit and reflect political wrangle in Ukraine, see my explanations [here.] Briefly:
  • This is not a fake news website . It is the media of the second-popular political party, oppoisitional to the govt.
  • There is a Russo-Ukrainian War going on. Ann media with any shred of pro-Russian attitude are mercilessly clamped in the country. Since 112 is not shut down, it cannot possibly be a source of "pro-Russian propaganda". Staszek Lem (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Rugby League Project

The Rugby League Project is pretty honest about where it's coming from. It's run by volunteers and I don't have much doubt about its reliability in terms of - for example - match results, which are reasonably easily double-checked from books. However, I'm doubtful about it as a source of birthdates for living players, for which it is being increasingly used on DOTY pages. (August 19 alone has had seven rugby league players recently added with nothing but RLP as a source for their dates of birth.) I can't find any discussion of this source anywhere in the Wikipedia pages and would like to know whether others think it's adequate. Deb (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I know this is RSN, but for any situation where WP:BLP applies which seems to be all cases in that list, I find it hard to imagine publication in RLP is enough to counteract WP:DOB concerns i.e. 'dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public'. Unless the volunteer is the player then it's not "linked to the subject", and some random fan site doesn't seem to me to mean "widely published" by itself. I'd also note that for such a source it seems to be there is a strong risk of WP:CITOGENESIS. I mean even a lot of more main stream sources publish crap because it was on Wikipedia even if it lacked any sources. I find it likely finding the date on Wikipedia and no contrary information is enough for publication on RLP. (Not to mention 'my mate went to the same school and has them as a Facebook friend and they say this is the date' and other poor practices.) BTW to be clear, while use of high quality reliable sources known for their accuracy etc is an important part of BLP, the specific DOB concerns of BLP don't concern themselves with reliability. Even if it's well accepted a source is incredibly accurate and only publishes DOBs after carefully checking birth records and other sources, you still need that DOB to either by widely published or from a source linked to the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Street Roots

This source is used in [articles] For example http://news.streetroots.org/2012/01/18/candidate-interview-mark-white in 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election

The mission statement is "Street Roots creates income opportunities for people experiencing homelessness and poverty by producing a newspaper and other media that are catalysts for individual and social change."

The newspaper is described as "Filled with quality local journalism focused on social justice issues, each edition also features poetry written by vendors during weekly creative writing workshops."

This organization is an advocacy group that publishes a weekly street newspaper sold by "the homeless community", but in addition to selling papers, they're a political activist group and are regularly involved in all sorts of local politics involving poverty and vagrancy and has a homeless advocacy editorial slant.

Is the source reliable on matters that pertain to anything poverty/homeless given the express advocacy POV? What about in general?

Is this an appropriate source?

Options

1. Reliable source in most respect.
2. Should only be used sparing on things that do not involve opinion and only when other sources are unavailable.
3. Only on issues about itself.
4. Unreliable and biased POV source and should not be used.

Graywalls (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Can we use the regular levels? These seem pointed and a bit leading, its not even possible to vote for generally reliable (not that I'm suggesting anyone would) as the highest category is "Reliable source in most respect" nor is the traditional option for deprecation given. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

More generally, this seems framed in an RfC format, which the recent RfC on RfCs says is probably not appropriate given the lack of previous discussions on RSN. Might be worth just cutting that section to allow free-er flow of conversation on this. Jlevi (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with this source to give a strong statement, but a quick look at its use in outside sources, at its staff page, and at how it is used on WP seems to demonstrate that it is a quite reasonable source in a lot of cases. I see that sources such as Eugene Weekly [210]], Fox Business [211], and [[Willamette Week] [212][213] all reference Street Roots with attribution, indicating a pretty reasonable WP:UBO outlook. The site itself says that it has some standard editors and a number of regular writers, which is a good sign. And uses on Wikipedia all seem pretty reasonable, with the source adding highly local details in most cases and including attribution in all I see that are even slightly contentious. Unless there are any specific use cases that you have to bring up, this source seems 1) almost always reasonable with attribution, 2) quite useful for local matters, and 3) used pretty reasonable here as far as I can see. Jlevi (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

Analysis of health stories in daily newspapers in the UK

Table 1: Summary of the descriptive analysis, by newspaper.

Newspaper	Number of articles published	Column inches		No author listed	Quality assessment instrument score
		Mean	SD		Mean	SD
The Sun	12	8.13	10.95	6	1.5	4.99
The Daily Mirror	9	15.06	13.70	2	2.7	3.03
The Daily Telegraph	32	9.61	9.01	15	4.52	4.70
The Daily Mail	53	12.56	8.23	19	5.87	4.14
The Daily Express	24	20.88	13.93	6	6.13	3.91
The Guardian	6	12.75	7.22	0	7.08	4.48
The Independent	13	16.65	9.91	0	7.58	3.42
The Times	12	22.16	18.04	1	8.67	4.00
Total	161			49

References

I have been looking into the quality and accuracy of the newspapers in the UK market. This research paper, which is quite rigorous and a first of its kind, indicates that the Daily Telegraph's reporting is concerningly subpar. The analysis of the newspaper articles was done by a group of experts in the field. Should all medical and science reporting by the Daily Telegraph be barred as a usable source and a note be made on the Perennial sources list? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would want to see more then one research paper by one (what are they, media studies student?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you ask if they are media studies students? Professor Martin McKee who led the team is one of the world leaders in public health. Here is his Professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine website --Guest2625 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Because a paper written by "the worlds foremost expert" carries more weight then"some professor" which carries ore weight the "just another student". But I now see the point, its not the telegraph in general just medical matters specifically. Well as pointed out below, we already would rather not use the press for medical claims if possible.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what we already have WP:MEDRS for. Anyway, the paper's analysis is rather more cautious than the table suggests: "Among the broadsheets, The Daily Telegraph was more prolific, publishing three times as many articles as The Times or The Independent, but many of these were short, anonymous articles that seemed to have been taken from the newswires." --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Like you, I also found the information about anonymous authors very interesting. The difference in quality of articles that had a byline and those that didn't was drastic.

"Articles with a named reporter attained a significantly higher score (mean 5.54, SD 4.45) than anonymous articles (mean 0.75, SD 0.46) "

I think it is important that we address the issue of byline or no byline here on the reliable source noticeboard. Should there be different weight of reliability given to articles that have bylines and those that do not? --Guest2625 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• How is WP:MEDRS not already sufficient in regards to this? --Jayron32 17:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern with the Daily Telegraph was in regards to its extremely poor showing in regards to the other UK newspaper sources that we consider reliable and have labeled green on the perennial source list. A warning to other editors is warranted in regards to their poor medical and science reporting. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Still only based on one student paper, we need ore then that for such a major RS change.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The need for more data sets is always useful. And we should all be looking for more data sets of newspaper articles that have been reviewed by field experts. Also, to repeat the article is by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Quoting the wikipedia article: Since its foundation it has become one of the most highly placed institutions in global rankings in the fields of public health and infectious diseases. The leader of the team was researcher Martin McKee a world leader in public health see his website. We here at Wikipedia should start thinking about implementing such a rigorous data driven approach to analyzing the reliability of our sources on the perennial source list. We have the capability to do this, if we have a reliable source wiki project page. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Writing a student thesis does not make you a field expert. When 5 professors come forward and say it we can say" experts in the field".Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how research works in the university setting. Your usage of the word student for researchers from a top caliber university is confusing. I agree that more data sets as always will help to clarify the situation as in regards to the Daily Telegraph. However, I do have another source, which gives 14 examples of poor medical reporting by the Daily Telegraph. My advise to my fellow editors is caution and to further investigate the caliber of the Daily Telegraph's medical and science reporting. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"That Russia collusion"

During the Fox News discussions some editors claimed that mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC were promoting hoaxes and/or conspiracy theories re: Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Other editors rightly pointed out that the Mueller report was far from exonerating for Trump and his people. Yesterday the US Senate Intelligence Committee released a new report; everyone writing on the subject should take a look:

• Harding, Luke; Borger, Julian (2020-08-18). "US Senate report goes beyond Mueller to lay bare Trump campaign's Russia links". Guardian. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
• Blake, Aaron (2020-08-18). "The Senate's 'grave' Russia report: What we learned, and what it means". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

François Robere (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a question here about the reliability of The Guardian or WaPo? AFAIK, they are sources of the highest reliability, and pursuant to the normal precautions about using breaking news as a source from anywhere, are not generally thought to be a problem. For the record, CNN and MSNBC as news sources are both fine. Their editorial and opinion content may swing to the left, but there's been no credible problem with their news reporting divisions. No one should cite talk shows, opinion pieces, and editorials anyways, from any source, because those are not the news. --Jayron32 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's just for informational purposes (and also because I didn't see any mention of it in a couple of related articles). I doubt it's the last time claims of this kind are made on the Boards. François Robere (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing? I guess? --Jayron32 16:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Senate Intelligence Committee report is discussed here: [214]. I'd wondered whether Russia investigation, which currently redirects to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), should instead be a disambiguation page with links to both the latter and the SSCI report, except that IIRR, disambiguation pages aren't supposed to point to sections of pages. So it may instead be that a note should be added to the top of the SCO investigation page that the SSCI also carried out an investigation of Russian interference. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Book published by Amazon

Is Dexter, Ray (2013). Doctor Who Episode by Episode Volume 2 Patrick Troughton. Amazon media an RS for any claims about Doctor who? Is it an SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How extraordinary is the claim in question? I suspect even a traditional publisher isn't likely to carefully fact check a Dr Who book. Short of a statement that was clearly controversial to a reader who knew nothing of Dr Who I can't imagine much difference between published by Amazon and published by Random House other than RH is likely to avoid publishing something that won't sell in larger volumes. I don't think it would be self published though that definition is being debated as we type. Springee (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Its a claim the character called the War Chief is also another character called the Master. Its a common enough fan theory (one I subscribe to in fact), not officially endorsed by the BBC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a hard question. If this is published under the Kindle_Direct_Publishing program I would say it's little more than self published. However, even if it were published by, for example, RH, I can't imagine they would have checked such claims. Does the author have any standings in this or related areas? This is one of the areas of RS that I find difficult. I gave an example regarding Formula Ford race cars recently. There just aren't many good secondary sources on the subject yet if Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of knowledge it would be a shame for good information to be missing simply because it had to be sourced to, for example, the actual designer of the car's comments on a web forum vs a third party source. /rant. In this case I might go with an IAR approach. If the claim is widely accepted by discussion groups as generally good then perhaps include it as an attributed claim and perhaps note the BBC has not released a statement on the topic. I understand this is far different than my strict stance on WP:V that I was espousing just earlier today but I think a big difference is this is "entertainment" vs "politics". Springee (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as In can tell the authors has zero standing, and is just "an educator".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If they don't have standing among the fan community I would really hesitate. I won't go as far as claiming it would be wrong to include per IAR and to a lesser extent a balance between the quality of the source vs the nature of the claim. Still, if the author seems to have zero standing even among the online community then I think this is probably just too weak a source. In thinking about RH vs Amazon as publisher I guess the one difference is that Amazon really only cares if the book contains politically controversial information that could come back to haunt Amazon. The nature of on line distribution means the marginal cost to Amazon if the work is complete crap is just a little bit of hard drive space. For traditional publishing there is the wish to actually make some money on the up front cost of printing the book. It at least means RH (or others) would think the author has enough standing in the interested community to get people to buy the book based on who the author is. I think I would lean away from inclusion but, were I involved, wouldn't remove if the claim were attributed. Springee (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting using it to state that theory as fact, or to state that it's a theory some fans hold? It definitely can't be used to state it as fact. It could maybe be used to state that the theory is one that some fans hold, but using it like that seems WP:UNDUE and (depending on the wording in the source) it probably only really serves to cite the fact that that author in particular holds that theory, which is definitely undue. --Aquillion (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not using it, I am challenging its use, see [[215]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Worded like that, it's a source for the fact that Ray Dexter thinks this, but it seems WP:UNDUE - why is the fact that he thinks that significant enough to include? --Aquillion (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell...because everyone knows its true, so any old crap will do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Anything published by "Amazon.com Services LLC" (as this is) is really self published. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• As USED, it reliably supports the statement (an in-text attributed statement as to the author’s opinion).

IF the author is an acknowledged “expert” on Dr. Who, I would say it is allowable under the “expert exemption” of SPS. IF the author does not qualify as an “expert”, then I agree that we should omit the opinion of the author as UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.brasil247.com/

The site is linked to the juridical PT. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:1832:D48A:CE8C:7E (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?

The Mail on Sunday is owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. They aren't the same newspaper, however, and, to quote our article, "the editorial staffs of the two papers are entirely separate". That being said, for the online version, the content of The Mail on Sunday is available under the dailymail.co.uk domain (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/). Does the RfC on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Daily Mail also apply to The Mail on Sunday? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The 2017 RFC did not separate MoS out as a separate publication, even as it's at the same explicitly deprecated URL - neither in the finding, nor in the discussion. Two commenters on the 2019 RFC tried to make out that it was explicitly excluded by the 2017 RFC, but that's not the case from the actual discussion or RFC finding, so their claims of this are spurious.

There's a curious phenomenon of people claiming that MoS isn't covered by WP:DAILYMAIL (again, even though neither RFC excludes it from consideration) - and therefore links to it are actually good and usable. I think it's important to note that even if the MoS isn't deprecated, that doesn't make MoS an RS (as some advocates of this viewpoint that "but it's not covered!" seem to think) - it's still a garbage-tier tabloid that should not be used in Wikipedia any more than the other garbage-tier tabloids.

In short - I'd consider, and would tend to treat, this as yet another variant attempt at special-pleading exceptions to WP:DAILYMAIL. Either way, it's a bad source and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

Anyone seeking to seriously dispute this should do so with specific reference to the wordings used in the previous RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I'd consider, and would tend to treat, this as yet another variant attempt at special-pleading exceptions to WP:DAILYMAIL If that's a reference to me, then I don't particularly care what the answer to the question posed is (in either direction). This is genuinely a request for clarification because I couldn't find it with a quick search of RSN, and they do appear to be different newspapers so I think it's a valid question to ask. For clarity, the consensus on this question should be added to the notes of WP:DAILYMAIL. A little good faith goes a long way y'know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh no sorry, I meant specifically the people who explicitly claim in discussion over particular usages that MoS was excluded in the RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Me too, per DG. I dont understand when people claim it is a different newspaper. It's just the sunday edition people. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• THe Daily Myths website is explicitly deprecated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• This has been asked and answered before, see "Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday". No, WP:DAILYMAIL1 ended in a conclusion about Daily Mail. Two editors (Andrew D. and I) did say that there was "muddle" about Mail on Sunday, but the closers chose to mention only what was clear. You can of course ask them though -- I found that, when I had a false impression that all Daily Mail opinion columns were disallowed, the closers were willing to clarify. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Your "reference" link claiming to be a previous discussion is to literally the present discussion. Please support your claim of a distinction in the RFCs with quotes and a link to what you're quoting. Even as you were one of the commenters in WP:DAILYMAIL1 asserting a distinction, the comments and conclusion of WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:DAILYMAIL2 do not support the claim of distiction - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Indeed my link was a self-reference, I apologize to all. If I'm understanding your comment now, it's a demand that since the closers didn't say Mail on Sunday is banned, somebody must prove that they didn't silently mean that it's banned. Er, there are thousands of publications that they didn't mention, if we followed your logic then those thousands of publications were banned due to argumentum ex silentio. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • You're not understanding the comment, if that's what you think logically follows from it. I'll take it from that that you do not in fact have textual support from the RFCs for the claim that the MoS is not covered - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• What about "This is Money"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I asked about this one previously - it literally self-describes as the "money section of the MailOnline" in its about page, so it's just another URL for the deprecated source. (The opinion at that link saying we should treat it as a separate source is from a banned sockpuppeter.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• NO OPINION - just want to point out that this question has been raised several times since the deprecation of the DM... and each time it gets slightly different results, depending on who gets involved in the discussion. (See archives 278 and 280) We may need to have a full RFC, and put it on the perennial list. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• The Sunday Times and The Times are different, and sometimes take different sides. This may not be the same as the DM and MoS, but it is at least possible for a Sunday paper to be separate from it's quotidian stablemate. I agree with Blueboar that the simplest expedient would be to have a separate RfC on the matter to get and accurate gauge of just how many angels are on the pinhead. GPinkerton (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sunday newspapers in the UK are separate publications. The Observer, News of the World, The Correspondent and in the beginning the Sunday Sport were strictly Sunday newspapers, although the NoW was linked to The Sun. While I imagine that the editors who banned the Daily Mail would probably ban the Mail on Sunday as well, the fact is that they didn't, probably because they were unaware it was a separate publication. So I think a separate RfC is required. TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to agree with TFD above; the original RFC asked if DM was reliable; if MoS is a separate publication then it is not covered by the scope of the original discussion (similar to how the recent Fox News discussion specifically left out pundits/opinion pieces). I will, however, note that dailymail.co.uk was specifically included in the close, which muddies the water somewhat as MoS uses that base URL; I think a new RFC will be required to deal with MoS specifically. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

RfC : Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

Is Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music a reliable source for Electronic music genres.

• Option 1 - Yes, Ishkur's descriptions are generally reliable as the website is well researched and has had a few help from other people.

• Option 2 - Questionable, Ishkur's use of satire in lot of descriptions kind of downplays the reliability, but the source can be used sparingly.

• Option 3 - No, Ishkur's website is self-published and Ishkur is not a known music expert. A lot of the descriptions use satire, some of the genres are made up, and Ishkur only lists Discogs, and sometimes Wikipedia, as his used online source. (Ishkur claims he mostly uses offline sources, but he doesn't cite them.)

• Option 4 - Other, My opinion doesn't apply to the above options.

I'd personally say Option 3. What do you guys think.

• Option 3, i.e., not reliable. Cites very few sources for the claims made, and often none at all. Appears to be an impressive set of speculations by an enthusiast. At a quick glance, it appears to describe grime music as a subgenre of UK garage, which is at least contentious; Wiley (musician) made a whole song about how grime isn't garage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. This is just some Randy from Boise and his personal webpage. It means nothing. Even in his "about" page he says he's not even trying to be accurate, and his analyses represent mostly his own peculiar opinions. No way that's a reliable source. --Jayron32 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. Ishkur is cited by a few musicologists who might hold him at arm's length. The cites show that he is not Randy from Boise. The treatment he gets shows that his classification scheme is generally respected, with some reservation about particulars. The Springer Science book Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries cites Ishkur on page 37 as one of several examples of an "Expert" making a tree chart in music genres, which is a common scheme. The authors, however, go on to argue against tree charts. Musicologist David Brackett approves of Ishkur in his book Categorizing Sound, observing Ishkur's "irreverent" tone while validating the taxonomy scheme. Way back in 2001, CMJ New Music Monthly pointed readers to Ishkur's website, praising its flowchart style while noting that "Ishkur" is only 22 years old. In Keyboard magazine in 2004, Ishkur was discussed, with a reader challenging his scheme on some points. A search on Google Scholar returned these three[216][217][218] papers that cite Ishkur. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

TakePart

Is TakePart reliable? (It apparently no longer exists, per [219]). For background, I'm trying to decide if Center for Council is notable, and I came across [220], a feature on the organization. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the author of the article, Kenneth Miller, carry any reputation to help with reliability issues? --Jayron32 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Eh, maybe? He's a freelancer (portfolio here). Published in a bunch of places that I trust, but not sure I'm going to trust him on his word--no Bob Woodward, for sure. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This interview

Does this interview from PC Gamer satisfy requirements for being a reliable source?

https://www.pcgamer.com/what-does-it-take-to-build-a-league-of-legends-champion/

Absolutely, PC Gamer is a reliable source for video game related topics. The claims by the designer should be WP:INTEXT attributed to him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Professor's blog posts

Jonathan Brown (Feb 16, 2017). "Apology without apologetics". Muslim Matters. Retrieved July 31, 2017.

Is this in-universe blog post by Jonathan A. C. Brown a reliable source for use on the article Rape in Islamic law? A professing Muslim, the professor has courted controversy on his idiosyncratic (let's call it that) view of slavery, which has ramifications for the content of his blog post(s). Since Brown's views on (sexual) slavery and concubinage in Islamic law have drawn significant ire, is his apologetic blog post a worthy source for statements of fact? GPinkerton (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSSELF says

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

Looking at Jonathan_A._C._Brown#Bibliography, we can see that Brown's works have been published by Oxford University Press, Brill Publishers, and peer-reviewed academic journals. And I don't see what "professing Muslim" has to do with it. Are you suggesting that we consider him unreliable because of his religious beliefs?VR _talk 21:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Even where an academic may pass WP:SPS, it's preferable to cite their peer-reviewed output. Reason: in a peer reviewed paper, they can only write things that will pass peer review. On their personal blog, they can write anything they want, even if it does not have the purpose of educating but instead promoting a particular religion or viewpoint. (t · c) buidhe 22:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Apologetics" is actually traditional scholarship in religion, at least in western culture.[221] What statement of fact are you talking about? I read what he wrote, he says rape is prohibited in Islam, is that what you are calling a fact? Why? Are you disagreeing that it is prohibited, if so based on what? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the content which is cited to Professor Brown's blog post:

According to Georgetown University professor Jonathan A.C. Brown, Islamic law has historically handled marital rape differently from modern laws, which originated in the 1970s, but the effect is similar i.e protection. Sexual abuse within marriage was conceptualized as harm inflicted on the wife rather than violation of consent. He states that the historical record shows that women were able to go to court and force their husbands to desist and pay damages in such cases.

VR _talk 22:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, he does say those things and it does appear to be in his expert wheelhouse, are there RS that dispute those propositions he lays out? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Yes. He has a history of making dubious (at best) claims in this area. The blog post is an (non-apology-)apology ("without apologetics") for his crass dilations on the moral superiority of the slave-owner Muhammad, for which much criticism was directed at him. You can read about it here. More fringe remarks included: "He [Muhammad] had slaves, there is no denying that. Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God?" No, you’re not." and his piece de resistance:

"Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself because slavery doesn’t mean anything. The moral evil is extreme forms of deprivation of rights and extreme forms of control and extreme forms of exploitation. I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us and were owned by people and this obsession about thinking of slavery as property … it’s just inconceivable sin. I think that’s actually a really odd and unhelpful way to think about slavery. It kind of gets you locked in this way of thinking that if you talk about ownership and people that you’ve already transgressed some moral boundary that you can’t come back from. I don’t think that’s true at all."

More pertinently, he claims:

For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity. And second, we fetishize the idea of autonomy to where we forget, who is really free? … What does autonomy mean?

The Washington Post points out that Some critics noted that the Georgetown center where Brown is a director — the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding — is funded with money from Saudi Arabia, where women have few rights. There is good reason to suspect whitewashing. Both Ayesha S. Chaudhry (Harvard, British Columbia) and Sadaf Jaffer (Princeton) are quoted by the Washington Post as disagreeing with him and criticizing his comments. Said Jaffer: "I was frankly appalled by Professor Brown’s comments that minimized the severity of the institution of slavery as well as the importance of consent in sexual relationships ... My reaction was shared by many of my (liberal) peers in Islamic studies circles. As scholars, it is important that we teach Islam as a human and historical phenomenon. It is not acceptable to simply relativize the concepts of slavery, human autonomy, and consent to the point where they have no meaning. We have to think about the impact of our comments on our students and the university community", and Chaudry reportedly said "that there is a legitimate question about how scholars should try to address what Islam says about issues such as slavery, the marriage of minors, consent and sex".

GPinkteron you're WP:CHERRY-PICKING. The article notes he said,

Islam as a faith and I as a person condemn slavery, rape and concubinage.

And if there are dissenting academic views, they should be included.VR _talk 23:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not cherry-picking, that's absurd. Brown is the dissenting academic view. This thread is inteded to discuss the reliablity of his opinions. He does not speak for Islam. GPinkerton (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this is Professor Brown's area of expertise. There are some RS that state that marital rape isn't penalized in Islam, while other sources (e.g. "Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law". Arab Law Quarterly. 24 (4): 429.) state that it is. As Brown notes, marital rape was not criminalized in most of the world until relatively recently (UK only did so in 1991). I think all these views should be considered in the article.VR _talk 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So, it's his understanding based on scholarship (and he's "Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and he is the Director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. He received his BA in History from Georgetown University in 2000 and his doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from the University of Chicago in 2006.")? Since it is already presented as being attributed to him, it seems on it's face reliable for what he thinks and the only thing left to decide is what he says WP:DUE. And that would depend on how widely the things he wrote are cooberated by other RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained at length elsewhere, marital rape was fully illegal in England and Wales long before 1991, as the 1991 R v R case proves. If Brown claims to the contrary, that is his error and we need not repeat it; Brown does not however, make any such claim in the blog post cited. GPinkerton (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that VR's reference to "UK only did so" is false. Some 19th-century commentators opined that a 17th-century opinion might be valid in relation to marital exemption to rape, but only in English law. Scots law has never had any such exemption, and the 1991 case proves that any exemption in English law was never operational in fact. But this is irrelevant, since no part of the UK is a theocracy and comparisons of this kind are exactly the sort of thing for which Brown has got his fingers burnt. GPinkerton (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is not to put the man on trial for everything he has said or written, the point is in the issue of 'has Islam treated sexual abuse in marriage as a crime' a position held by scholars? Do you dispute that is a position held by scholars of Islam or Islamic civilization? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: It's not clear what you're asking. GPinkerton (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You apparently asked about a single statement of his, where he expresses the view that marital sexual abuse was punishable in Islamic courts, as a harm to the wife. Do you contend that is not true? (as a side issue, perhaps read Marital rape in the United States for what changes have occurred there). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether it is true; it's beside the point. If it were true, why can't we cite it to a reliable source, with a publisher and footnotes, rather than a POV blog on a advocacy website. Again, relativizing the issue by comparison to non-theological legal codes is unhelpful. GPinkerton (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Because, what he wrote is a reliable source under SPS. All academics have a pov, that's what they are paid to have. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

To be reductionist, the academic in question has a POV and is paid by an actual theocracy to promote it and to say nice things about Islam. This is why I am wondering why a blog post (not peer-reviewed, not footnoted, not published in a reputable anything) is really due for inclusion here, especially when it has been written to absolve himself from criticism from other academics in the field for his fringe opinions on this very issue. GPinkerton (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You have not produced anything from any academic that contradicts him with respect to his contentions that rape is prohibited in Islam, and that in marriage it was punished as sexual abuse harm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you telling you haven't read the Washington Post article or that Brown's blog is a reliable source but the Washington Post isn't? GPinkerton (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I've read both. The Washington Post says nowhere that any other academic disputes that rape is prohibited in Islam, nor does it say that any other academic says rape in marriage was not punishable in Islam. So, there is no contradiction in the Post article and what Brown wrote in the single statement he is being used for. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: That's not the point. It's well-known rape is a crime in Islam. However, marital rape is, more often than not, not a crime in Islam, because marital rape is not rape in Islam. See for instance:

Within the Iranian legal system, rape within marriage or intimate relationships is not recognised; in fact, rape within marriage is sanctioned within the legal system. MirHosseini (2000) and Tizro (2012) have critically explored the principles of Islamic marriage as a legal institution that is based on a contract between two parties, the woman and the man. They explain that the best way to understand any contract is to find out each side’s rights and obligations. As soon as the marriage sermon is read, the wife is placed under the husband’s authority, control and protection. As a result, men legally become responsible to provide maintenance, nafaghe, as soon as they get married. This is regardless of the wife’s income or whether the husband has the means to pay it or not. Providing maintenance includes food, lodging and clothing. As MirHosseini puts it, ‘This right is absolute: it can neither be waived by agreement nor delegated’ (Mir-Hosseini, 2000: 46). In return, to qualify for such rights, the woman must be obedient. Therefore, if the wife rebels against the husband’s will, nushuz, it means that she loses her right to maintenance. This doesn’t mean that if the wife is financially independent she doesn’t have to obey her husband – full submission to the husband’s will is in order as soon as the marriage sermon is read. This full submission and obedience to the husband, tamkin, has two dimensions: tamkin khaas, not objecting to sexual contact when desired by the husband, and tamkin aam, not leaving the household without his permission. ... The term tamkin khaas, which means full sexual submission, legally endows men with the right to have sex with their wives on demand.
Aghtaie, Nadia (2017-07-14). "Rape within heterosexual intimate relationships in Iran: legal frameworks, cultural and structural violence". Families, Relationships and Societies. 6 (2): 167–183. doi:10.1332/204674317X14861126776962. ISSN 2046-7435.

or again

Considering marital rape as within the remit of legality exemplifies the assumption that men have inherent vulnerability to women’s naked bodies. In rape cases where perpetrators are sentenced to death, they are punished not because they have violated a woman’s sexual rights, but because they have threatened another man’s property. ...
Men’s legal right to rape their wives is known, in religious terms, as tamkin khaas, which means full submission. According to Shahidian (2002, p 179), ‘heteromarital intercourse – "marital relationship" – is thus defined as the only appropriate sexuality in which the man has virtually unlimited claims on a woman’s sexuality’. Women are supposed to submit to their husbands’ sexual desires any time that he wishes and in return husbands have to financially support their wives. This means if a woman refuses to have sex with her husband, he does not have to pay his wife nafaqeh (maintenance), money for food, clothing and lodging. This is a law that clearly illustrates women’s blatant subjugation to men’s pleasure, and, in other words, legalises rape within marriage.
Orthodox jurists have supported this claim by citing verses of the Quran that talk about women’s and men’s duties within marriage, for example, ‘Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields as you please’ (Quran 2:223 ). Khomeini sustains this by stating in his thesis: ‘A woman must surrender to her husband for any pleasure’ (Khomeini, n.d., p 386).
Aghtaie, Nadia (2011), Westmarland, Nicole; Gangoli, Geetanjali (eds.), "Breaking the silence: rape law in Iran and controlling women's sexuality", International Approaches to Rape (1st ed.), Bristol University Press, pp. 121–146, retrieved 2020-08-21

This is without delving into the laws of more than one Islamic state; others examples can be provided at will. As I say, I question whether the blog posts of a much-criticized advocate for Islam are reliable for objective coverage of the issue. GPinkerton (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

But none of that contradicts Brown's contention that acts of rape in marriage, are and have been punishable in Islam under the rubric of physical harm to the wife (whether anyone says it's rape or not). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There is also:

While non-consensual relations between persons of the same sex was criminalized in classical Islamic juristic discourse, classical Islamic discourse always assumed the sexual right of a husband over a wife, and as a result, the notion of "marital rape" did not arise. While American law has moved in recent decades to defining rape without reference to either gender or partner relationship, Muslim criminal codes generally continue to recognize the sexual right of a husband over a wife without regard to her situational consent, and therefore generally define rape as forcible or non-consensual sex outside of marriage only.
... Furthermore, we do not see in either formative-era reports or the texts of the later, classical juristic tradition the notion of what we would call "marital rape": Because a sex act had to be illicit—that is, zinâ—for its perpetrator to be held liable for rape, punishable coercion within the conjugal bond lay outside the juristic imagination.
Azam, Hina (2012). "Rape as a variant of fornication (Zinā) in Islamic law: an examination of the early legal reports". Journal of Law and Religion. 28 (2): 441–466. ISSN 0748-0814.

GPinkerton (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC) This most certainly contradicts the defensive musings of Brown. GPinkerton (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So, you dislike this professor and his Chair at this Catholic university, and your earlier attempt to argue wrong in one thing wrong in all was very unconvincing, but as I have said, we look to other sources to see if what he says is DUE or needed for NPOV, so thanks for going to sources, and I would say the burden now shifts to Vice regent to find published academic monographs, etc. (At least with your last source we now know that Brown's drawing comparisons to old and modern common law and American statute law is well within academic discourse.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Where have I said anything of the kind? Firstly, Brown makes no such comparison with American statue law, despite VR's claim. The only thing I have said is wrong is the use of a blog to override more suitable, and contradictory, sources. I was not aware his was a Catholic university; I don't usually make assumptions like that. Where I come from tertiary education is not controlled by sects. From what appear to be your assumptions, you might be surprised to know my own postgraduate degree in Islamic studies was in part connected with yet another Alwaleed organization, at an older university than either mentioned so far. GPinkerton (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton you said the academic in question has a POV and is paid by an actual theocracy to promote it and to say nice things about Islam. That's ridiculous.

You may imagine so, but above I have quoted RS on the matter. Ultimately whether you think it's ridiculous is by-the-by. The criticism exists and is not prima facie groundless or extraordinary. GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No one said that Brown should "override" other sources. Only that we present all POVs per WP:NPOV. And I don't agree with your claim that the other sources necessarily contradict Brown (see below).VR _talk 03:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That policy states that "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" should be given due weight. Where is the evidence Brown's self-exculpatory polemic is significant? What other scholars have cited it in their published and peer-reviewed work (since Brown's blog is neither)? GPinkerton (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two sources that state that any injury arising from marital rape is penalized: Delfina Serrano. "Rape in Maliki Legal Doctrine and Practice (8th–15th Centuries C.E.)". Hawwa. BRILL. and Hina Azam. Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure. Cambridge University Press. p. 19.. There's also the source that seems to criminalize marital rape without conditioning it on injury:

Marital rape in Islamic law is similar to other acts of aggression against a wife where she has the right to ask for divorce and prosecutions. As such, the punishment for marital rape is not similar with severe punishment for ordinary rape.
— Noor, Azman Mohd (2010). "Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law". Arab Law Quarterly. 24 (4): 417–438. doi:10.1163/157302510X526724.

. As I said, there are sources that give both perspectives and both perspectives should be reflected.VR _talk 02:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Also what GPinkerton wrote above affirms Brown's view, it doesn't contradict it. The source GPinkerton cited above says Muslim criminal codes generally continue to recognize the sexual right of a husband over a wife without regard to her situational consent. Brown says But the operating element to punish marital rape fell under the concept of harm, not non-consent. Both are in agreement that historical Muslim codes did not punish non-consensual sex in marriage. VR _talk 02:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You would be right, if it were conceivable to treat "non-consensual sex" as somehow different to "rape". In English, these ideas are the same, and this is English Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that all non-consensual sex is rape. But unfortunately the legal definition of rape has often excluded marital rape:

Rape within marriage in most of the world until very recently was oxymoronic: it did not exist by definition...So a married woman by definition could not be raped by her husband.
— Research Handbook on Feminist Jurisprudence. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 68.

But even today, in most states, the law states that the husband, by definition, cannot rape his wife...
— The Victim of Rape. Routledge. p. xxii.

VR _talk 02:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The "even today" referenced above refers to the publication date of the book: 1978. This is hardly recent material. The "most states" refers to states of the USA, not "most states" per se. GPinkerton (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's an analogy if it helps:

Lets say that there's an isolated tribe that lives communally and has no concept of property. For such a tribe the concept of "Private Property" does not exist. Hence, the concept of "theft" does not exist either since theft requires the notion of private property. For such a community the notion of "theft" would be an oxymoron and it would be "uncriminilizable" as well. However, does this mean that theft would be "legal" or permissible in this society? Not exactly. While it would be impossible to me to "steal" something, if I took away some guy's shirt or socks which he's wearing, while sleeping, he'd have various ways to object, just not in terms of "theft". He could possibly claim a betrayal of trust or some other notion that the tribe may have evolved to prevent such disputes.

Likewise, while consent is not a concept in Islamic law at all, the issue of harm is. At this point the issue starts to become rather technical and legalese. It's not something that can be presented in a line about X being allowed or disallowed. Generally, marital r.ape may not be criminalized "as such" but it's done so or at least discouraged in other ways. There are a number of sources (mostly modern, since the entire notion is modern) that directly say that it is impermissible while the sources that say the opposite (other than Islamists) mostly focus on its uncriminizability, difficulty in prosecution and the issue of its punishment being "not as severe" (Noor, Azman Mohd cite you gave) which are different things.

This issue is similar to the issue of honor killings [222] (Brown's quoted there too as are others). While honor killings occur, Islamic law's position is quite complicated and can not be reduced to "it is allowed in Islam to r.ape and kill his wife and slaves". I'm stating this keeping in mind the statement about sexual slavery that I removed and not in reference to you.

As for Brown, Defending against r.ape and d.eath threats (with a few arguments and V.I.concerns mixed in) from the alt-right doesn't make anyone controversial. These are gamergate-esque arguments. Brown's a subject matter expert so he can be used even if the blogsite isn't considered reliable. Hina Azem's claim is already noted in the article, so what's the issue? Even she notes that harm within marriage was criminalized so I'm not sure if she contradicts Brown. Even if she did, there's no rationale for excluding Brown's views.

P.S What does in-universe mean? Should aliens be commenting on this stuff? (Sorry for long post, it could be longer) 119.152.128.94 (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

To dismiss the serious academic criticism from Sadaf Jaffer (Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Princeton University Institute for International and Regional Studies), who has since then become an elected mayor for the US Democratic Party as "r.ape and d.eath threats ... from the alt-right" and "gamergate-esque arguments" is an utter strawman fallacy which does not need to be addressed further. Other than that your contribution seems to be mostly an apology for moral relativism, or an apology for Islamic law under the banner of moral relativism. Both Noor and Brown are in-universe sources in that they are true-believers, outside the mainstream of non-Islamic majority of human thought, and have a vested interest in trying to make their respective ideologies coherent and internally consistent. GPinkerton (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: said professor Brown is not reliable because of his appointment at Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Other appointees to that institution include famous scholars like John Esposito, Tamara Sonn and Yvonne Haddad. The same Saudi Prince has also donated to Harvard University's "Alwaleed Islamic Studies Program" and Harvard Divinity School is currently hiring "Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Professorship in Contemporary Islamic Religion and Society in Southeast AS". Should all these professors be regarded as unreliable? VR _talk 01:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: See strawman argument. GPinkerton (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)