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: 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)
• Option 3 I agree with JaventheAldericky. While there are obvious examples of misstatements and disinformation, there may be certain situations where PressTV's content does accurately describe the viewpoint of the Iranian government, and could be cited. Anything included on WP from the source should be scrutinized thoroughly on a case by case basis. Comatmebro (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, seeing as this is neither independent nor reliable. Essentially a propaganda outlet, which even promotes holocaust denial among other things. If there is any significant views of the Iranian government that might need to be mentioned in an article then other reliable sources would cover it. If there is such a need to cite it in an article then it can be whitelisted, leaving it without any sort of filter just leads to excess work in constantly monitoring its usage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:16, 28 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)

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

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.

---

(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. [9][10][11] --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)

  Perhaps, but only from their news coverage alone. WSJ frequently publishes editorials that contradict the scientific consensus on global warming, for example.[12] (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 25 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.[13]. Other left-leaning sources have had stories that are in the ballpark [14][15], 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.[16] An unreliable story from the NYT[17]. 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 [18], 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)

No, it shows that Adoring nanny doesn't have great judgment about sourcing, and that you probably shouldn't take their posts at face value without confirming their assertions for yourself. Specifically, the Times article s/he cites explicitly says: "Mr. Shea also said the government could not prove at any trial that Mr. Flynn lied." Adoring nanny's underlying premise is wrong, and based on misreading the sources. (For clarity, the DOJ claimed both that it could not prove that Flynn lied, and that any lies he may have told were immaterial to the case; the Times article accurately notes both arguments). The Times story is not "false"; it's accurate, and Adoring nanny should probably exercise a bit more due diligence with sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

And this illustrates a systemic problem when it comes to how WE (Wikipedians) report what news outlets have said... We sometimes interpret what the sources say to fit our own biases. We focus on the parts of a report that appear to fit our own biases, glossing over the parts of a report that don’t fit our own biases. This is not a reliability issue... it’s a neutrality issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, User:MastCell, reporting the truth at one part of an article does not absolve a source of the obligation to also be truthful at another point in an article. If one were to accept what you said above, then I would be truthful to write "User:MastCell wrote that User:Adoring nanny's posts should be taken at face value. I also can't prove that User:MastCell wrote that User:Adoring nanny's posts can be taken at face value. Precisely analogous. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Both the NYT quote, Prosecutors said that the case fell short of the legal standard that Mr. Flynn’s lies be “materially” relevant to the matter under investigation, and the BBC quote, [the DOJ] also said it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flynn had lied, are true. Both quotes are also incomplete with respect to the DOJ's motion to dismiss. As MastCell noted, that motion argued both that it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Flynn made false statements in the interview, and (2) that the statements, if false, were materially false (i.e., impeded the investigation in a material way). Truthfulness and completeness aren't the same thing. As for your earlier claim "If we go to the actual DOJ filing, ... it does not assert that Flynn lied," that's because the law that Flynn was charged with violating -- 18 U.S. Code § 1001(a)(2) -- is worded in terms of "knowingly and willfully ... mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation," not in terms of "lies." So the legal documents likewise refer to materially false statements, not "lies." But knowingly and willfully making a false statement is commonly calling "lying," and newspapers want their readers to understand the issue, so they commonly using "lying/lies" instead of something like "knowing and willful false statements." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, but the filing doesn't say that Flynn knowingly and willingly made a false statement. It does not even say that Flynn made a false statement, let alone anything about scienter. That's the NYT's opinion, not the filing's. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: That's because it's the motion to dismiss, and they're not trying to argue that he is guilty of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. But they stated the crime with which he was charged (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)), they quoted the relevant section, they argued that there was "reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Flynn knowingly and willingly lied to investigators during the interview," they stated that "the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Flynn had lied," etc., all of which makes it quite reasonable for a newspaper to explain the issue in terms of lying and materiality. Moreover, the DOJ had previously filed briefs with the court stating that Flynn was guilty of knowingly and willfully making material false statements, Flynn had previously stated under oath that he was guilty of that, and Sullivan had already accepted Flynn's guilty plea. I don't think there's any reason for a newspaper to be silent about everything that had been previously stated in court and focus solely on the motion that was just filed; the paper's goal is to help their readers accurately understand what's going on, and situating the new motion in the context of what previously occurred is reasonable. What the DOJ was doing was arguing that it could no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn lied or that his statements were materially false. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:27, 22 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. [19] --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 [20] 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? [21] 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".[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] 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 [32]. 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.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] 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)

• I have to agree with Rhododendrites here. The very framing of the discussion seems somewhat premised on the notion of WP:FALSEBALANCE. I think an objective outside observer looking at the U.S. media landscape would easily conclude that left-wing sources tend to be far more reliable than right-wing sources. There are plenty of exceptions on both sides, of course, but the fundamental dynamic is what it is, despite the inevitable complaints from those on the right. To channel NYU media scholar Jay Rosen a bit, the idea of the left and the right being two sides of the same coin was never true, but it's especially ludicrous in the Trump era. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:01, 24 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)
    • In fact Team Blue has covered Michelle Malkin's claim that the evidence points to innocence. Holtzclaw lost in the OK Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear his petition. There's no big campaign with top lawyers, the Innocence Project and others calling for his release. Given that, it is reasonable to assume that he is probably guilty and attempts to prove his innocence should receive minimal coverage. Even if he is innocent and subsequently released, it would just be one of numerous cases of wrongful conviction. it is only significant to the Right because it confirms their view that liberals persecute the police. But it occurred in a state that is run by conservatives, and conservative judges have ruled against Holtzclaw. TFD (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • TFD where did Team Blue cover that? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:45, 24 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)

  I agree. Call for close. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd support a call for close to this. Pointless and quite forum-y honestly. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Close and hat this entire discussion immediately. WP:FORUM nonsense that is completely irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. Encourages WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct (and WP:FALSEBALANCE, since the questions outright require it.) While the media situation in the US (and worldwide) does overlap with political divides to an extent, we should never weigh, categorize, or include / exclude sources based solely on our perception of whether they are "left" or "right", so it is useless to ask questions that hinge on those categorizations. Beyond that, while considering the bias of sources is important, it never boils down to anything as simple as just left or right - publications, like people, have very specific sets of views and influences unique to them. The simplistic "team red" vs. "team blue" nonsense needs to stop. It's not a funny joke anymore, it doesn't accurately say anything about the sources, and trying to view sources through that lens is going to be deeply misleading. I'm annoyed that editors who are experienced enough to have known better have participated in this nonsense-filled train-wreck of a discussion - yes, of course the partisan divide in the US hangs over everything we discuss here related to US politics, but we need to at least attempt to stay on-task and write an accurate encyclopedia. And even when it comes to discussing US politics, red-vs-blue or liberal-vs-conservative are the most uselessly broad categorizations imaginable - even within the (useless, poorly-considered) scope of trying to divide up sources according to their political orientation, the framing in this thread hasn't got an ounce of truth or depth or useful thought in it. All it's doing is pointlessly exacerbating divides we struggle constantly to try and soothe over by giving people a WP:FORUM to spout meaningless red-blue platitudes. Please, please kill this and move on to anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 25 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.

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. [48][49]. 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 [50] 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 [51] from a NYT reporter who was reciprocally thrown out of China [52][53], and who has pushed the conspiratorial view of the Trump administration that the WHO is too close to China [54]. 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.

• [55][56]: These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
• [57]: 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.
• [58]: 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).
• [59]: 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.
• [60]: 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?
• [61]: 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 [62] 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 [63]. 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[64]. This[65] 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.[66] 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)
• Option 2 - indispensable but problematic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:54, 23 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 [67]. 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 [68][69]. -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 [70] was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these [71][72][73][74][75][76]. The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" [77], another from The Daily Beast [78] (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 [79]. 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 [80], 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. [81][82][83]. For another fine example of Xinhua "reporting", see [84]. 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 [85], "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 [86] and can (as of now, but possibly not for long) be found in Google's cache here [87] and archived here [88]. 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)

[89] does it precisely in the manner described by [90] - "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: [91]. 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: [92]. 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: [93]. 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: [94]. 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: [95]. 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? [96] (now dead link, here is Google's cache, at least for the moment)[97][98] 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.[99] 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 [100], "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 ([101]) 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)

Many of Muroch's papers are also considered unreliable by our standards. I feel the issue here is less one of verifiable outright lies and more of what to do when Xinhua is the only source we have on a topic, as is frequently the case given the heavy restrictions on press freedom in China. In those cases, reliable sources I've seen make clear in the body of the text where the information came from (for both plain and dubious claims), and we should as well. That said, they also publish lies and deliberately misleading information, such as that "There are no so-called "re-education bases" in Xinjiang." or that "There are no so-called "wildlife wet markets" in China." even though the market where COVID-19 originated sold wildlife at the time. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Australia Yahoo link contained no references to wildlife wet markets. If you cannot provide a link that does, you ought to redact the entirety of your comment, lest be considered in violation of WP:SOAP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:17, 28 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)
• Option 3 per Rgr09 and Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is part of the propaganda apparatus of the Chinese Community Party/Chinese government, which does not value press freedom. Per it's article, Xinhua head is a member of the party central commitee. They will prioritize supporting the party/government's political views over truthful reporting (which has been clear to me since I came upon a clearly propagandistic article of theirs about Tibet in Google News results about 15 years ago). They should not be used as a source on any topics that are subject to those political views or are otherwise considered "sensitive" by the party/government. Those topics include, but are not limited to: Xinjiang, Uygurs, Tibet, Tibetans, the Dalai Lama, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Democracy Activists, Protests, Human Rights, COVID-19, any organization or person critical of the party/government, party/government accomplishments, actions of "rival" nations, views of the Chinese people in general on any political topic, Chinese terrtorial disputes, etc. I agree with King of Hearts that there are certain noncontroversial areas where its reporting can reliable, but the number of caveats that have to be placed on it are so great that I think it needs considered generally unreliable, and when it's used a good argument for the reiablity of a prticular article needs to be made on a case by case basis. In most cases, a better source can be found and should be used instead. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:48, 27 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 ([102]), 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.” [103] 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 [104]. 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: [105]. 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[106], 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.[107] 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 [108]. 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? [109] 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.[110] 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 [111] 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) [112] 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 [113]). 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)

[114] 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)

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.

As well they should, since PETA is not an authority of any kind regarding food -- or really, anything else except their own beliefs -- since they're an animal rights advocacy group. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

They don't have to be an authority on food to be used to name vegetarian and vegan foods. Being an animal rights advocacy group doesn't discount them in this regard. If they are making false or misleading claims about meat, then, yes, they shouldn't be used to comment on meat matters (except for their own opinions). But that's not the same thing. And if one comments that "Well, if they can't reliably speak on meat, they can't reliably speak on what are vegan and vegetarian foods."? Still not the same. They don't want people eating meat; so a lot of what they state on that is going to be opinionated. But exactly why would they be wrong in stating that so and so is a vegetarian or vegan food? In what way would they be misleading people? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

They don't have to be an authority on food to be used to name vegetarian and vegan foods

Why yes, yes they do: it's kind of the point of the whole "reliable-sources standards" thingie. It's implied by that word, "authority".

Being an animal rights advocacy group doesn't discount them in this regard

a) Yes it does, since I'm not seeing the words "food", "diet", "cuisine", "nutrition", "vegetarian", "vegan" or any variant thereof there. b) You have things backwards: you have to show that they meet the reliable-sources standard, not demand other people prove to YOUR satisfaction that they don't. All your waffling and logic-chopping doesn't change that. c) "What harm could they do?" is not a reliable-sources standard, last I checked. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No, no, they don't. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is clear. We do not always use sources to report on something they are an authority on. Our use of media and news sources for various matters demonstrates that. They only need to be reliable in that context and the claim should not be a WP:REDFLAG matter. I am a WP:Med editor and know what are appropriate sources to use for medical material, but, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources, even we allow lower-quality sources for certain matters because context matters. In this context, there is no reason at all to believe that PETA wouldn't be reliable for reporting on what are vegetarian and vegan foods, as if they would have people eat non-vegan foods by lying to them, for example. They are an advocacy group that is also concerned with veganism. And they have been used on Wikipedia for years without issue for simple information material. As much as you or anyone else may want this to be a WP:DAILYMAIL matter, it isn't. And as someone who edits the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, I can also state that we do not only stick to sources that are authorities on foods. A review article on vegetarianism or veganism usually is not coming from some food journal or similar. All it is doing is reviewing the literature on the subject. And, of course, there are the society and culture aspects that we cover in the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, and in medical and anatomy articles in general. I have not "demanded other people prove to [my] satisfaction" anything in this discussion. I have not waffled on anything. You have things backwards. As usual, I know what I'm talking about. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 23 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 4 - 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)

Fixed! (at last) - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In particular, the milk and autism one makes it MEDRS important that we not trust a word PETA says about anything - and I would include about themselves in that - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 22 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 [115]. (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)

Get a room, you two. :) All joking aside, these personal comments have to stop. If I have to file a report at ANI I would really like to be able to say "it was getting bad but editor X stopped when I asked them to and so no action is required regarding editor X" Even better if you both stop this behavior now. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, as is clear, this matter has been over for days. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:11, 22 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)
  • For the avoidance of doubt, media campaigns should not be cited as anything other than examples of media campaigns. François Robere (talk) 17:28, 22 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)
• Option 1, reliable for factual claims I asked below for examples of when PETA has published false statements of fact. There are serious accusations here and I do not see them backed by evidence. I feel like there is a disconnect here. Much of the opposition says that PETA is an advocacy organization, which is true, but there is a difference between statements of opinion and factual reporting. I do not see evidence here of PETA inappropriately reporting facts, nor am I aware of claims that PETA is unreliable for the reporting they do. I recognize that PETA is an organization which seeks controversy, which has long been their advertising and marketing strategy for drawing attention and public conversation to the issues on which they report. Definitely some people dislike PETA, but Wikipedia surveys should have a basis in evidence and not somehow get steered by personal opinion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not see evidence here of PETA inappropriately reporting facts, nor am I aware of claims that PETA is unreliable for the reporting they do Perhaps you should scroll up and read some of the examples given -- or are you also claiming that drinking milk causes autism, as detailed above? --Calton | Talk 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Calton: If there are more examples then point them out. For this example, I will talk it through.

The position with PETA starts with saying that milk is unhealthy, and that all unhealthy behaviors exacerbate medical conditions. The social context is that there is a milk industry pushing milk as part of a healthy diet, and I do not see PETA as out of bounds of science for challenging that idea.

PETA on autism is at "Learn About the Link Between Dairy Products and the Disorder". I do not read them going so far as to say "dairy causes autism", but I agree with their claim getting rid of milk consumption as an unhealthy habit would contribute to a healthy lifestyle. They cite two studies, admittedly older.

• Lucarelli, S; Frediani, T; Zingoni, AM; Ferruzzi, F; Giardini, O; Quintieri, F; Barbato, M; D'Eufemia, P; Cardi, E (September 1995). "Food allergy and infantile autism". Panminerva medica. 37 (3): 137–41. PMID 8869369.
• Knivsberg, AM; Reichelt, KL; Høien, T; Nødland, M (September 2002). "A randomised, controlled study of dietary intervention in autistic syndromes". Nutritional neuroscience. 5 (4): 251–61. doi:10.1080/10284150290028945. PMID 12168688.

I also see at People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Milk_and_autism that lots of mainstream media and even some experts have criticized PETA, but in my view, these sources misrepresent what PETA says. I do not see PETA as writing in error here. At worst their message is subject to misinterpretation.

PETA does publicly get medical review from physicians. One person known for giving them medical review is Dr. Neal D. Barnard who founded the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. That is a small organization but it has a membership of actual physicians, does fact checking, supports its members in publishing academic articles, and has a public relationship with PETA for providing medical review. The Wikipedia article says a bit about the relationship. There is some criticism that PETA has no review, and this is not correct. I dispute that they are a careless organization, and instead feel that there is plenty of public evidence that they make attention seeking statements anticipating exactly what critics will say, and with advance planning of exactly how they are going to defend themselves and respond. This is not a fringe organization with no control, and it seems naive and misguided to imagine that an organization this old, this attention seeking, this well funded, this well connected in the New York City media industry, and so lawsuit experienced would fail to have an editorial process in place after so much history of facing challenges to their statements and defending them publicly.

I still think I am justified in asking for a list of statements which they made and which demonstrates their unreliability. I expect RfCs to surface evidence and not just be opinion polls. I am not seeing much evidence here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Editor Bluerasberry asks for evidence that PETA has published false statements of fact. I provide a choice sample of such false claims herebelow, in the Discussion section. -The Gnome (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this line of questioning is useful. The wikipedia rule for reliability is to look to whether the organization has systems in place that check for accuracy. The rule is not to see if what they publish is true or not. The reason for citing an obviously false thing that they've published is to establish it as evidence that the organization does not check for accuracy. But presumably even if they published lots of falsehoods, they'd still be considered reliable by wikipedia standards if they had a system in place to check reliability for those claims. I don't think that PETA is a reliable source, but I'm certain that many other animal advocacy organizations are clearly reliable sources, even though many of the claims by those other orgs and by PETA are factually the same. — Eric Herboso 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The wikipedia rule for reliability is to look to whether the organization has systems in place that check for accuracy Nope. The fact-checking/error-correction is ONE TEST of reliability -- which, despite your attempt to gloss over -- they have failed. PETA having a mechanism for fact-checking or error correction -- which, by the way, you haven't demonstrated or even suggested -- and ignoring the any actual corrections, as they have done -- would be an even worse indicator of reliability. Nice attempt at obfuscation, there. --Calton | Talk 05:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that PETA should not be considered a reliable source. You shouldn't be so quick to attack people here, especially when they agree with you about the main question at hand here. PETA clearly does not have a system for fact-checking, and thus clearly shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that you are wrong about the test of whether the org has a system in place to check for accuracy. It's true that a system of checking is not the only test for reliability, but the others are things like whether the source is published or whether it's independent. (See WP:SOURCE for details on this.) Consequently, if an org hypothetically gave lots of false statements, but it nevertheless had a clear system of checking facts, then I think that we'd have to allow it as a reliable source to be cited. We could say that the false statements were evidence against the org having a fact-checking system in place, but if it were made independently clear that they had such a system in place, then I don't think current wikipedia rules on sources would allow us to disallow the source as reliable on that basis. If you don't like this, you might want to try to change the existing policy -- but I actually think the policy is correct here. Policing truth shouldn't be what wikipedia editors should have to do. It should be enough to check whether there are systems in place that tend toward truth. Otherwise, you might end up with editors claiming that the US postal service site is unreliable as a source because the current person in charge is clearly lying about factual things, or that all .gov websites shouldn't be considered reliable sources anymore just because the head of the US government is a known liar. — Eric Herboso 19:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Eric Herboso: Regardless of you saying you're on the same side of a voting as another editor, your repeated insistence on WP:SOURCE's sentence ("The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.") as senior to the one which follows (which you basically have deprecated) ("The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.") makes your assertions argumentative and disruptive, not constructive. You haven't presented that PETA does any fact-checking at all or even has a system in place. While you tell another editor to argue his presumed position about a policy elsewhere, you argue the same not-relevant-to-this-issue thing here. Normal Op (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @Normal Op: I'm not presenting that PETA does fact-checking because I agree that they don't do fact-checking. They clearly do not do fact-checking. But I disagree that my comments are disruptive. This is a discussion about whether PETA should be considered a reliable source. When people here make arguments that PETA should not be considered reliable because of their false milk/autism claim, I feel that it is important to clarify that this is not sufficient evidence to regard PETA as unreliable. It is my understanding of wikipedia's policy that you further would have to establish that they don't have systematized fact-checking. I know that you disagree with this understanding of wikipedia policy, and I acknowledge that if you are correct then my comments here can be construed as disruptive. But under my understanding of the policy, it is important for this distinction to be made. Many of the people voicing an option here are merely stating that the fact of PETA spouting falsehoods is sufficient evidence; while I may agree that PETA should not be considered reliable, it is for a different reason than what others are citing. Potentially they might change their mind if they understood the wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing as I do, and so it is constructive, not disruptive, for me to point this out here in the comments. — Eric Herboso 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Their "milk causes autism" schtick ALONE should put them in this category: it's one thing to make a mistake or overreach, but to double down not because they dispute but because it helps their advocacy? No. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• As for the supplementary questions: absolutely not; obviously, if it comes up; no, Wikipedia is not in the business of parroting PETA's PR stunts uncritically. --Calton | Talk 02:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. PETA itself is not reliable factual reporting for encyclopedic purposes. PETA's claims and actions etc. should only be mentioned in a Wikipedia article if reported as fact by a third-party independent reliable source. PETA may have started out as an ethical organization, but they've gone rogue and often downright crazy since then. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Just read this piece in The Atlantic The Bad Science Behind PETA's Claim That Milk Might Cause Autism, PETA was promoting discredited scientific studies and refusing to back down when they were challenged, there's simply no reason to cite them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 Just like any other agenda driven pseudoscientific source. If it is important that we know if someone is a vegan or not then another source would say it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Much of what they say is simply dishonest, other statements misrepresent fringe opinion as fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 27 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)

References

• 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)
• Question This discussion seems to include no examples of false or incorrect claims which PETA has made. Does anyone have examples? I find this discussion strange, because I presumed that the basis of discussion of the reliability of a source should be some examples demonstrating a lack of reliability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. I never got around to providing examples. When I looked, I found promotion and puffery: PETA presenting awards, PETA saying a celeb supports them in some manner, etc. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll give you one, Bluerasberry, which has already been discussed multiple times above: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Milk and autism. Normal Op (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Normal Op: I responded above. Are you able to share other examples? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, Bluerasberry, here's another PETA boof. In 2014, PETA "investigated" horse racing. They presented a 7-hour video and a 285-page report alleging cruelties and consisting of the PETA investigator's notes, medical documents and reports from [PETA] veterinarians who reviewed the videotape. [116] In 2016, "Exhaustive investigations by racing commissions in Kentucky and New York are now complete. The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission brought no charges against [the trainer], saying the allegations "had neither a factual or scientific basis." The New York State Gaming Commission fined [the man] for minor transgressions, but the most serious charges were deemed unfounded. It's fair to say no trainer has ever been so thoroughly investigated. [117] So, in pursuit of PETA's agenda to prove all use of animals "unethical", they almost destroyed a credible man's career, used The New York Times to broadcast their message, and in the end PETA's publication (report and video) was proven false. There's probably a dozen more of these "mistakes" by PETA that I could drag out, but you can find them just as easily. Normal Op (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite having been proven wrong, today PETA's website peta.org maintains seventy-two (72) webpages continuing to promote their allegations against Asmussen. See here: [118]. Further information is available at Steve Asmussen#Allegations by PETA, and [119]: "it's clear that the original video PETA posted on its website is heavily edited. The PETA website video routinely moves around audio segments to run with unrelated video." If that doesn't prove "unreliable source", then I don't know what will do it for you. Normal Op (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What is this evidence of? As I understand what you're saying, an organization responsible for maintaining the reputation of horse racing disagreed with an organization that doesn't like horse racing on what's considered problematic in horse racing. By the same logic, every newspaper who criticized police for excessive force was "proven wrong" when the police department opted not to take disciplinary action. What am I missing? (this isn't an argument for PETA's reliability btw). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It was in response to Bluerasberry's question "This discussion seems to include no examples of false or incorrect claims which PETA has made. Does anyone have examples?" and was not intended to be a comprehensive argument/presentation. However, as I have discovered in my recent researches, PETA has performed a string of similar "false exposes" in the attempt to excoriate entire industries (in the pursuit of their advocacy agendas); each one based on notes and video obtained by PETA operatives, followed by lengthy reports from PETA to authorities, that are often proven false or grossly exaggerated, and in many cases leading to lawsuits against PETA or their operatives. The whole point was that (1) PETA is not a reliable source, and (2) has been proven not-reliable by more than just Wikipedia editors during discussions, and (3) that their unreliability is far more egregious than declarations that someone is a vegan in a wiki BLP page. Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's quite a different scale of unreliability than a newspaper reporter inflaming their readers about the latest use of excessive force by police. In some cases, the PETA videos were shown to be so heavily edited as to be false, and not representative of any truth. Normal Op (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• PETA's claims linking dairy products to autism: Despite metastudies (studies that examine other studies) such as this one, by the University of Texas, from 2010, firmly refuting PETA's claims, PETA still insists that "scientific studies have shown that many autistic kids improve dramatically when put on a diet free of dairy products" and still carries the relevant, false guidance on its website, quite prominently too. (See here for more information on the two studies on which PETA based their claims.) PETA even doubled down on its stance, claiming that "milk has already been strongly linked to cancer, Crohn’s disease, and other serious health problems." Since parents and guardians of children with autism are considered an understandably vulnerable group, the insistence of PETA to ignore science when its findings do not coincide with PETA's views is proof that the organization is simply not trustworthy except for items concerning itself, i.e. expression of opinions, statements about events, etc.

PETA's claims equating sheep shearing to torture: PETA continues to claim that the practice of sheep shearing is equivalent to torturing the animals, through mass adverts proclaiming that "wool is just as cruel as fur." The claims have been refuted and the ads withdrawn, after public protests, for being "misleading." (See here for more info.)

PETA's claims about the worthlessness of experiments on animals: During the currently ongoing global health crisis, PETA claimed as fact that the research for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 did not involve tesing on animals, thus, PETA claimed, proving that animal testing in not just immoral but worthless. The claims were false: NIAID has stated that the mRNA-1273 vaccine has "shown promise in animal models." Moreover, as Forbes reported, NIAID investigators have conducted "preclinical immunogenicity testing of the mRNA-1273 in mouse models." Despite the refutations, PETA insists on its baseless claims. There are more examples of blatant disregard for reality and facts but those should suffice. It's a solid #4. -The Gnome (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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."[120] 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)

I think that the The Chabad.org Team page is in fact showing the editorial board, even if not called so explicitly. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing why you'd think that. They seem to just be the people who maintain and write for it. Look at their mission statement: Utilize internet technology to unite Jews worldwide, empower them with knowledge of their 3,300 year-old tradition, and foster within them a deeper connection to Judaism’s rituals and faith and "Everything in this world was created for a divine purpose. All forms of modern technology can and should be harnessed to make the world a better place and, in the case of Jews, to spread Judaism in the widest possible manner." Nothing about reporting, fact-checking, accuracy, or any of that nature - it's effectively comparable to a personal website the like. I'm just not seeing anything indicating that they are even attempting to be the sort of thing that we would consider a WP:RS; their goal is to spread Judaism and unite Jews (with their interpretation of Judaism), not to publish carefully-vetted factual material. --Aquillion (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In the sentence "empower them with knowledge of their 3,300 year-old tradition" the word "knowledge" implies factual information, propaganda or blogs. But I agree it is not stressed clearly enough. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 23 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 [121] 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 [122][123] (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[124]. 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[125].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)
• Option 4 The quotes provided by Newslinger are compelling. The negative quotes are provided by the highest caliber of sources that we have. Such a propaganda source is not necessary on Wikipedia. As the quotes mention there are other possible sources that Wikipedia is able to use concerning the workings of China. And sure aboutself if necessary as option 4 allows. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Pure propaganda. 唔重要嘅人 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per above Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 It's not just propaganda, but trollish propaganda: "Strikingly, rather than claiming that Western journalists misreport Xinjiang, the Global Times prefers to troll them, accusing foreign correspondents of hoping to “profit” from negative China coverage, while asserting that the Western press is “nowhere near as influential as it once was” and gleefully noting Mr Trump’s attacks on “fake news”." (from the Economist article above, just before the quoted section). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It's necessary to have a media to express those opinion against those five eye medias which are full of double standard and false propaganda about China,such as BBC,CNN and FINANCIAL TIMES.Erquanmen (talk) 03:06, 28 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)

User talk:Horse Eye Jack & User:Anachronist: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: Probably because the closer has to be familiar with the process of deprecating a source? I could close it, but is there more to do than simply tagging this conversation as closed and updating the list at WP:DEPRECATED and possibly also WP:RSP? Does an edit filter need to be set up? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I can't answer your questions because I just don't know. All I know is that threads can be closed (I just looke at the examples on this page) but I don't know all the technical requirements that have to be met for it to go through. That is why I pinged you two in the hopes that you may know. Flaughtin (talk) 20:49, 26 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 [126] which features CGTN heavily. Also the 2019 report China Central Television: A Long-standing Weapon in Beijing’s Arsenal of Repression [127] which is what The Diplomat re-published. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note that Freedom House is funded by the US government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 26 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 [128]. 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 [129] 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)

It's implied in the article. Wolf warrior diplomacy is a result of backlash towards constant bombardment of Chinese criticism from Western mainstream media as well as refusal for China-based media to have any say or defend Chinese actions due to perception as biased for being state-based. An example would be this, and no other mainstream media pointed out the obvious bias and double standard NYT portrayed. It naturally leads to the perception that Chinese must have a strong narrative to defend themselves. NoNews! 10:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Buidhe and also per [130]. 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)
• Options 1-4: as per User:JaventheAlderick -- but with additional stress that no press (including UK or US-based media) has any monopoly on truth or moral high ground when they report on any contentious topics; all such reports need to be attributed and cross-checked and not automatically assumed as factual. NoNews! 10:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 4 per above Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 4 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per buidhe and Deryck C. GretLomborg (talk)

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)

@WhisperToMe, Buidhe, MarkH21, and Hemiauchenia: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack and Anachronist: Based on your contributions to the Global Times thread, can you two take a look at this one as well? Flaughtin (talk) 20:53, 26 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 [131][132] (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 [[133]] 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 [134] 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:[135][136]) 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)

@Crossroads: I agree with the conclusion you reach, but it is worth noting that the Jacobin piece on the Archie Carter hoax claims that Quilette embellished claims: "Comparing the original draft Carter had written (verified through a Google Doc link included in his email correspondence with Quillette), it’s clear that the publication made an extra effort to add embellishing details to the story — separate from Carter’s original fabrication — in order to advance a right-wing narrative of DSA as hopeless, dithering, anti-working class snowflakes." And I think Toby Young is worse than Andy Ngo when it comes to plain willingness to misrepresent. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:29, 26 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[137] with about five editors. They did retract [138] 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. [139][140][141]. 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)
• Option 4 As per Aquillion. Autarch (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, because the discussion has already been had. The conclusion was: There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight, as entered into Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yet, the existence of this discussion suggests that a firmer decision is needed, so a deprecation makes sense. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I don't know why people of decent reputation like Jim Flynn publish there [142], but since occasionally they do, we should be able to link to them. Their signal-to-noise ratio is rather low, though. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.8 No facts, highly notable opinions attributed only. GPinkerton (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3... Reliable for attributed statements of author’s opinion. Whether that opinion is DUE or UNDUE depends on the specific author. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 Let's not confuse criticism of the opinions expressed in Quilette with a criticism of the magazine's factual reliability. Many of the criticisms mentioned in this discussion (coming from partisan outlets like Jacobin or The Outline) are examples of the former. Unaddressed factual errors would count against reliability here, but the DSA example brought up several times had a prompt editorial correction, so even in the worst case there is still accountability. Their editorial stance makes checking WP:UNDUE a necessity, but especially in the context of a wider discussion Quilette is often useful for WP:RSOPINION.$\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 23:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3; I'm flabbergasted that people think that Phrenology Monthly should be taken seriously. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:19, 27 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: [143] 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)

As an aside, (while notifying editors who participated in previous discussions seems to be fine,) it may interest (alarm, etc) one or both of you — if you aren't already aware — that there've been several prior discussions, e.g. here (but also search for "ping" elsewhere on that page), of whether pinging — even of users selected in such a way that it would be canvassing to notify them — can even be canvassing. As you see at that link, a surprising number and array of even veteran Wikipedians have argued pinging people doesn't constitute notifying them, and so can't be canvassing. (I don't find that argument persuasive, but they have successfully kept the guideline from mentioning pinging...) -sche (talk) 12:16, 21 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)

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:[144]
• Here is their Wikipedia page: Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah
• Here is an article about Dar al-Ifta in the NYT:[145]

--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[146], BMC Womens Health[147], The Journal of Sexual Medicine[148] and Journal of Medical Ethics[149].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)
• Reliable, The reliability comes from the fact that it belongs to Al-Azhar University, which is the most reputable Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims that exist today. Most Fataws are issued through consultation with a board of senior scholars. The political views are problematic especially in the past three decades. However, fataws with such views are a very marginal compared to the gigantic database of fataws. Also, the website contains a large volume of historical fataws issues by previous Muftis, which are valuable from scholarship perspectives. Very few in Western academia would challenge the reliability of Dar-al-ifta, but several would disagree with some opinions. But is not this the case with any reliable source? Millions of Muslims in Africa, Asia and even in Eruope still use Dar-al-ifta as a main reference for their day-to-day fataws. It will be very ironic if it is labelled by Wikipedia as unreliable. Nawawi676 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The fact that the medical journals VR cited above use it as a source is a strong evidence that it meets our standards for reliability and accuracy.Jushyosaha604 (talk) 21:47, 23 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)

• I agree with User:GreenMeansGo: it depends. A properly functioning government department should be capable of providing reference-quality material, but to be confident of reliability, we need to have insight into the department function. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:06, 23 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)

That's pretty well covered in WP:RS. Long sources by a identifiable author will (almost) always be more reliable than short, anonymous ones. Any idea what the articles in question actually looked like? I'm guessing they were something like "A study by scientists from $UniversityX found that $VariableY resulted in $OutcomeZ", but I could be totally off the mark. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that "Long sources by a identifiable author will (almost) always be more reliable than short, anonymous ones." It is not specifically stated in WP:RS, but perhaps it is just self-evident. My interest in bylines concerns general news articles that say they were written by a "staff reporter" versus articles that give a reporter's specific name. Once again I think as you state it should be the default if there is a reporter's name you should be comfortable with the source, but a bit wary if it only says by staff reporter. They didn't provide the list of articles that they rated, so it's not possible to see what the "no author" articles looked like. However, they did state "For 20 weekdays over a 2-month period (6 December 2010–17 January 2011), print editions of the newspapers were collected. ... The print edition of each newspaper was scanned by a single author from cover to cover, and each article pertaining to human health and medicine that reported newly emerging results was included. So, the 161 articles could be extracted out if really interested. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:08, 21 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)

• More relevant to the underlying newswires (AP, Reuters,...) + study isn't about accuracy. Most the Daily Telegraph content wasn't original by wire reprints: "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". The quality metrics in the study were also biased towards long comprehensive articles, which is true for quality, but not for accuracy. A short article such as "Pfizer releases new drug..." scores very low in the metric in the study, even if completely accurate.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:40, 23 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)

You seriously don't understand the role an editorial staff plays at a newspaper? It's not a Sunday edition, it's a sister paper. It's an entirely different thing. In the exact same fashion that just because the Wikipedia editors had a massive hate fest over the Daily Mail, that doesn't mean that the finding of "generally reliable" applies to other titles owned by the same company. CommandTeamSixSixSix (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

CommandTeamSixSixSix is a brand new account, I suspect it's a Brian K Horton sock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked while I was in the middle of filing a SPI. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• THe Daily Myths website is explicitly deprecated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• It's this sort of stupidity that is properly going to bite Wikipedia in the ass. Do you people not think outsiders realise that this whole "depreciation" nonsense deals with pu fishers, not websites. -- Preceding unsigned comment came from CommandTeamSixSix on 17:27 21 August 2020. Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 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)
        • Here is a link to a 2019 discussion, perhaps the similar title mixed me up. As for David Gerard's main claim, once again closers were willing to clarify, see below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 21 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)

  Note for other editors that, on Primefac's talk, a second closer of WP:DAILYMAIL1 has also responded with their support for this view. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY

In the grand traditions of pure nonsense masquerading as sensible outcomes, the closing statement is interpreted by the haters whichever way suits their hatred on any given day. An explicit url was identified as depreciated, but other URLs can be considered to be included too, according to the victors. An explicit title was mentioned, but other titles can also be assumed to be covered too, according to the victors. All this is based on criteria that don't exist and that which they will never explain. Why? Because they genuinely don't have a good reason for any of this nonsense, and you won't find it in the debates, no frames of reference, for example. Just pure hate, a grand pile on, started by a now banned editor, banned for violating the holy BLP of all things, a person who confessed to having used "Daily Mail tactics" in how he achieved victory. Quite. There are holes and flaws like this all over the debate and the assorted closures/summaries purporting to be community consensus, of which there are now four I believe. CommandTeamSixSixSix (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC) What about other DMGY titles? It is precisely because the Wikipedia editors participating in DAILYMAIL didn't seem to know or care what they thought the primary reasons for the Mail's alleged unreliability actually are (editor, culture, owner, market conditions, regulator, law courts), it seems prudent to take this opportunity to also obtain a clear and explicit statement that DAILYMAIL at least doesn't apply to other titles owned by the Mail's parent company. You would think this was an obvious no, but you look above, and you look at some of the nonsense said in DAILYMAIL about Nazis and other general rubbish that showed that it was nothing but a (dis)organsied hate mob, ironically, and you just genuinely don't know anymore. Even though Paul Dacre's name was all over the debate, we already know apparently that was just a mistake, that the finding is about something other than what can be controlled or commanded by an individual Editor In Chief. Which may, or may not, also apply to the Sunday paper. I mean, seriously, how long are people going to pretend thwt wasn't a farce from beginning to end? You don't even know what paper you were talking about! CommandTeamSixSixSix (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC) This is classic MickMackNee/Brian K Horton. Can somebody open up a sockpuppet investigation? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So the editors that David Gerard maligned are vindicated, and the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no. I hope there's no need to continue this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

They won't be vindicated until the community explicitly sanctions the use of what is obviously a questionable source with close ties to the deprecated organ. GPinkerton (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

An RfC on the question would probably be a waste of editors' time at this stage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This would be an extremely questionable declaration, as much as you'd like it to be the case - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite the Daily Mail RfC closers' statements there is still disagreement, and this could affect many edits past and future, so I will ask for a formal close per WP:CLOSE soon unless there are more posts. I now ping all participants in the above-mentioned 2019 discussion (Guest2625 Black Kite Slatersteven 86.143.229.179 Andy Dingley). David Gerard said "Two commenters on the 2019 RFC tried to make out that it was explicitly excluded by the 2017 RFC" so I would ping them too to give them a chance to defend themselves, but I can't, they don't exist. The closer must answer what the OP asked, for me that would be sufficient. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Close request is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC, it's an unformatted discussion - there wasn't an RFC open to be closed - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I must note: the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no. is not in any way an accurate summary of the responses you got from the original closers, and you appear to have grossly misread what they said, which contained many conditionals - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

False negative(?) edit filter —> The Sun

Hi! I added The Sun to an article in my sandbox and got no warning; and when I pasted the article into Mainspace a vague warning that *some* link was deprecated (out of the 20+ I was using) but it didn’t tell me which one.

I’m hoping both these issues can be addressed with the filter. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Specifically:

1. can the deprecation warning filter be applied to Draft: space as well as mainspace? (This would catch a tremendous amount of use of deprecated sources early.)
2. is it possible for the red notice to say which link it doesn't like? (This might be a bit more complicated, and shouldn't be regarded as a blocker on 1.)

- David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard you might get a better answer to this at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Now might be a good time to plug Headbomb's "unreliable" script that automatically highlights unreliable and deprecated refs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No response at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Is there somewhere else that we should be asking? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, what filter number is it? I don't mind having a look. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure how I would find that out? @David Gerard:? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's filter 869. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, any update? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, it's already applied to namespace 118, which is Draft. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking! Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

fastcasual.com

I just want to get a consensus on the reliability of fastcasual.com. At first blush, I'm ambivalent towards it and would allow it, but I'd prefer to hear from the community since we don't have an article on it not its parent company. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No comment on reliability but on their about us page they openly call for press releases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with that. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrey Fomich Novatski

What is the reliability of the aforementioned report. This is used in the context of [[150]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski is a prosecutor of the Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi), which broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. This is within the context of the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and territorial claims (Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict, or specifically the speech at Guba Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev). The source is http://files.preslib.az/site/soyqirim/31mart_az.pdf p116. Maidyouneed (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the RFC tags, this is unnecessary and not a properly formatted RfC. (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Are Al-Dustour, Akhbarak, and Sada Al-Balad reliable Arabic news sources?

Are the following Arabic newspapers reliable sources?

• Al-Dustour
• Akhbarak
• Sada Al-Balad

Tunis Freedoms 12:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @Tunis Freedoms: can you please give more information about them, where they are being used and why you consider them reliable or unreliable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

conandaily.com

I've nominated Francis Baraan IV for deletion. I am currently working on a sources analysis. The author has relied on the conandaily.com site for several references. This appears to me to be the Wordpress blog of Conan Altatis, an advertising-supported news aggregator. The author believes the site to be a reliable source. It would be good to get some expert views. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source.

Related: The editor in chief, Conan Altatis[151][152][153] appears to be Conan Altatis. I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:GNG --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Daily Sport

• dailysport.co.uk  
• sundaysportonline.co.uk  

I notice that the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport not listed as deprecated and not trapped by 869 . Do we really need an RfC for this? The Sport is the benchmark for unreliability in UK print publishing, and the low link count suggests that most Wikipedians are well aware of this. It's some time since I had to nuke any links to either site. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

With only a handful of uses it's not really an issue, and all references can be removed with only a few minutes work. I think the 1,500 links we have to the Daily Star per dailystar.co.uk   are more pressing, there's no reason that the Daily Star should be cited, especially on BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I went out and bought that issue. The headline is misleading and the story doesn't actually say there is a World War 2 bomber on the moon. Even if it did, WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT would prevent including it. I can't think of any reason why someone would choose this source, and I don't think it's something to worry about. TFD (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to hold an RFC for every source on Earth. For sources that are self-evidently not reliable sources by basic guidelines, like this one, feel free to remove them. The Sport isn't even trying to pretend it's real journalism. There's no danger of anyone seriously mistaking it for an actual source, and not really any controversy in saying it's crap. RFCs should be reserved for sources that give the outward appearance of serious, respectable writing, but which have serious flaws in their actual writing. --Jayron32 16:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The main article on the Daily Sport specifies that its main focus has been on celebrity gossip and softcore pornography. They may be unreliable, but their topic areas do not really coincide with what Wikipedia covers. Deprecating them will not make much of a difference. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikimapia

I often see new articles about minor hamlets citing wikimapia as a source, for example Sary-Kamysh. This is a user-generated map without excellent oversight. It was last discussed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia in 2012. I think it should be clear that this is not a reliable source, so can we add it to the list? --Slashme (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Its a wiki, not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my point. It should be added to the list of unreliable sources. --Slashme (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Slashme, certainly not reliable, I'd recommend an edit filter on this considering it's been cited in over 5000 articles per wikimapia.org   Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Website:favoritesroyales.canalblog.com/archives/2011/04/29/21008725.html

Is http://favoritesroyales.canalblog.com/archives/2011/04/29/21008725.html a reliable source? It appears to be a blog. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It is being used at Charles V of France. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not a reliable source. There is no information on the author, so no way to determine if he/she is a subject-matter expert (which is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition on blogs). JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JoelleJay. There is nothing here that points at reliability one way or another--not the website, not the apparatus, not the writing, not the author (who dat?), not the editorial board (which? blog is run by the author). Drmies (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on adding a definition of "self-published source" to WP:V

At WT:Verifiability#RfC:_Definition_of_self-published_works, there is an RfC to decide whether a particular definition of "self-published source" should be added to WP:V. Comments are welcome there. Zero^talk 13:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Daily Star

What is the reliability of the Daily Star (United Kingdom)?

• 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) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Daily Star)

• Option 4 Has been shown to publish false and fabricated information, see Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom)#Dwayne_"The_Rock"_Johnson_interview_fabrication, where an interview with Dwayne Johnson was fabricated and which they were called out for, and Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom)#Grand_Theft_Auto_Rothbury where they falsely claimed that the GTA creators was going to make a game based on Raoul Moat, which is defamatory. Many uses of the Daily Star are on BLP articles, which is unacceptable given its unreliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Makes the Daily Mail look like a broadsheet. Red tops are just not acceptable for an encyclopaedia. Usual common sense exemptions. GPinkerton (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Deliberately falsifying information has always been my benchmark for deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - I wouldn't have worried (it's obvious trash), but fabrication crosses the line - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 one of the worst type of tabloids, full of titillation and sensationalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Another crappy red top that publishes outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Is not a fit source for an encyclopedia. Neutrality^talk 22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 A tabloid that deliberately fabricates information should not be allowed to be cited on Wikipedia at all. Goose^(Talk!) 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Daily Star)

We currently have around 1,500 citations to the Daily Star per dailystar.co.uk  , most of which appear to be on BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

urgh. And that'll be tabloid gossip being used as a source on celebrity BLPs, then. Pretty sure I wouldn't even trust the Daily Star for sports scores. They're now owned by Trinity Mirror, and may be a little less rabidly awful lately - but it's still a trash-tier source - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• David Gerard is right to characterise the paper as trash tier. However they are not a Daily Mail style clickbait factory and one documented case of apparent fabrication in over 9 years is not exactly terrible for a high circulation UK tabloid. Did any particular problems lead to this RfC? This looks more like 'option 3 with special BLP concerns' to me as it stands. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Fabricating an interview with a major celebrity and putting it as your front page story is pretty brazen, Roy Greenslade's retrospective in The Guardian is an interesting read:

It has become a pathetic article, a travesty of a newspaper, having lost any sense of purpose. Yet it obviously fills some need, because it sells 355,000 copies a day, and its print decline is no worse than that of its rivals.

It survives on a diet of sex, still featuring a topless model on Page 3 each day, and on celebrity trivia. The Star is a newspaper without either news or views. If it can be said to have any political outlook at all, then it is rightwing. There is no passion, no commitment, no soul.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Greenslade's history is amusing, thanks. Digging into the fabricated interview, "Staff at the newspaper suggested the supposed interview was provided to the Daily Star by a freelance journalist and then written up by the staff reporter whose byline appeared on the piece.//The unnamed freelance reporter is thought to be abroad and not responding to messages." [154], which shows a serious failure and casual attitude to fact-checking, but not a Daily Mailesque culture of fabrication. As a source it neither is reliable nor does it seem to cover stories other sources miss, so I'd lose no sleep over deprecation, but the positive case for it doesn't look clear-cut to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Some blogs as sources?

I understand that generally, blogs are not considered acceptable references, but what about one from CNN? See [155]]? This seems potentially acceptable based on section of WP:Verifiability: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, see [156]

• Exact source: [157]
• Relevant to article: [158]
• Quote:

  Dr. Don Colbert, a "divine health" expert who has appeared with Copeland in several broadcasts, then said the autism rate among children has increased with the number of childhood vaccinations. "I have had so many patients bring their children in and they say, you know what, the week after I had that immunization, for MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – my child stopped talking, my child stopped giving me eye contact. He was not alert, he was not coherent. he quit speaking, he quit being the child I had," Colbert said on the webcast. Colbert and the Copeland family are wrong about immunizations, said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. “It's painful because these pastors are trusted spiritual leaders who are speaking to people not only in their congregations but also on television," he said. "They are putting people at risk.” There is no link between vaccinations and autism, and hepatitis can be passed from mother to child, making the shot necessary and effective, Schaffner said.

(The doctor quoted seems legitimate, see [159])

Thanks for comments.Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG would presumably apply - it's a blog, but it carries the imprimatur of the RS, and is edited. Unless they e.g. have a history of making stuff up, I'd presume it was a normal newsblog and a perfectly good source for the quote, with attribution - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello David Gerard - thank you for the comment, which is clear to me and consistent with my thinking. Wonder if anyone else has a comment ? Ali Beatriz (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A blog can be a RS if written by an expert who meets WP's criteria, even when it's not a WP:NEWSBLOG: "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" -- WP:SPS. In addition, as already noted, WP:NEWSBLOG applies in this case. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello FactOrOpinion - thanks. The author is Daniel Burke, who is journalist for CNN, and hence appears legitimate. Also, and as noted earlier, the quoted doctor seems legitimate, see [160]. Looks to be a viable reference to me .. any other comments from people?Ali Beatriz (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ali Beatriz - I just wanted to correct my earlier response, as I hadn't paid sufficient attention to the intended use, which is on a WP:BLP article. In that case, you have to attend not only to whether the source is reliable, but also make sure that the source is neither self-published nor a primary source, as WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY preclude self-published or primary sources being used as sources for information about a living person, even if the sources are reliable. A WP:NEWSBLOG is neither self-published nor a primary source, so you're OK on that end too; I just wanted to clarify. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion .. looks as if the source is viable for use.Ali Beatriz (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• As above, it is reliable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and confirming the general view.Ali Beatriz (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: New York Post (nypost.com)

What is the reliability of the New York Post?

• 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 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (New York Post)

• Option 3  Option 4 – The Post has a generally unreliable track record of fact-checking. In one particularly memorable example, the paper's coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing shows several instances of failure to fact-check before rushing to print. The website is of particular concern. Online articles are rarely to almost never corrected. To this day, the website claims that "12 people were killed" in the bombing. (Only 3 people died) There are several instances from the bombing that show its lack of fact-checking. (Criticized in [161][162][163][164]) In the space of a few days, the Post had ruined the lives of at least 3 innocent people which it had accused as suspects in the bombing, going so far as to post a photograph of two of them on the front page with the headline "BAG MEN: Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon". Mistakes happen but the Post has an almost "I don't care" attitude on fact-checking. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Relabeling a clear false story about COVID-19 as opinion, instead of retracting it, takes the cake. This shows irresponsible and dangerous intent to misinform and no regard for truth. I have to change my !vote to Option 4. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence of fakery means they should never be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I’m concerned about deprecating the Post entirely, because we would be losing a valuable source for New York politics and news. Not to mention that yet another conservative leaning news outlet is being brought here. We should use caution but not entirely ban it. -- Calidum 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Infrequently valuable, but not never. Mainly replying to the latter. If you can find the sort of evidence C+C has presented here about the Daily News, an RfC may be due to talk about that one, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the evidence from Coffeeandcrumbs below. I'm not worried about the balance of outlets that we depreciate. If right-leaning outlets would like to be seen as reliable, they can report the facts and make corrections when they get things wrong. I would be more than happy to re-allow the Daily Mail if their standards increased. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Coffeeandcrumbs's evidence, New York Post#Controversies, [165][166], and my personal impression. Rightly or wrongly, high quality sources do occasionally cite New York Post. I'm not really opposed to option 4, but I would prefer that we don't deprecate sources that may be useful in rare cases. - MrX 🖋 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.5 per MrX. They are rarely the sole source of first-reporting on any meaningful factual story, they have a reckless disregard for fact checking, and evidence that they may even make up stories out of whole cloth. I would rather use better sources for anything that is widely reported, and I'd be suspect of the veracity of anything that only the Post is reporting. I may carve out a VERY small exception for where their initial reporting is vetted by an actual real source, but even then I'd like to see both sources side by side as a minimum. --Jayron32 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Qualified Option 3. Absolutely never should be used for controversial claims about living people (it's a tabloid after all). Beyond that, the subject they struggle with most seems to be crime and crime-adjacent topics. The Post's NYC is a scary place filled with "thugs" and "gang-bangers" and violent homeless people/protesters/immigrants, with politicians who won't do anything to protect you. Their willingness to jump into a story without doing their due rigor is pretty well documented, and the evidence C+C provided about missing retractions/corrections is problematic. When covering politics in general, they have a bias that's strong enough to affect their factual reporting, sometimes blurring opinion and news reporting. That said, there are times when the Post's coverage of local NYC topics is useful. For the most part it's better cited to the other sources which make use of the Post's reporting but do their own vetting, but I feel like there have been stories about NYC public projects, local institutions, what's going on in local agencies, etc. that are useful enough and innocuous enough that I'd hope there would be room for an occasional exception. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - The Post is a tabloid, and like all tabloids should be used with caution because it runs to sensationalism in how it covers news stories. That said, it is usually accurate once you get past the sensationalism of its format. The print version does contain an “errors and retractions” section (which is one of the ways we differentiate between reliable and unreliable news outlets). From some of the comments above, it sounds like there may be problems with the website that are not found in the hard-copy paper. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 like The Sun. Ample examples of outright fabrication of facts and quotes on all sorts of stories to the point that it just seems like the way they operate. I can’t say to what extent the print edition issues retractions but almost none of the online versions of false or misleading stories listed in the discussion below have been retracted or corrected. After falsely accusing people of involvement in the Boston marathon bombing, the Columbia Journalism Review said of the paper that it “deserves no benefit of the doubt. Any pretense of professionalism—as thin as it might have been—is gone.” ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 3: I don't think The Post is that bad for general reporting. Gossip and speculative articles notwithstanding. As always editors should use their good judgement. ImTheIP (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 generally unreliable for factual reporting but ok for film reviews, music reviews, tv reviews and similar, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 provided evidence gives us the US equivalent of the DM. --Masem (t) 22:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for factual reporting: I am just seeing too much fabrication and lack of attention to truthfulness to rate it any other way. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.5 - Per MrX, Jayron32. Their news section is generally (although not invariably) tabloid trash. Analogous to the British rags (Sun, Mirror, Express, Daily Mail). Neutrality^talk 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for NYC area coverage, option 3 for everything else. I've found their local news to be mostly reliable (though of course with a political lean); it's when they get into national politics that they go totally off the rails. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Additional considerations apply as with any tabloid, and it's not particularly strong source, so due weight needs to be considered if it's the only source reporting on something. But that should be considered individually, not at RSP. Examples of errors are mostly old: Lady Gaga story from 2011, Boston bombing from 2013. Breaking news coverage can be wrong in any source (w/ Boston). As WP:BIASED sources can be reliable, I just don't see enough evidence that they mispresent news, except a few cases within the span of a 10 years. Despite being a tabloid, clearly they operate much more professionally than, say, Zero Hedge. Quite comparable to the left-wing Salon, except I suppose some may find the latter to be ideologically more reliable. --Pudeo (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. It's a tabloid, so starts at a default 2, but its place in the right wing media bubble with the asymmetric polarisation and perverse incentives that produces has resulted in a markedly worse record for accuracy than erstwhile competitors. It's not quite the Epoch Times yet, but it's pretty bad, often enough that it should not really be used here. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (New York Post)

• commnetWhilst I am getting a red top vibe, I would need to see evidence of deliberate lies (rather then incompetence) before making a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, here are some instances of fabricated stories.[167][168][169][170][171] AFAIK, none of them were corrected. What they most often do is make up quotes or fabricate sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Here are two more people that accuse the Post of fabrication: [172][173]. This story [174] is more of a bias than fabrication, but it is the modus operadi of even their stories that are true. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• More examples: False story that COVID-19 virus possibly leaked from a Chinese lab,[175][176] false claim that singer Lady Gaga met with radical leftist Slavoj Zizek,[177][178] and printed an entire interview with a person falsely claiming to be the brother of Adam Lanza.[179] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Note, the Lady Gaga story was on Page Six, the paper's gossip section, which is worse than the parent. The fake Lanza brother story is one of the few instances that I have seen that were corrected.[180] There was also a made up story of a high school student making $72 million in the stock market which they reprinted from New York Magazine without any double-checking but they at least corrected.[181][182] All the rest from my examples are still live and never corrected. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The COVID link you posted is an opinion piece, not a news article. -- Calidum 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  My bad. Sorry, I missed that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  It was published as a normal article and relabelled an opinion piece after being criticised. [183], [184] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The COVID-19 lab leak theory is not an example of misinformation. There are two angles a) the virus accidentally leaked from the institute that studies them b) the virus was engineered by humans. The former is quite clearly less conspirational, and indeed was something that leaked US State Department cables and the UK government suggested may be the origins of the virus. The Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that the accidental leak origin is a plausible theory and quoted experts who think that. Nowhere in that NYPost article they report it as a fact. --Pudeo (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• More examples to add to the pile: [185], [186], [187], [188] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  This bit is so telling: "Needless to say, the Post hasn’t corrected [the] piece." ─ "A bogus NY Post piece sets off a frenzy". Columbia Journalism Review --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

L:Even if it was not originally labelled as opinion, an article by Steven W. Mosher of the Population Research Institute clearly is not a news story. A news story is what happened today or what someone said today written by reporters. It's not an activist's analysis of how a virus originated. ReconditeRodent's first example is reported in their source as by "columnist John Crudele" so it would not be rs in any case. Mainstream media also publish opinion pieces by conservatives, and even articles by liberals can contain questionable logic and facts. For example, the New York Times and other major media pushed the Bush administration lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. What I find disturbing about this process is that we are basing it on anecdotal evidence and even then not looking at actual news reporting. What we should do is use sources that compare the reliability of various sources. While I am sure the NYT would rank higher, there are lots of other local newspapers I imagine that would rank lower. Why not just have a general rule that right-wing newspapers cannot be used as sources? TFD (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Sunday Guardian

The Sunday Guardian is an Indian newspaper founded by a ruling party politician and has been cited in over 500 articles per sunday-guardian.com  . The paper is rather tabloid-esque and has highly questionable practices; for instances they used the real names of people in a self designated "fake news" piece in relation to an ongoing criminal investigation (see 1 2, 3) Seeing as this has never been brought up on this noticeboard before, I was wondering what would be the community's take on how it should be used, if at all. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, links 2 and 3 are identical? (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, fixed that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Dubious" citations from an academic's book and article

Thucydides411 disagrees with Zachary McLeod Hutchins, editor of Community without Consent: New Perspectives on the Stamp Act, published by Dartmouth College Press, leading him to keep placing this "dubious" tag in Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. This is all part of a larger, eh, dispute, and Thucydides has filled up most of the talk page with their rebuttals (essentially, he wants to leave out any connection to slavery, content supplied by Binksternet), but this is a small matter: Thucydides thinks that Hutchins is wrong. I maintain that this is not Thucydides's job to argue, at least not on Wikipedia.

And while we are here, they placed another "dubious" tag, in this edit: "Crèvecœur's responded to Dickinson's argument about the supposed oppression caused by British taxation and criticized the very trope, according to Zachary McLeod Hutchins: "An avaricious attorney and slave owner like Dickinson, Crèvecoeur suggests, supports oppressive systems far more unnatural and burdensome than imperial governance and the Stamp Act."" I maintain that the citation (Hutchins, Zachary McLeod (2015). "The Slave Narrative and the Stamp Act, or Letters from Two American Farmers in Pennsylvania". Early American Literature. 50 (3): 645–80.) is fine and the attribution proper. Thucydides claims this is a fringe view, but his evidence boils down to "others don't say this so it is fringe".

Thucydides thinks they know better than this scholar, who is a professor at Colorado State and has published an edited collection about the Stamp Act and an article in one of the foremost journals in the field. If this were fringe, reliable secondary sources should denounce it as such; Thucydides is not a reliable secondary source, and the tag is spurious. Their continued edit warring and talk page obstructionism is part of their regular MO, but that's for another day. If you've looked at that talk page, you know we can expect a wall of text; I am hoping that all you scholars and historians and academics can see through that. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides thinks that Hutchins is wrong. I maintain that this is not Thucydides's job to argue, at least not on Wikipedia: This is the crux of it. If Hutchins is wrong, all Thucydides needs to do is comprehensively demolish Hutchins in academic sources and persuade relevant scholars to do so also. The Wikipedia will follow. But until that happens, we follow the extant literature, and by the way of these things, scholarship does not exist to parrot itself, and to expect every point to be made and interpreted the same way by every scholar is narrow and restrictive. However, that one scholar makes a point that is not subsequently rejected cannot be WP:FRINGE otherwise most of our humanities/arts-FAs would have to be delisted. ——Serial 15:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am connected to this dispute, having introduced Hutchins to the article with this addition eight days ago. Of course I think Hutchins is a valid source, a university scholar published in a university press. Our friend Thucydides411 is not on any kind of firm footing in the attempt to remove Hutchins. I'm seeing WP:IDONTLIKEIT at play. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What sources are being used to refute Hutchins? --Jayron32 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

None, Jayron32. It's kind of an argumentum ex silentio--Hutchins argues that Crevecoeur is criticizing Dickinson without mentioning him directly. Thucydides argues he is wrong, from two silences: a. other scholars haven't made that argument, and b. Crevecoeur doesn't mention Dickinson directly. No one else says that. BTW if you're interested in the matter, Hutchins's article in Early American Literature is quite a fascinating read. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)