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

Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?

The applicability of the Daily Mail ban to the Mail on Sunday has bee raised multiple times, and yet many editors are labouring under the impression that it does. These are the facts (briefly):

1. The Daily Mail (including its website) was proscribed in 2017 in an RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC. There was no mention of Mail on Sunday being subject to this ban.
2. This ban was reaffirmed the following year: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail. Again, there is no mention of the Mail on Sunday.
3. The examples brought forward that led to the ban came from The Daily Mail or Mailonline, not the Mail on Sunday from what I can see.
4. Mail on Sunday is not just a sunday edition of The Daily Mail, it is editorially independent i.e. different editors, different writers. Occasionally they even adopt opposing positions (such as on Brexit). They are different newspapers but with a common ownership.
5. Mailonline publishes content from The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and its own stuff.

The question of the Mail on Sunday has been raised on several occasions:

1. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday the prevailing opinion (summarised by Andy Dingley) is that the ban does not cover the Mail on Sunday namely because it is not stated to apply.
2. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Daily_Mail_(sigh,_yes,_again) Newslinger also notes that Mail on Sunday is unaffected by the ban.
3. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday? we have a discussion that explicitly tackles this question, but does not explicitly answer it. Mazca observes that the two publications are editorially independent. He also comments that there is an argument that MoS shares many of the same reliability issues as its sister publication, and that the ban that applies to the online platform acts as a "de facto barrier" to MoS.
4. We now have a situation with David Gerard purging Mail on Sunday references from Wikipedia: see [3], [4], [5] just for a few examples. There are dozens more.

I certainly don't dispute that an argument exists that the Mail on Sunday shares the same reliability issues as its sister publication, as noted by Mazca, but the key word here is argument. The case has not been successfully prosecuted, which must surely mean that the ban does not apply to the MoS if we accept the prevailing opinion they are editorially independent publications. I also don't dispute Mazca's statement that the proscription of the online platform (that houses some MoS content) acts as a de facto barrier. It is statement of fact. If we can't cite Mailonline then the print version of the newspaper must be consulted directly. But Mazca does not state whether the Daily Mail ban explicitly applies to the Mail on Sunday or not. It is certainly being interpreted as such by David Gerard.

I am pinging in all the editors who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: @Yunshui, Primefac, Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, Vanamonde93, and Ymblanter:.

I appreciate everybody is tired of debating these damn newspapers but can we PLEASE reach a point where the Daily Mail ban either explicitly states it applies to the Mail on Sunday or explicitly states that it does NOT apply to the Mail on Sunday?? If the ban is to encompass the Mail on Sunday then we should proceed with replacing the sources in an orderly fashion. Ripping out content (which is probably 99% good) is not constructive and detrimental to building an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As the asker of the clarification request, I understood the result of the discussion as: “MOS is not included in the DM RfCs, but may suffer from the same issues. A new RfC will be required to come to a determination on its status.” Obvious question is: what until then? If it’s got the same reliability issues, we wouldn’t want it being used on wiki, and I doubt there’s much community energy for an RfC on this niche case. I think it’s thus appropriate to treat it with questionable reliability, but not as explicitly deprecated. But I don’t care enough either way. Someone like Newslinger may be better placed to answer the procedural issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I have seen David Gerard's newest approach to the Daily Mail topic. He has now proceeded to strip anything published by the DMG Media company in the past two week. He his now removing the Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, and Irish Mail on Sunday. The reliable source noticeboard needs to deal with this topic, since numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process. Since, the reliable source noticeboard is what is providing the cover for these actions, the board needs to be very precise about the decisions it is taking. And as far as the Mail on Sunday, no it is not included under the Daily Mail deprecation. Many of us editors who create the content obviously have access to outside newspaper databases and do not need to use the website www.dailymail.co.uk --Guest2625 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems like an overly procedural argument. If they have the same reliability, why the need for endless debates on it? According to WP:RS, part of the core content policy, unreliable sources should not be used (with narrow exceptions, but that's not what we're dealing with here). (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note that there is no assumption that a source is reliable, the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to restore disputed content is to show that the source is reliable. So I ask, what is the evidence that Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, etc. are reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have we not just had this very discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source is what the last discussion said, and your laughable content (which is probably 99% good) flies in the face of reality.

numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process I'd say that the Wikipedia readers are being insulted by the numerous long-term editors using shitty sources, and I know whose side I'm on. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing dailymail.co.uk is indeed a barrier to citing the Mail on Sunday. But it is a technical barrier. In the same way if Wikipedia were only to insist on hardcopy citations. It is misguided to suggest that the MoS is not reliable purely because some of its content is reproduced at MailOnline. On the other hand, it may be reasonable to suggest that it is not reliable because it is plagued by the same problems as Daily Mail. In fairness I am putting a simple question to the administrators who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: does the consensus also apply to the Mail on Sunday? Some of you may consider this overly procedural. Maybe it is, but I wouldn't be asking if an editor were not deleting vast amounts of content on entirely procedural grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If anybody in that discussion had made that "barrier" argument, it would have been countered, just as Betty Logan has done, by saying there is a print edition. But nobody did make that argument, or anything remotely similar to it, so "barrier" is not a reflection of consensus, it is merely the closer's opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the MoS is a reliable source for anything? Reassuringly, the Sunday Mail doesn't seem to be subject to the restrictions, but as it's a tabloid I wouldn't tend to think of it as a RS. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan has neglected to link the cause of the present discussion: she used this unreliable tabloid source to reinsert controversial claims about living people, sourced only to this unreliable tabloid, at List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing - apparently in the belief that using this trash source is acceptable as long as it isn't specifically deprecated.

I mentioned this in talk, Betty Logan blindly put the content back after without responding to the material having been challenged (thus not meeting WP:BURDEN, and then claimed the question I raised in talk was about WP:DAILYMAIL rather than her deliberately edit-warring in a reference to an unreliable source when making claims about living people.

I would suggest that even if the MoS is not covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - and not a word of either RFC's conclusion supports it being excluded, and nor does the result of the discussion, which concluded a carve-out would likely need a fresh RFC - that this is WP:POINTy behaviour, and material concerning living persons is absolutely not the place to be doing that - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My primary concern is your interpretation of the RFC consensus. I have raised this same issue with you prior to this latest incident: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_299#dailymail.co.uk_reversion:_eyes_wanted. Your contribution history shows you were engaged in a purge of the Mail on Sunday and justifying it using the Daily Mail RFC. I don't see any attempts to locate an alternative source or raise the issue on the talk page. Removing content in this manner is destructive. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you ever think unreliable tabloids are a suitable source for material about living people, you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing, and what constitutes "destructive". You appear both unable and unwilling to back up the content you want to edit-war back in, under WP:BURDEN - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You keep calling it "unreliable" but I have not seen any evidence for that position. During the Daily Mail RFC examples were presented of The Daily Mail or its website fabricating stories. Are you able to provide such examples of the MoS doing so? THis IPSI report (page 18) shows that in terms of upheld complaints it is comparable to other other publications in its category. The Sunday Times had more complaints upheld than MoS but I don't see you objecting to that title. It is fairly obvious to me that your actions are motiviated by an agenda against The Daily Mail rather than any objective assessment of MoS's reliability. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as a closer rather than someone who had an a priori opinion on the source; no, the DM RfCs do not extend to the Mail on Sunday, and citing the DM proscription as a reason to remove the Mail on Sunday source isn't appropriate. Conversely, just because it isn't proscribed by the DM RfC does not make the Mail on Sunday a reliable source by default, and the spirit of WP:BURDEN still applies to any content that it is used for, in that the person seeking to include that content needs to demonstrate verifiability. To be honest, for contentious material sourced to the news media, I would want multiple corroborating sources always, unless the first source is of unimpeachable quality. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've already spoken (and answered) this exact question, but to (again) reiterate, I'm with Vanamonde on this: the RFC related to the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail only. The fact that they share a website is problematic, but if a reference is for the Mail on Sunday then it is inherently not a reference for the Daily Mail. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with Vanamonde and Primefac above - The Mail on Sunday was not covered in the RFCs, and it can be argued seriously (and probably correctly) that it is a fundamentally different source. Therefore the DM RFC does not cover the Mail on Sunday. If you think that the Mail on Sunday is a bad source that should be deprecated or otherwise restricted, you are free to open a fresh RFC to find consensus on that. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I still stand by my comment at User talk:Primefac/Archive 29#The Daily Mail RfC, Again, i.e no unless MoS is part of DM the RfC on the latter does not apply. That's a separate question than whether it's a good idea to use MoS as a reference for something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Mail on Sunday

What is the reliability of The Mail on Sunday?

• 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

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Mail on Sunday)

• Option 4 The content on mailonline (at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html) seems to be no different and inseparable from the rest of the outlet, Peter Hitchens has reported favourably on the Douma chemical attack leaks, which are discredited by most mainstream sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Even for news stories, there's no separate subdomain for MoS stories and the bylines say "for Mailonline", the only way you'd be able to definitively know whether it was a MoS story would be by checking the actual physical newspaper, which wikipedians aren't going to be citing anyway. The TV&Showbiz section which editors find to be the most problematic is displayed right with the news on the MoS section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The MoS has its own separate domain, https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/, but it's only been cited 11 times per mailonsunday.co.uk  , and provides no separation from the TV&Showbiz section https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/index.html, which appears to be the same as the rest of the mailonline, and the website functions as more of a mirror than anything else. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As I write this on a weekday, The content of mailonsunday.co.uk is identical to that of dailymail.co.uk, making it for all intents and purposes a mirror of MailOnline, and so therefore mailonsunday.co.uk should be added to the deprecated domains list regardless of the outcome of the RfC. If the Mail on Sunday is not deprecated, it should be allowed to be cited as a print reference only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 I regard Mail on Sunday reliable for the following reasons:

1. It has editorial oversight. independent from The Daily Mail and the website.
2. It has been established that the DM ban does not apply to MoS.
3. During the Daily Mail RFC, examples of the DM fabricating stories were presented. I do not recall any from the MoS.
4. Other reliable sources reference it.
5. The number of complaints upheld by IPSI report (page 18) is comparable to other publications in its category that are generally regarded as reliable sources. The Sunday Times, for example, had more complaints upheld than MoS.
6. MailOnline (which is already proscribed) is a separate entity. It houses content from The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday but also publishes its own content. This does not confer unreliability on the MoS. This is nothing more than a technical barrier and the print edition can be cited directly.

It may get things wrong occasionally but no more than other comparable titles. No evidence of it fabricating stories has been presented and an objective measure shows that its level of accurate reporting is comparable to other titles deemed reliable. The arguments presented in the above discussion invariably boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Sunday and daily editions and the website. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple of lists now of egregious fabrication - please address these (with more case by case specifics than "I feel like it's no worse than others"), even a little bit of this sort of thing seems a massive red flag that would rule it out as being treated as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no lists of fabricated stories, just lists of stories that were proven to be factually inaccurate. For example, the story about a "Muslim" gang attacking a van was not fabricated. The incident happened! The MOS was forced to adjust the article because the religion of the perpetrators was based on conjecture. The story about climate change that was prcolaimed "fake news" wasn't fabricated if you look at the article, it was simply inaccurate. Again, the level of complaints upheld against it is not significantly different to other titles, such as The Sunday Times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

They've been provided right here in this discussion - fabrication of claims, extensive fabrication of quotes, etc - but if you want to pretend they don't exist and think "lalala I can't hear you" and "but whatabout that other paper we're not discussing" is a refutation, you can certainly stay with that. If you want to discuss the Sunday Times, you should start an RFC on that. (And if you didn't actually want to discuss the Sunday Times, then your discussion of it so far is indistinguishable from throwing up chaff.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the meat of Betty's argument isn't so much that there isn't any incorrect information, just that there isn't any more incorrect information than papers we tend to consider reliable. They aren't saying they 'feel like it's no worse than others' but that there's empirical evidence that it isn't. Bringing up other papers we consider reliable isn't irrelevant. The problem is that the empirical evidence presented is extremely flimsy: the IPSO report is on the number of articles which received complaints, not how accurate they are. The report itself says "newspapers with the highest circulation [...] received the most complaints." It doesn't tell us anything. I was unable to find any empirical reports on the reliability of the Mail on Sunday specifically (if there were any I imagine there'd be no discussion), and all fact-checking websites treat it alongside the Daily Mail. Wikipedia seems to be alone in considering it separately. I think the false information already presented is egregious enough to warrant Option 4 and if other sources we consider reliable have done the same we should stop considering them reliable too. Iesbian (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You're making this seem a lot more reasonable than it is. An outlet that bases significant information on conjecture is not reliable. Other outlets we consider reliable don't do that. Iesbian (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - it's the same trash from the same sewer, and it always has been - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Obviously. Examples of false stories published specifically in the Mail on Sunday: In all cases, they only ever published corrections months later when forced to by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

These are not fabricated stories. They are stories containing inaccuracies. Statistically speaking, the MOS on average contains no more inaccuracies than something like The Sunday Times. It had two complaints upheld in 2018: https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10. Should we proscribe The Sunday Times as well because five complaints were upheld over the same period? Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The false claims are central to the story in every example I've given. IPSO only deals with cases that get referred to them by members of the public and the inaccuracies they investigate can vary in severity which is why we're looking at specific examples. If you can find similarly many examples of egregious journalism in The Times, we can have a discussion about them as well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

False or misrepresentative claims usually are central to inaccurate stories. I am not defending these articles. I am pleased the beautician won her case! But are any of your examples more egregious than this sequence of Times stories: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43887481. It is worth noting that of the 69 stories that received complaints only two were ultimately upheld. The remainder were either not taken up, resolved through other means, or IPSO found in favor of the MoS. I take on board your point that the IPSO cases are just a sample and not a comprehensive vetting of MoS's output, but that is true of the other publications they have ranked too. I think these examples would carry more weight if this were a discussion about a class of sources i.e. a discussion about raising the bar on what constitutes a reliable source. But this is not about raising the bar; it is about purging one particular source that sampled evidence shows is not disproportionately worse than rival titles in the market. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 The above is enough for me to say 4, rather then 2 or 3.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Complete trash, per ReconditeRodent and others. This is lipstick on the Daily Mail. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 – these are not just "stories containing inaccuracies", on the global warming "pause" it made allegations of malpractice while ignoring evidence, and as noted above was eventually forced to publish online the IPSO finding that instead it had based the article on misrepresenting a blog post. Similar misreporting appeared in the MoS in 2012. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: There are dozens of examples of Mail on Sunday fabrications, but I will list just one, featured in Vogue: Meghan Markle Responds to a Set of Tabloid Rumors --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017. The list from David Gerard below is over-the-top with its accusations, e.g. being in fifth place for complaints just ahead of The Guardian doesn't show anything as others have already indicated, and there were no "fabricated claims of anti-Semitism" (the Mail on Sunday did not say Mr Livingstone was anti-Semitic), etc. But the lists do show that Mail on Sunday publishes corrections, and (see WP:RS) "publication of corrections" is a good signal. They are sometimes forced by IPSO but that is a good thing too, the British newspapers that refuse to join IPSO are the contemptible ones if that's what matters. Mail on Sunday is a "well-established news outlet" so WP:NEWSORG tells us it "is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", so voting to censor it is a demand to violate WP:RS. Option 4 should not have been proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is the article Peter Gulutzan is referring to: Ken Livingstone stokes new Labour anti-Semitism row after dismissing problem as 'lies and smears peddled by ghastly Blairites'. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad counting. Peter Gulutzan at 01:22, 13 September 2020 wrote "The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017" The list was started with 7 items by ReconditeRodent at 10:56, 12 September 2020, and I added four items, two of which were articles covering the same incorrect article by David Rose already covered in item 3 on the list, and mentioned along with other incorrect articles of his in item 4 on the list. I'd already researched it independently, so added my items and tried to indicate two were on the same topic, but evidently not clear enough. In total, the list of 11 items covers 12 transgressions, that is 12 separate articles published by the MoS, some of them repeating false claims by David Rose. Appreciate it's a bit complicated, so miscounting is understandable if rather careless. Hope the following list helps to clarify things. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

list for clarification:

1. 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.

2. MoS accusation "Muslim" gangs 25 July 2015, corrected to just a "gang of youths" 18 September 2015

3. 4–5 February 2017 MoS alleged "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data", 18 September 2017 MoS forced to publish IPSO correction

4. as 3., plus two subsequent articles on February 12 and February 19 repeated the claims, 22 April 2018 page 2 of MoS print edition concede incorrect, "Corrections to these articles have been published online."
Article also noted IPSO complaints upheld against two other articles.

5. MoS 29 September 2018 "Number 10 probes Remain MPs’ ‘foreign collusion'"

6. MoS June 2019 false claim about "Labour's tax plans", IPSO ruled inaccurate in November, publication of the correction delayed until after the election.

7. MoS December 2017 "rogue beauticians" story, IPSO upheld complaint but correction on wrong page, June 2019, Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damages.

8 article and correction as 3

9 article and correction as 3

10 MoS 29 January 2012 "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

11 MoS 14 October 2012 second article claiming "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2 - depends on context and whether the discussion is conflating items. The article says this the largest WEIGHT such publication so seems a bit much to exclude it, and seems in the category of popular press so I’m thinking it reasonable to cite for that context and folks are trying to consider it outside the context it would/should be used. Seems obviously “Generally” reliable in the sense of usually having the criteria of editorial control and publication norms and accessibility, and the bulk of stories factual correctness is not in particular question. I don’t think anyone here has put it as the category of 3 generally self-published or blog or sponsored pieces. Category 4 seems excessive - false or fabricated doesn’t seem a correct characterization if people are having to go back to 2012 and 2014 for cases to discuss. Also, much of the discussion above seems to be confusing https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/ with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ or that none of these are actually The Mail on Sunday. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Categorise the same as the Daily Mail: there's no substantial difference between the two paper's journalistic values and fact-checking processes, and hence this RfC should not be able to override the stronger, more global consensus to deprecate the Daily Mail. As a second resort, if we are to categorise the Mail on Sunday differently then we must categorise it as option 4 per the compelling evidence presented by ReconditeRodent and David Gerard that it is established practice at the paper to lie and suppress corrections wherever legally possible. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – 2 - Requires scrutiny but a respected paper that has done much serious reporting unavailable elsewhere. The majority of advocates for "deprecating" the MoS are the same "it's the Daily Mail" line even though it in fact has its own website i.e. Mail on Sunday and a totally separate editorial staff. Ownership by the same company has little if any relevance. Basing your vote on carefully ignoring the facts seems unreasonable to me. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, same or substantially the same editorial policy and authors. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an incorrect statement. It has been stated multiple times that the Mail on Sunday is its own independent newspaper. This means it has its own staff, journalists, and editorial board. Please read the Mail on Sunday wikipedia article to inform yourself about the newspaper. These are the "authors" as you call them of the Mail on Sunday:

Peter Hitchens

Rachel Johnson

Olly Smith

James Forsyth

Robert Waugh

Piers Morgan

Craig Brown

Tom Parker Bowles

Chris Evans

Ruth Sunderland

Sebastian O Kelly

Liz Jones

Sally Brompton

Sarah Stacey

Mimi Spencer

Jeff Prestridge

John Rees

Ellie Cannon

Jane Clarke

Katie Nicholl

Oliver Holt

Stuart Broad

Patrick Collins

Glenn Hoddle

Michael Owen

Nick Harris

Andrew Pierce

You have also chosen option 4, which means that you are stating that these journalists as a group are involved in writing "false or fabricated information". You have provided no proof of your statement. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The Mail on Sunday has a completely separate editorial oversight, staff, office and so on. They are completely different newspapers that compete with each other, but simply have a similar name. I do, however, see the risk of their content being hosted on the MailOnline/DailyMail.com, as they do not have their own website. In which situation I would endorse Option 2 with the condition that the Mail on Sunday remains a reliable source but that the print edition must be the one cited, with online links unacceptable. Ortolan57 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's hard to see how it's an option 1 given its cited record of fabrication - surely this should be addressed in an opinion worth taking into consideration - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, just as completely divorced from the truth as the regular Daily Mail, despite being nominally seperate. They clearly have the exact same record of lying constantly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 No evidence that this source is any more reliable than the regular DM, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Remember, the onus is on those who are arguing the source can be used to demonstrate that it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Although the MoS may not be in Breitbart/National Enquirer territory it is clearly generally unreliable as per above comments. A note on comparisons of complaints: if we look at the nature and scale of the inaccuracies in the MoS presented in the lists above and below, and not just how many there were in a given year, it is clear that most of them are serious and relate to central news stories not just marginal human interest stories (major inaccuracies about electoral candidates not corrected until after election, major mischaracterisations of data about climate change) and also that they fit into a pattern of repeating false allegations as part of an ideological campaign (e.g. around climate change, where false statements were repeated despite earlier corrections) or systematically misrepresenting religion/ethnicity (e.g. to generate clickbait buzz by plugging into anti-Muslim panic), and not simple mistakes such as mistyping the number of arrests at the Appleby fair. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 since not proof has been offered to show the Sunday edition of the mail any more reliable than the daily --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 I wouldn't want anything on Wikipedia based solely on a MoS article, it is too unreliable. If it is valid information it will also appear in more reliable papers like the the Guardian or the Telegraph. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Putting aside the paper's politics, all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. Large parts of what the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) content are reliable and well-written and were the same content published elsewhere we wouldn't even question it - such as this for example [6]. This pogrom of Daily Mail content has already seen sources being blindly removed even when for our purposes they would be reliably sourced and well-written and it's often to the detriment of articles - and anyone who questions this is shouted down. Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis, I am firmly opposed to blanket pronouncements such as this related to mainstream media. WCM_email 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So you're fine with the list of blatant fabrications? - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you're fine with the "fabrications" of the newspapers you judge to be reliable? Please quit this obviously disingenuous and facetious line of argument - the output of a media outlet should be judged as a whole and not based on cherry-picked examples. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The argument "but whatabout these other newspapers that aren't the topic here" isn't regarded as a useful argument on RSN. If you want to discuss those, you should start an RFC about them, listing their fabrications. This discussion is about the Mail on Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to "but the MoS is not less reliable than the Sunday Times according to the metric that you've chosen to ban it" with "then you should start an RFC on banning the Sunday Times" is clearly not an argument made in good faith. We all know that the outcome of such an RFC would be a snow-close for "Option 1" and a possible trip to ANI for whoever chose to waste everyone's time by proposing it. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

David you clearly chose not to read my comment, so I will reply to your strawman with emphasis added. "all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. .... Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis. You appear obsessed by the Daily Mail and removing any reference to it, often to the detriment of article quality and blind to the reliability of the article. You would remove this for example and are you suggesting that an opinion sourced to David Attenborough becomes unreliable simply because it is published in the DM? WCM_email 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 As per Curry above and the fact that MOS has a separate editor. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  @The C of E: Seeing as you were opposed to the deprecation of the Daily Mail itself (arguing that there was "no need to blacklist a whole publication because of a few opinion pieces that may not be to some tastes") and then argued just two years later that the ban should be lifted because they had "changed", what possible relevance could The Mail on Sunday's editorial independence have? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This argument essentially boils down to trying to exclude anyone who was in the (substantial) minority in the DM Ban RFC from ever having a say in any future issue related to banning media. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I question who this IP is @FOARP: given he seems to have only started editing this year so how can he know about whom said what back when? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall having participated in a previous RfC on the use of the Daily Mail as a source. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm merely questioning the particular argument being used here. Given what The C of E has said in the past, supporting option 1 is consistent, but given their premises, I can't see what relevance the publication's editorial independence could have. Perhaps The C of E can clarify.

But I don't see how what I'm saying would exclude anyone who participated in the past RfCs from having a say here. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a clear attempt to daisy-chain RFCs. "But you didn't agree with the concept of these RFCs so you can't vote Option 1 in this RFC" the argument goes, resulting in a more extreme and less balanced result. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (preferred) because it shares DM staff, history of fabrications, and has the same website as the Daily Mail, complete with "sidebar of shame" and its obsession with objectifying (see also "all grown up"). Failing that, then go with print edition only as no worse than the average tabloid, but still best not to use because tabloid. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, not really seeing why the print edition should be presumed less deprecable than the online version - is there a convincing reason? - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, convincing? Not sure: depends who you're trying to convince (and obviously here I exclude Brian K Horton and his hosiery drawer). The bar to inclusion means that most of the churnalism on the website doesn't make it into print. The print edition is exactly as biased, and has undoubtedly printed some egregious bollocks, but the level of oversight is at least marginally higher. But you'll note that is my second choice, because my strong preference is to exclude altogether. You cannot trust anything you read on the Mail websites, and that fatally undermines any claim to journalistic integrity for any of its output IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

fair - I'll certainly agree that if there was an Option 4½, Mail Online would warrant it - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bad RFC (or Option 1 if the RFC still goes ahead) - These "let's ban media outlets we don't like" have no link to any actual issue in an article on Wikipedia. They always turn into a forum-style discussion on the perceived good-ness or not of the source itself rather than its reliability in relation to any subject matter. Editors should be free to decide what sources they use through consensus on a case-by-case basis, rather than these pointless blanket bans. Comparisons to reliable sources with exactly the same failings that the news outlet to be deprecated displays are always batted away with "why don't you start an RFC on banning the New York Times then?" (or similar facetiousness). The outcome is pre-determined as soon as the typically right-wing nature of the publication to be banned is highlighted. Rampant double-standards abound especially between UK and US publications. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Seeing as your issue is with the writ-large deprecation of sources generally, isn't that an argument better suited to WT:RS to have Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Deprecated sources amended? I don't see how it's relevant here when we're trying to apply the existing guidelines. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I oppose these blanket bans of regulated media with well-established editorial teams based in countries with robust freedom of speech, then I also oppose banning the MoS and hence am voting on those grounds. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

hence am voting on those grounds These discussions are not votes; so you appear to be declaring that your statement here is explicitly not about the MoS as a source, and hence meaningless in the discussion. The process of deprecation was itself ratified in an RFC; if you want to remove it, then you would need to run an RFC to do so - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to make any opposition to this steady banning of sources invalid ab initio. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I note you haven't answered my point below about your deletion campaign deleting even WP:ABOUTSELF statements by the MoS (explicitly allowed even under the DM 2017 RFC close) which is a prime example of how this isn't about content, or what has been specifically decided in RFCs, but about getting something you can use to justify a mass-deletion campaign against a publication you dislike. FOARP (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your other question is you whatabouting the issue - this is a discussion of the Mail On Sunday, not of me. If you have a point to make about the Mail On Sunday, it needs to be a point about the Mail On Sunday. If you can't make a point about the quality of the Mail On Sunday as a source - and you've just said above that you're not making a point about the Mail On Sunday, you're trying to reverse the idea of deprecation of sources, which is an action that's been ratified at RFC. You can keep on trying to flail about to distract from the point, but if you're not addressing the question then you're just making noise. You don't even understand that this isn't a vote, so I can't say that you are even proceeding in bad faith, but you don't appear to be proceeding competently - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

1. It's not 'whatabouting' the issue. You're trying to referee the discussion, which given the magnitude of your involvement is totally inappropriate. If you fail to understand this, then that would render you patently unqualified to have any weight be given to your statements regarding reliability (since that would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding of what reliability even is).

2. Comparisons with other sources are NOT irrelevant to this discussion, and telling editors to 'go start an RFC about The Times' or whatever is flat out disruptive. GENERAL RELIABILITY is RELATIVE. We should not be applying different sets of standards to sources we don't like than the sources we like. Furthermore, your 'suggestion' is a non sequitur, and is clearly in bad faith, because every one of us knows that will NEVER happen. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with FOARP. It's unfortunate because blanket bans will come back to haunt us in the future for a number of reasons. This is not to say there are not problems with sources, but every source article should be evaluated and never site banned. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 As per ReconditeRodent. Autarch (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per others, they make corrections and the volume of problems is not severe. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - generally reliable newspaper. The Mail on Sunday had a relatively low number of complaints based on the ipso statistics. The number of complaints was similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. It’s a respected newspaper that has a number of notable contributors. Other newspapers quote it. The paper is conservative leaning so care is required on political topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, prefer 4 I kept being surprised that this was still being employed as a source following the Daily Mail deprecation. Tabloids are bad sources, and this is on the bottom layer of tabloids, sharing staff and large amounts of content (and apparently its philosophy and veracity) with the Daily Mail. The above examples of fabrication and evasion require some pretty dedicated scampering to ignore. We are an encyclopedia and must be able to exclude material that has a high chance of being misrepresented or made up. If an item is of wider impact, we can use one of many other sources; if it is MoS exclusive, we run the risk of it having been blown up into some chimaera in order to add another five points to the headline size. Do not need. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. The list of issues above is persuasive. The reason why full depreciation rather than unreliability is called is twofold. First, the "errors" highlighted above are all in one direction and all reflect the biases of the Mail's owners (its "errors" are inevitably stuff that eg. downplays global warming, paints Muslims or Labour in a bad light, bolsters the Tories, and so on); this, combined with the tendency to slow-walk corrections or neglect them entirely, suggests that, regardless of the (still uncited?) claims of editorial independence, it is subject to the same forces, in the same way, that make the Daily Mail itself unreliable. Bias is acceptable in a source, and occasional errors are not an issue; but repeated errors, in the same direction, which consistently reflect the biases of the owner suggest a systematic problem that makes it hard to justify using them as a source - there is simply every reason to think that their overriding goal is to advance their owners' political agenda at the expense of fact-checking or accuracy. Second, they fit the same criteria that made depreciation of the original Daily Mail necessary in that they are clearly not reliable due to the above, yet a vocal minority of editors insists that it can be used - and not merely that it can be used, but that it is somehow an exemplary source (note how the opinions here split between overwhelming numbers of people favoring depreciation and people saying it is generally reliable, with so little in-between.) That is the sort of situation that requires a decisive conclusion, since it is plain some people will continue to try and use it as a source everywhere unless there is an unambiguous decision saying they can't. Finally, in case it comes up - given that this discussion focuses on the parallels between the Mail and the Mail on Sunday and how those seem to stem from its ownership, I would suggest that whatever decision we reach here ought to apply to any outlets owned by Daily Mail and General Trust, at least by default (Metro, the other major paper they own, is already listed as generally unreliable.) It is clear from these discussions and the examples above that the root problem is the owners and not the individual editorial boards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To deprecate a whole media publishing group is very problematic. It's merely indicative of the slippery slope that Wikipedia is heading down with its whole deprecation process. The next thing to appear on this board will be an attempt to ban the Rupert Murdoch publishing group. The problem with this board and its perennial sources list is that it has a legitimacy problem. Were all the editors individually notified on their talk page who will be directly affected by this upcoming Mail on Sunday decision? If not, this local group decision has a legitimacy problem. And a vague RFC advert in the wiki-jungle doesn't cut it. Those editors who used the source have a right to defend their decision. And, the only way to defend your decision is to be notified. I know for a fact that a group of editors who are in the middle of a content dispute over the Mail on Sunday have not been notified. This is very problematic.

It's not complicated for me. The complaint statistics of the the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday are the same. The Sunday Times has also made a number of significant corrections. All this information was provided below. What the Sunday Times does better is that it has a more sophisticated writing style, since it targets the professional upper class. The Mail on Sunday is targeted towards the middle class. Option 2 I certainly can understand, since this is similar to how many American editors view Fox (which has some parallels to the politics and biases of the Mail on Sunday). Even option 3 would be understandable for people who cannot bear any publication which makes an error. But option 4 would mean the newspaper is worse than a self-published source. It would mean the highest selling Sunday newspaper, which won newspaper of the year in 2019 and has a number of notable writers, cannot be even used for its review of a theatre play which is gross and absurd. Fortunately, what is happening with the British media market on this board cannot be done to the American media market which has a much larger and more diverse pool of Wikipedia editors who use it. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agree with this view. That the editors who have actually used the MoS as a source have not been notified is a legitimacy issue with this RFC. That they are excluded is an inevitable product of this RFC being completely divorced from actual content issues with articles. Engaging with the actual use of the MoS on Wiki would mean acknowledging that a lot of the present use (which is not high) is simply WP:ABOUTSELF (e.g., the edit by David Gerard linked above where he deleted even the mere mention that a book had been MoS book of the week, claiming that this was justified by the DM ban which explicitly allows "about-self" use), or completely uncontroversial. The double standard between UK and US media outlets, let alone between UK outlets and those of China or Iran, is as palpable as it is absurd. Responding to clear evidence that the MoS has had no more complaints upheld against it than the Sunday Times with "well then you should start an RFC to ban the Sunday Times" is not arguing in good faith. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I would think that because The Mail on Sunday is just the weekend branding of Daily Mail that it'd fall under the existing restrictions there, but nonetheless, they still seem to have a desperate use of trigger words, sensationalism, low-quality fact checking and having been the source most sanctioned by UK regulators (source which says "The Daily Mail is used here to include the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday...") three years in a row (source). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times that the Mail on Sunday, Metro, i (originally a sister newspaper of The Independent), and also Daily Mail are all separate newspapers. This means that the newspapers have separate staff, journalists, and editorial boards. These different newspapers are published by DMG Media which itself is owned by the media company DMGT. It is normal for media companies to own multiple titles. See for instance Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns Dow Jones & Company (publisher of 'of the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch and Barron's), News UK (publisher of The Sun and The Times), and book publisher HarperCollins.

Also it is not clear why you provided links to two blogs about the IPSO statistics, when below is the complete IPSO table for 2018. The table clearly shows that the Mail on Sunday did not rank poorly. Please uncollapse the green bar below that says table and trust your own eyes. The only thing I do want to quote from one of your blogs is the following:"Sunday Times Forced to Admit to Fake Antisemitism Smears". That sounds like a major faux pas that the Mail on Sunday's competitor made, just like that little faux pas that the New Statesman made in regards to the Roger Scruton interview that we just discussed on this reliable source board. It is unfortunate that generally reliable sources sometimes make faux pas. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Would you be able to link to the discussion that ended in a consensus that the staff etc are different and that there's absolutely no commonality between the two? I think you'll also notice that the source I provided is from 2019, not 2018. Associated Newspapers Limited, which owns Metro, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online, even says in their annual report that Mail Online shares editorial content, lawyers, and replies to complaints to IPSO on behalf of Mail on Sunday. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Mail on Sunday explains that it is its own newspaper. It is stated there that the newspaper has its own staff and editor. The blog you provided is from 2019; however, it's referencing the IPSO complaint statistics from 2018. This is a quote from the blog:[7] "In terms of total number of sanctions, the top seven reached 90 between them across 2018. This is slightly better than 2017’s total of 115, but up on the 62 offences committed in 2016." As you'll note the blog's most recent numbers are the 2018 IPSO statistics, which are provided in clear detail in the table below from the 2018 IPSO report on page 18. So for clarification again, the chief editor of the Mail on Sunday, as stated in the Wikipedia article, is Ted Verity and these are the current writers for the newspaper:

Peter Hitchens

Rachel Johnson

Olly Smith

James Forsyth

Robert Waugh

Piers Morgan

Craig Brown

Tom Parker Bowles

Chris Evans

Ruth Sunderland

Sebastian O Kelly

Liz Jones

Sally Brompton

Sarah Stacey

Mimi Spencer

Jeff Prestridge

John Rees

Ellie Cannon

Jane Clarke

Katie Nicholl

Oliver Holt

Stuart Broad

Patrick Collins

Glenn Hoddle

Michael Owen

Nick Harris

Andrew Pierce

Since the owners of the Mail on Sunday have multiple papers, it would not be surprising, if they used the same legal staff for the different papers. I read the Associated Newspapers Limited 2019 annual report hereand here, but I wasn't able to find your statement about sharing editorial content and complaint reply in the report. Could you provide me with a link to the annual report that you read and the relevant page number. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 How much confidence can really be taken from a debate where even basic pertinent details, such as whether or not the Sunday edition has a separate editorial staf , cannot seemingly be settled a priori? I note too, the complete lack of impeccable sources like the Columbia Journalism Review. These have been used when debating the reliability of Fox and the New York Post in this foraaa , so their absence here, given the claims that basically cast the MoS as a step change worse, rings alarm bells as far as the potential for bias goes. Jack B Williamson (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Jack B Williamson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  The Columbia Journalism Review is a US based outlet and generally doesn't cover the UK press so the lack of coverage by that outlet is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  I have struck the contribution from the boring sockpuppet. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 I think generally news media shouldn’t be considered reliable by it self. Citing facts from news is not how it works in the real world. You need to also consider other sources. A body of news sources together give weight, but it is still in the news. I read newspapers and enjoy, but that is mostly because I think. The narrative that we need to fact check the media is a construction. This RfC I think is created to ease some admin work, and that is perfectly OK. They already banned publications that can easily be mistaken, because of the architecture of the web address. I understand it’s a mess. I don’t like the options. I think option 1 and 4 are divisive provocations for the trenches. And option 2 and 3 are vague. What does even option 3 mean? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If, as you say, you don't in fact understand the question, it's not clear this helps form an informed consensus - David Gerard (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 It is clear that the Mail on Sunday, while technically independent editorially, shares ownership and agenda with the Daily Mail. While this alone is not enough to deprecate the paper, it is relevant because the Mail on Sunday also appears to share the bad habits of fabricating claims about living people and publishing lies, bad information and untrustworthy speculation. I am sure that they often publish good and true information, but I am also sure that they publish outright false information which, I believe, they often know to be untrue. For the use of the MoS as a source on Wikipedia, they surely therefore have to be considered unreliable and deprecated. It would be inconsistent to come to any other conclusion. I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Daily Mail as well as the MoS make their 'mistakes' in a very particular direction, which is aimed propping up the Conservative party (and perhaps occasionally offshoots of it) and putting down Labour as well as any right-wing movement which may become a threat to the Conservative party. Downfall Vision (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion and others. Glee^anon 06:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 – Notwithstanding ReconditeRodent's links, which would be reason enough by themselves, the Mail on Sunday should still be excluded due to its association with the Daily Mail. Even if it were more reliable than its parent newsletter, the fact that it's owned by the same company will inherently detract from its credibility as a source. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This argument about deprecating a source because of company ownership makes no sense. Rupert Murdoch's News UK owns The Sun and The Times. Do you feel that The Times should be deprecated because Wikipedia has deprecated The Sun? This is the argument that you are making. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This argument actually makes complete sense in my opinion. Perhaps an unconventional view, but I would argue that indeed The Times should be viewed with suspicion given its shared ownership with a deprecated source and perhaps should be seen as unreliable based on that fact alone. It is not that The Times should be deprecated because The Sun has been deprecated, but that The Times should be viewed with suspicion based entirely on its strong association with a deprecated source. I think we should set the precedent that when media outlets share ownership, they should be viewed to share reputation. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire obviously do not take issue with their papers printing falsehoods, so why should we trust them? In the same vein, the MoS shouldn't be deprecated only because of its association with the Daily Mail, but it should be viewed as unreliable based on that fact alone. Separately, the MoS should be deprecated because it has be shown to have published multiple falsehoods and lies. I think Wikipedia could benefit from a more suspicious outlook on news media in general. Downfall Vision (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, this is the argument under which the MoS is basically getting taken down: guilt by association. Stating that THE newspaper of record - The Times - should be banned, basically just because it's British and leans to the right politically. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I probably should have made this clear from the start, but I was referring more to the fact that there is significant overlap between the editorial control over the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Murdoch does own the Times, but he makes it clear that he has no control over the stories they print. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 There is nothing in there that you can't find through a more reliable source in the UK. There is no loss to wikipedia to not having this as "source". Albertaont (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, it is the same publisher as the Daily Mail. There are better sources in the UK. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3; pushing 4 Daily Mail and MoS may share the same publisher but IIRC editorial staff are different Nightfury 10:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 the Mail on Sunday may technically have different editorial staff but clearly has very similar outlooks on how a paper should behave. The editorial oversight does not appear to be 'meaningful' and the opinions often seem to be on the fringes of British politics. On the other hand, where it is worth citing viewpoints from columnists especially where they are part of a significant minority it should be considered reliable for their opinions. For example, Hitchens is a experienced foreign commentator who has won the Orwell Prize and as such his views on Syria may be worth mentioning. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 I agree with most of the other voters. It's owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. Although their editorial stuff is different, it looks like it has the same quality and the tendentious writing Daily Mail has.Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Mail on Sunday)

• I am tired of discussing the Daily Mail as much as anyone else, so hopefully after this there will be no more need for any RfC's on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Please specify that this covers all editions at all URLs for all purposes - otherwise someone will be along making excuses as they already do with the DM: "oh, the Shetlands edition has some different staff", "but you didn't specifically mention articles on trainspotting", "but I like this guy", "but exceptions exist so I'm claiming this as an exception", etc., etc., etc - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If the Mos and Daily Mail are both deprecated, it automatically covers all DM domains. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Including This is Money? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This Is Money is in its own words the "financial website and money section of the MailOnline", so is covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I see that you already asked this precise question before, and that was the answer then too, so it's entirely unclear why you're asking again - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That was one response from you that was not mentioned in the closing statement. I am open to hearing from other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Here's about half an hour's quickest casual search. I'm sure if I put actual effort in, the list would be far longer. If anyone has their own lists of the MoS's mission to spread nonsense that we absolutely cannot trust as a source for encyclopedic content, please post them.

• A pile of distorted and fabricated claims about the EU: [8]
• Fabricated front-page claims of "foreign collusion" by Remain MPs [9]
• Fifth in the list for PCC complaints, 2013 [10]
• Fabrication about claimed BMA guidelines for doctors [11]
• Capital gains tax fabrication, IPSO rules as "serious breach" [12]
• Fabricated claims of anti-Semitism [13]
• Defamatory attack on individual [14]
• IPSO: "significantly misleading" [15]
• Fabrication of quotes in interview (the MoS cannot be trusted for quotes any more than the DM) [16]

The MoS is lying rubbish just as much as the DM is, it just pretends not to be. A trash-tier tabloid that tells gullible readers it's a newspaper of record - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of those are not the best sources but I find (5) and (8) to be particularly alarming at a glance. Would you/someone mind digging up if the paper version, ie not MailOnline, has the same issues? And can we clarify if we’ve got this issue just in politics-related reporting or in other topics as well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No idea if it's in the paper version, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't distinguish on that - some of the above are paper version specifically. Nor on politics, e.g. the irresponsible lies about the beautician - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

David observe how I presented the errors made by the Sunday Times. Now look at the way you presented the errors made by the Mail on Sunday. I have used completely neutral language. I merely stated these are some errors made by the Sunday Times. And then quoted the completely neutral ruling of the IPSO committe. You on the other hand have used completely loaded language. Do you think that me or anyone else could not also use such loaded and over-the-top language that you are using? Your language is reaching for the reader's senses, my language is intended to reach for the reader's mind. I believe it is better when we are trying to find the truth through debate that we use the language of reason. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't studied yet the different sources that David Gerard has provided for his case, but I did look at Betty Logan's table which is quite rigorous and not prone to cherry picked examples. I provided a copy of the IPSO table below.

Table

IPSO Annual Report 2018 No. of articles complained about No. of Rejected complaints in remit Rejected Not pursued by complainant Resolved by IPSO mediation Resolved directly with publication Upheld Not upheld 1 MailOnline 503 213 135 5 16 34 9 14 2 Daily Mail 313 129 112 2 4 6 1 4 3 thesun.co.uk 178 88 53 1 6 22 2 4 4 The Sun 155 96 59 3 3 17 6 8 5 The Times 124 92 68 3 5 6 2 8 6 mirror.co.uk 102 48 25 1 2 13 4 3 7 The Daily Telegraph 78 58 37 7 2 4 1 7 8 Metro.co.uk 75 37 27 1 2 7 0 0 9 express.co.uk 71 50 28 1 4 12 5 0 10 The Mail on Sunday 69 37 27 2 2 2 2 2 11 The Sunday Times 58 52 33 2 5 2 5 5 12 Daily Express 48 30 21 2 0 1 3 3 13 Daily Mirror 40 20 13 0 1 2 2 2 14 dailyrecord.co.uk 36 22 16 0 1 1 0 4 15 Daily Record 34 22 15 1 1 2 2 1 16 The Argus (Brighton) 29 7 5 0 0 1 0 1 17 Metro 28 16 13 1 0 1 1 0 18 The Spectator 25 18 15 0 0 0 2 1 19 walesonline.co.uk 25 10 7 0 0 2 0 1 20 Telegraph.co.uk 24 9 9 0 0 0 0 0

The results are quite informative. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but MailOnline includes the MoS's online content, and we aren't citing the physical newspapers. Using single digit "Upheld" is a weak metric for reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We have in fact cited the physical newspapers quite a lot - most content before 2000 isn't on dailymail.co.uk, for example - and I'd have expected the RFCs covered those - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's getting into "was the Mail more reliable historically" territory, which was discussed in the last RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for table, but I don’t get it. There’s plenty of reliably sourced examples above of unreliable reporting by MOS, so why are numbers relative in table (which should be quite complete) so low? Are reports in MailOnline including problems with MOS (“paper edition”)? To clarify (as I don’t get their structure personally), is MailOnline actually the digital version (ie, word for word) of the paper newspapers? Or is it separate reporting? Further, are all stories in the MOS available word for word on MailOnline, and all MOS stories on MailOnline word for word the ones in the paper edition? And there’s no stories on MailOnline credited to MOS which don’t appear in the paper edition? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated in Wikipedia, and IPSO is widely regarded as a captured regulator. I don't know how many stories from MoS make it into one of print and paper but not the other, but either would count as MoS - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure but I just expected the number to be higher, or at least the number of filed complaints to be higher (in table, it's comparable to The Sunday Times, which doesn't seem right). I think any reliability of the paper copy is relevant though. If it's just MailOnline (which is covered under existing RfCs anyway) it shouldn't be a big issue and this RfC is moot. If the paper copy has reliability issues too, then the RfC is important. So if there's a distinction of content, really this RfC should be focused on if the paper version is equally as crappy. I've never read a copy of the MOS (tabloids with gossip covers aren't quite my thing) so I'm not saying if it's reliable or not, just that the focus should be on the paper component (if it differs). At a skim, looks like a couple of the links by dave souza above are content also included in the paper copy, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm confused David. In your above critique, two of your points use IPSO to criticize the Mail on Sunday. Now after the IPSO table for 2018 is presented, you state that "IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated". This is truly some ironman logic. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since, some people are advocating for deprecating/banning the Mail on Sunday, I thought it would be useful to provide a sampling of some notable journalists and writers who write or have written for the Mail on Sunday.
Some notable Mail on Sunday writers:

• Peter Hitchens
• Liz Jones
• Piers Morgan
• Tom Parker Bowles
• Chris Evans
• David Mellor
• Dan Hodges
• Anna Mikhailova
• Derek Draper
• John Junor
• Julie Burchill
• Austin Mitchell
• Norman Tebbit
• Suzanne Moore
• Rachel Johnson
• Frank Barrett

It would be a loss to the neutrality of Wikipedia if editors were not able to mention the opinion of some of these notable writers from the right-leaning Mail on Sunday, which is the highest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain. It's hard for me to believe that the Quillete or Iranian Press TV, which both received option 3 from this board, are of better quality than the Mail on Sunday. I cannot see how the Mail on Sunday is equivalent to Breitbart News or the National Enquirer, which received option 4 from this board. Wikipedia which is neutral does its readers a disservice by not allowing the opinions of conservative British commentators to be voiced. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

These are opinion pieces, not quality journalism about facts, and as such are subject to the care needed when using any opinion pieces. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources states that "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." If the viewpoint of these commentators is valuable, they can be "voiced" subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not a blanket ban. . . dave souza, talk 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note: it is not ok to cherry pick corrections to build one's case, when there is a very clean and precise comparative table available with complaint and accuracy data. I believe many of the above editors are not aware at how problematic their method of analysis is. I believe the best way for me to show the problem with cherry picking reported errors is to provide cherry picked counter examples of how its competitor the Sunday Times has made similar reporting errors. This is a counter list of reporting errors by the Sunday Times. The table above is the proper way to compare the complaints and accuracy of the different newspapers supervised by the IPSO committee. I'll note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world is incorrect. See Independent Press Standards Organisation#Membership: "Several of the broadsheet newspapers, including the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, have declined to take part in IPSO. The Financial Times and The Guardian have established their own independent complaints systems instead." The latter has long had a "readers’ editor – who is appointed, and can only be dismissed, by the Scott Trust – [and] can comment on issues and concerns raised by the public. There has also been an external ombudsman to whom the readers’ editor can refer substantial grievances, or matters concerning the Guardian’s journalistic integrity." That includes a feature of corrections and clarifications, not waiting for months or a year for IPSO judgment on public complaints.[17][18] . . dave souza, talk 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You are correct. I made a slight mistake. I meant to say that no other set of English-speaking newspapers is monitored by an outside regulatory agency. Most newspapers have procedures in place to deal with corrections, and many bigger newspapers have a newspaper ombudsman who deals with questions of journalism ethics and standards. The position is independent of the control of the newspapers's chief-editor and perhaps owner. Frankly, I think wikipedia should think about getting a centralized corrections "ombudsmen" who the reader could easily deal with in order to ask for corrections. For many wikipedia readers the talk page and how to ask for corrections is a mystery. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Fox RFC was also full of people going "but whatabout this other paper that isn't the subject of discussion". If you and Betty Logan want to start an RFC on the Sunday Times, that should be its own discussion. If you don't, then you need to discuss the MoS - whataboutery about other papers really isn't an argument. And nor is going "this is numbers, therefore they are the end of the discussion" - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point David. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad point. Clearly the number of corrections/complaints are relevant if you're using them in this RFC as a ban-rationale. Clearly it's relevant if the MoS receives no more complaints/corrections than sources that are recognised as reliable sources. It is simply facile logic to say "but those reliable newspapers aren't under discussion - you should open an RFC on blocking those reliable sources" because everyone knows that an RFC on the reliability of the Sunday Times would be snow-closed and the nominator would be at risk of a ban for wasting everyone's time. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources
References

Most of the information appears to be anecdotal. The New York Times and other mainstream media pushed the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, deliberately helping to start a war that foreseeably would kill hundreds of thousands of people, displace millions and cost trillions of dollars. That is more serious than the MOS publishing defamatory information about a beautician that they retracted after an IPSO complaint. The fact that IPSO upheld 9 complaints against them in one year is not statistically significant considering that they publish 52-53 issues each year. That works out to 1 error every six weeks, which is subsequently retracted. We don't expect that news media is 100% correct in reporting. We expect a small error rate and that the most significant errors will be corrected on a timely basis. The New York Times for example publishes error corrections every day. The MOS of course is not in the same league, but its accuracy rate is close to 100%. TFD (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, this RfC conflates the Mail's website and the printed Mail on Sunday newspaper.

While I have no time for the company's owners, nor their outlets' politics, I recognise that, like most newspapers, the reliability of its coverage varies. Large parts of the content of the Mail on Sunday - especially outside the spin of its political columnists - are both reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) and well-written; some of it by guest contributors whose relatability we would not doubt if published in another newspaper (most recently, for example, David Attenborough). Sadly, I've seen too many cases of the DM being blindly removed as a source even where its coverage is both reliable and unique, leaving statements unsupported or, worse, substituting source which do not support the valid statements made. This RfC, if it passes, will see the same happen to the Mail on Sunday. Wikipedia editors should - and should be allowed to - exercise judgment on a case by case basis, just like other adults. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to respond to the point that the proposers "are tired" of arguing about the Daily Mail and newspapers related to it in some way: there was absolutely no reason at all given here to propose this ban now. The reason why people keep arguing about the Mail is because you keep opening these RFCs - there is no other reason, especially no actual content-related reason, why it is still being discussed. In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. The impression is of a group of people for whom the DM ban was their greatest moment and as such they wish to revisit it again and again. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. If you read the discussion above -probably a useful step if you're going to weigh in on a discussion - you will see that your statement here is trivially incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

David, where is an actual issue with an actual article actually referenced in this entire farago? You deleting MoS references from articles is not an "issue with an article". You need to show that people are relying on MoS as a source and that this is causing actual problems (eg., it is being used to push fringe or incorrect views above and beyond what may happen with reliable sources), not "people are occasionally relying on MoS as a source and the problem is I keep deleting it because this is what I choose to prioritise". FOARP (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

PS - David, whilst we're at it, please explain this edit. Even if you think the DM ban applies to MoS why are you deleting statements from the MoS about what the MoS book of the week is - i.e., a situation where the MoS is talking about itself, a scenario which is explicitly allowed for by the DM 2017 RFC close ("the Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion")? To me it doesn't look like the problem is with people citing the MoS here. FOARP (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

HYPR sources, are they good enough to start an article?

Hello, I have a couple sources and I don't know if they are considered reliable independent and sig coverage, I tried to create the article through AfC but it got deleted. I am not happy with the explanation. These are the sources I would like to know if they meet WP:NCORP, thanks to everyone :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)

Sources

Ivan (Jovan) Radonjic letter to Queen Catherine 2

Hello, there is an ongoing long discussion without concensus on Vasojevic talk page [19] about the letter send by Radonjic (2 letters in 1788. and 1789.) to Queen Catherine 2 , is it reliable source and does it goes under WP:AGE MATTERS since there is also reference of the letter from an autor from 1900. Thank you. User:Cobalton (talk) 15:24, 20.September 2020 (UTC)

Is Wafa.ps a RS?

Wafa.ps is the news agency of the Palestinian National Authority (the interim government in the PA), as such it should not be considered a RS and should only be used with inline attribution, when absolutely necessary. It is currently being used in many articles, and especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area where it surely shouldn't be used at all. I would love to depreciate it considering there is absolutely zero fact checking but I just want to open this up for discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be quoted for facts by New York Times, Washington Post, BBC News, Reuters etc.VR _talk 02:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, No, it's quoted inline for "as per Wafa," which is not what I'm asking here.

We've had cases here before where NYTimes used a source and we still ruled it wasn't a RS. We aren't the NY Times, and if Wafa is an official mouthpiece of a government and isn't RS, then we shouldn't be using it.

Plus, as the NY Times article mentions, it explicitly calls out that Wafa is the "official Palestinian news agency," IOW, that is not something we should be using without inline attribution at the least, (which is what the NY Times did). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Er, yes, WAFA is a very reliable news agency. Not sure why you would think otherwise? By Western standards, its web site is bare bones, but that is an advantage to Palestinians who browse with bandwidth-limited mobile phones. Generally, if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA will have something up within a few hours at most.

True, WAFA "spins" news; if Israel bombs Gaza, WAFA might "forget" to note that PIJ fired rockets into Israel earlier in the day. But that is par for the course and Israeli media is equally guilty of "spinning" news. WAFAs factual reporting is very rarely incorrect. Furthermore, its reporting is often more detailed than Israeli or Western sources. While they might report: "Israel bombed targets in Gaza," WAFA might report: "Israeli warplanes struck three targets in Gaza; Khan Younis, Rafah and Beit Hanoun, causing material damage but no injuries." If what it reports isn't cross-checked, it will report it as "according to local sources ... " or "according to local activist Mohammed Something ..." exactly like other news agencies.

WAFA is frequently cited by other Middle Eastern media houses. For example, by IMEMC, Anadolu Agency, Al-Monitor, Middle East Monitor, and Palestine Chronicle. It's even cited by Israeli news sites like Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz. And by UN's media reviews.

If that isn't enough to convince you, then I don't know what would. Sometimes, when Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers, B'Tselem publishes investigative reports months later. For example, here is WAFA's report of the killing of Ibrahim Mustafa Abu-Yaaqoub and here is B'Tselem's investigation. As seen, their reports correlate well.

Frankly, I'm alarmed by this campaign to blacklist more and more news sources. The effect is that events that Western media doesn't think are important can't be noted on Wikipedia. There is no replacement for WAFA. If you blacklist that (and by extension, all Palestinian news outlets that are objectively worse), the end result would be that you'd have exactly zero Palestinian news agencies that would be permissible on Wikipedia. And it doesn't stop there, you'd have to blacklist the vast majority of African, Middle Eastern and Latin American news agencies too. ImTheIP (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, We try very hard not to use official government news agencies. And note, all the "ACCORDING TO WAFA." That is not the same as using the source as a "ref" tag, without inline cite, which would be better. You can't say "X did this" and source it to Wafa without saying, "According to Wafa...." That should be the bare minimum here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My point is that news orgs trust WAFA. Especially Israeli news orgs which is significant because due to their physical proximity to the OPTs, they are better judges of WAFA's trustworthiness than Western news orgs.

Read the Times of Israel article. Boxerman's article is a derivative of a WAFA report; he relies on WAFA for the photos, the video, and the quotes from the involved doctors. Here is another recent article by Boxerman where he credits WAFA for the image. He doesn't credit WAFA for the content, but he clearly "borrowed" the "meters away" formulation from WAFA's report published an hour earlier.

These aren't isolated examples. Sometimes when Israeli journalists write stories based on WAFA's reporting they don't credit WAFA and then it is of course difficult to prove that they relied on WAFA if there isn't an obvious temporal correlation and some key phrases reused. Sometimes they write: "According to the Palestinian Wafa news agency, Mohammad Majd Kamil died after falling from a high place while being chased by Israeli police in the Galilee town of Arrabat al-Bottuf on Tuesday." The "according to ... Wafa" clause isn't there because WAFA is considered untrustworthy, it's there because citing your sources is good journalistic practice. If they thought WAFA was untrustworthy why would they cite WAFA at all!?

I cannot see any rule about government-affiliated news agencies in WP:RS. And we cite BBC, Yle, NRK, RAI, France 2, PBS, etc, all the time. On List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 we cite the IDF spokesperson's twitter account and on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2015 we cite Shin Bet. If we can cite Shin Bet (without "according to" qualification, mind you) I think we can cite WAFA.

I agree that "according to ..." is required for controversial content. But the content that you removed that was sourced to WAFA wasn't controversial. A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10] I fail to see how prefixing this sentence with "According to Wafa, ..." makes anything better. Can one remove the "according to Wafa" if MEMO writes about the clashes or does one have to wait until (and if) the Jerusalem Post covers it? Does the "according to" have to be applied to COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine? "According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 806 new cases ... According to WAFA, Mai Alkaila confirmed 433 new case ... According to WAFA, ai Alkaila confirmed 632 ne ..."

tl;dr WAFA isn't Sputnik News, don't get fooled by the website's layout, don't blacklist the most reliable English-language Palestinian news source. ImTheIP (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, What is your evidence that this is "the most reliable English-language Palestinian news source"? (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Some government news sources are reliable. Usually they are those like BBC, Deutsche Welle, which have editorial independence from their government. On the other hand, there are other government sources such as RT or Telewizja Polska which are infamous for spreading propaganda and disinformation; these ones tend to be controlled by the ruling party of the country. Who runs Wafa and is it editorially independent from Fatah? (If not, at the very least, it cannot be considered an independent source for Palestinian politics). BTW, if some event is only reported by the IDF but not covered by any independent sources, then it is probably not DUE in mainspace either.
• It is possible for a journalist to cite sources without using the "according to" construction: just state the fact while including an external link underneath to the source. Use of the "according to" construction indicates that the secondary source is not taking responsibility for the accuracy of information. Wikipedia should follow suit by attributing in any controversial case (not COVID cases, these are reported according to official govt statistics, no matter how dubious). (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• unreliable propaganda like RT. See Wafa's about: "WAFA was established as an independent body that was structurally, politically and administratively linked to the PLO Executive Committee" (so not independent). President Abbas exerts control: "On May 9, 2011, President Abbas also issued a presidential decree on the organization of WAFA’s work pursuant to Item II of Article VI on drawing up WAFA’s administrative and organizational structure, which ushered in a new institutional structure for WAFA in terms of job specializations and tasks.". Going on to their functions: "1. Gather news... accordance with the provisions of the presidential decree", "3. Contribute to the fulfillment of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s public policies in line with the higher Palestinian interests". Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Like Eostrix noted No independent news board they similar to RT or SPUTNIK. Shrike (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mainly Reliable

Federation of Arab News Agencies (FANA), "the Palestinian News & Information Agency (WAFA) won the best report Award 2019"

Strengthening and funding WAFA development and Palestinian media legislation saw the active involvement of UNESCO; a recent report found nothing adverse other than Wafa's privileged access in a market where there is a plurality of private media (that were encouraged to set up by the PA) UNESCO Office Ramallah (24 November 2014). Assessment of media development in Palestine: based on UNESCO's media development indicators. UNESCO. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-92-3-100021-8.

The Italian Government provided US $1.5 million as far back as 1997 for the strengthening of Wafa. This newsorg has been around for a long time and one has to wonder why is this just coming up now? This listing seems ill-motivated, where are the examples of false reporting or errors of fact? Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, reliable only for what Abbas/PLO says. Besides being a stated propaganda mouthpiece controlled by the PLO, WAFA is known for routinely publishing laughable conspiracy theories. For instance: [20][21][22]

  Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem

  The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:

  Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.

  In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [23](copy)

  A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.

  11Fox11 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Se below for a discussion of these claims.

• Generally reliable for facts in the Palestinian territories. As shown by ImTheIP, Wafa is widely quoted by Western reliable sources for facts in the Palestinian territories as well positions of the PNA. It seems like one of the most reliable Palestinian sources for news. Wafa is probably a WP:BIASEDSOURCE when it comes to reports that involves those opposed to the PNA (mainly Israel and Hamas) and caution should be exercised in those cases.VR _talk 16:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, except for official PLO statements. It is the media arm of the PLO, controlled tightly by it. It is the sort of place that publishes "Palestinian man killed at checkpoint" while omitting that the man was a suicide bomber with 50 pounds of explosives strapped to his chest. --Hippeus (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not generally reliable Since the source is under the editorial control of the Palestinian authority, it is not an independent source with regards to Palestinian politics or the I/P conflict. Similar to official statements by the Israeli government, incidents covered in WAFA lack due weight if not reported by an independent source. Should be attributed, especially when the content is controversial (injuries and deaths related to the I/P conflict are always controversial). (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for Palestine-related POV: Reliability != neutrality, and likewise partisan != unreliable. Reliability of a source is not dependent on whether or not a source is partisan. Per WP:NPOV#Bias in sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". In other words, the POV policy makes it clear that sources are allowed to be biased. Furthermore: a quick search on Wiki indicates that several "gov.il" websites are cited close to 9,000 times on Wikipedia. If the official websites of the settler-colonial apartheid regime in Palestine are allowed to be cited on Wikipedia - all in the name of presenting the Israeli POV and all that - then there should be ZERO problems with using Wafa, with proper attribution if necessary. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, case-by-case on controversial topics - the source is used extensively by generally reliable media sources as ImTheIP has thoroughly shown below. Al-Andalusi makes a very good point that the Israeli government website is cited 9,000 times, so excluding this source because it has affiliation with the Palestinian government would make little sense. It is important that local Palestinian reporting is available for the Palestinian territories. Caution is required for both Palestinian and Israeli sources when they report on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For basic noncontroversial news, WAFA is completely fine. For the specific case of the content that was removed, which states that "A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10]", WAFA can be used. This statement is not controversial. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I did wonder why this was coming up just now and now I see that it is because the lister had already reverted edits the day before the listing claiming that wafa was not an rs. So this was nothing more than an attempt to obtain post fact confirmation of an edit/claim already done/made.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable fake news. WAFA has no journalistic standards, it is controlled by Palestinian politicians, and regularly publishes fake news, treating Palestinian folkloric beliefs and antisemitic conspiracy theories as fact. For example: Israel Floods Gaza Neighborhood with Rainwater stating as fact that: "Almost every year, the Israeli authorities open the floodgates to their dams in the direction of Gaza and without prior notice, to discharge massive quantities of water...". Total fake, as according to AFP: "no such dam exists in Israel that could control the flow of water into Gaza". Vici Vidi (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

See comments below refuting your arguments here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing refuted. You showed that the WP:DAILYMAIL and other media was confused by the 100% fake Palestinian propaganda and published it, with attribution back to the Palestinian officials. The Daily Mail, and other media, retracted their stories, recognizing they shouldn't have even published this libel to begin with. WAFA did not retract, and it published these claims without attribution, stating as a WAFA-fakt that Israel does this every year. Thank you for showing that WAFA has less journalistic integrity than the banned Dali Mail. Vici Vidi (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Though caveat emptor applies. I.e. controversial claims should be attributed and/or sourced from more reliable publishers (Reuters, BBC, ...). ImTheIP (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Basic facts about WAFA

The Palestine News and Information Agency (WAFA) was founded by the PLO in 1972. In 1994 it became part of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It was reformed between 2008 and 2011 to bring it closer to the presidency. Donor pressure unhappy with what they saw as inciting content was perhaps the reason. WAFA, the Palestinian Public Radio and Television Corporation, and Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda (daily news) are the main media channels of the PA. All Fatah-affiliated. Only WAFA publishes in English.

There are only a handful news orgs based in the OPTs publishing in English. WAFA's competitors are the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network, the "independent" Palestinian Information Center (PIC), and the palestine news network (pnn). Their reporting is more often than not derivative of WAFA's. For example, WAFA's report about settlers attacking olive harvesters is the basis for both pnn's short article and PIC's article. Thus, if you blacklist WAFA you have to blacklist these news orgs too since they publish rewrites of WAFA's articles.

How does WAFA make news? Like all other wire services it relies on a network of freelancers. When they see stuff happen, they record it on video, they take photos, and they talk to witnesses. Then they send their material to WAFA which publishes it. If the news is interesting enough, it is broadcast on tv, otherwise it's just pushed on the news feed. Exactly how all other wire services in the world operate. And it is not true that WAFA has no editorial control. Kholoud Assaf is WAFA's editor-in-chief.

Here is a bunch of reporting from the BBC that in part or in full relies on WAFA:

1999: [24], [25], 2001: [26], 2002: [27], [28], [29], [30], 2003: [31], [32], 2006: [33], 2007: [34], [35], [36], [37], 2011: [38], 2012: [39], [40], 2013: [41], [42], [43], 2014: [44], 2015: [45], 2016: [46], [47], [48], 2017: [49], 2018: [50], [51], [52], 2019: [53], [54], 2020: [55], [56]

By no means is this an exhaustive list - there are hundreds more BBC articles that cite WAFA and a similar list could be made for virtually every news org in the world. Just to drive the point home that WAFA is reliable and has been around for a loong time, here is some of WaPo's reporting from the Lebanese Civil War in the late 70's early 80's that in part or in full relies on WAFA:

1977: [57], 1978: [58], [59], [60], [61], 1979: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], 1980: [68], [69], [70], [71], 1981: [72], [73], [74], 1982: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], 1983: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89] , 1985: [90]

In these artices WaPo is actually sourcing WAFA for facts. For example, in this article from 1981 WaPo writes in its lead paragraph: Waves of Israeli warplanes bombed heavily populated Palestinian neighborhoods in Beirut and targets in southern Lebanon today, killing at least 123 persons and wounding hundreds more in Israel's most devastating attack here since its invasion in 1978. How does WaPo know that at least 123 persons were killed? It relies on WAFA: As of late afternoon, the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that the death toll had reached 123 but later the Phalangist radio put the figure at 150. ImTheIP (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In these cases, as far as I can tell, WAFA is attributed, i.e. the source repeating the information is not taking full responsibility for whether WAFA's reporting is accurate. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you are asking me to do something nigh impossible to prove WAFA's reliability. I'm tasked to find articles that sources WAFA for facts but does not credit WAFA as the source for these facts. I'm sure you understand why finding such articles would be difficult? You can yourself try to find articles on the BBC that sources Haaretz for facts but does not credit Haaretz as the source for these facts. While not impossible, it is time consuming to find such articles because you have to match keyword phrases that indictate that the journalist in question engaged in some copy-pasting. I provided one example above where Boxerman borrowed facts from WAFA without crediting WAFA. Are more examples needed or do you trust me when I assert that that happens frequently?

Likewise, I have no idea what taking "full responsibility for" means. Media houses in general don't take responsibility for each others reporting. The BBC reports: Crusader winery found under house in Israel. How does the BBC know? The townspeople have been working together to shore up the ruins of the 12th century King's Castle that dominates their Galilee skyline under the guidance of local archaeologist Rabei Khamisy, the Haaretz newspaper reports. Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?

The BBC reports: Palestinian Mohammad Abu Khdair 'was burned alive'. How does the BBC know? The Palestinian official news agency Wafa quoted the attorney-general as saying that Mr Aloul had reported fire dust in the respiratory canal, meaning the victim had "inhaled this material while he was burnt alive". Is the BBC taking "full responsibility"?

I think I have provided much evidence that shows that WAFA is considered a reliable wire service, both in Israel and in the rest of the Western world. Those who claim that WAFA is not reliable have not provided any evidence of journalistic malpractice or of dubious reporting. I think this case should be dismissed with prejudice since it is based on a falsehood: "there is absolutely zero fact checking" There clearly is fact-checking. ImTheIP (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is also quoted by others. WAFA is often quoted by others to convey official Palestinian statements or in the funny section to laugh about conspiracy theories they publish. For instance: [91][92][93]

Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem

The same report notes that WAFA also has pig conspiracy theories:

Wafa , controlled and funded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes and fields in the West Bank.

In case you were wondering, they are stilling doing it in 2017: [94](copy)

A wild pig attacked, on Friday night, a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun ... Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.

11Fox11 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah promoting wild anti-Semitic theories about animals doesn't sound too reliable for me --Shrike (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The zero-evidence train of innuendo and dubious inference promulgated by the pro-Israel crowd is simply laughable. Ironically, WAFA was initially set up to counter Israeli propaganda and has done a pretty good job of it. This isn't the Jewish Virtual Library full of errors of fact and omission with no oversight, this is a perfectly respectable newsorg with an inside track to the Palestinian leadership, that's all. There is nothing else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If so, why is it reporting conspiracy theories with no evidence? (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The reprints above seem to say that Wafa is reporting what it was told by Palestinian residents. Can someone find the original Wafa article? There is a difference in promoting a conspiracy theory and reporting on one and what else does Wafa say in its coverage. Newspapers will and should report on conspiracy theories common among their audience.VR _talk 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Levels of responsibility is important to journalism. For example, sometimes Reuters will report something but attribute it to a different news source or an individual. This is different from reporting it in their own voice. See Jonathan Fenby, The International News Services (1986) p. 25. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If pig conspiracy theories is your best shot, give up now.Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The boar story

There is a Western tradition of treating Palestinians as liars-by-default. Unless confirmed by a non-Arab, a Palestinian's claim is more often than not seen as "the product of the well-known over-imaginative Arab mind."

The "wild pigs" story described by 11Fox11 sounds similarly outlandish if you don't know about the context.

The West Bank population of wild boars have exploded in the recent decades and is a serious menace. Why the population has exploded is unknown; some blame the construction of the West Bank barrier, others the decline of the number of hyenas which are the wild boars natural predators.

A single pack of wild boars can inflict almost catastrophic destruction to agricultural lands. Palestinian farmers are effectively defenseless against wild boar attacks; they are neither allowed to have firearms nor to kill them using poison traps. Settlers, on the other hand are, and they shot at wild boars that get too close to their settlements. Wild boars are wickedly smart animals and learn to stay away from settlements and instead they gather in Palestinian areas.

Many Palestinians are afraid of wild boars and consider them unclean animals. Fully-grown wild boars weigh upwards of 200 kg. An attacking wild boars can cause serious injury to children. Palestinian farmers fault Israel for refraining from culling the wild boar population. They also suspect that it is part of a strategy to make their lives miserable. Likewise, some farmers fault settlers for letting wild boars roam instead of shooting them.

There have been multiple reports of settlers using wild boars to harass Palestinians. Nothing has (afaik) been confirmed. Thus, we don't know if the reports are true or the product of over-imaginative Arab minds. Settlers have probably not dumped truckloads of wild boars into Palestinian areas. However, it is not beyond the pale to suspect that armed extremist settlers have intentionally driven packs of wild boars into Palestinian built-up areas and agricultural lands. There is an infamous settlement known as Yitzhar in the Northern West Bank and its inhabitants are known to act like utter pricks against their Palestinian neighbours.

Here are some reporting on the wild boar problem:

• The Wild Boar and Feces Epidemic in Palestine by Vice
• Cooperation with Wild Boars in Palestine by a blogger
• Wild Boars in West Bank Causing Damage to Palestinian Villages and Farms by POICA
• FROM ANIN TO ZBUBA by Oakland Institute
• Jenin residents fend off hyenas by Times of Israel
• قطعان الخنازير .. أداة المستوطنين الجديدة للاستيلاء على الأراضي الزراعية by Al-Quds from 2020.

The al-Quds article is very indepth and interviews numerous Palestinian officials and farmers affected by the wild boars. A number of them claim that settlers have "released wild boars" and a number of them claim to have been injured by wild boars. I cannot tell if the article is "pure propaganda". If it is, then it's damn convincing propaganda.

Let's investigate the Wafa article in question:

A wild pig attacked on Friday night a 10-year-old child in the town of Yamoun, west of Jenin, causing her injury in her hand, according to local sources. They said Alaa Houshieh was admitted to hospital after she as bit in her hand by a pig.

Note that the story is credited to local sources and that the report doesn't mention settlers.

Palestinians say Israeli settlers let wild pigs run loose in the fields to attack farmers and villagers as a way to keep them off their land.

That is indeed what many Palestinians say.

The residents, who say they never before had wild pigs in the West Bank until the settlers came there, have urged the Palestinian Authority to help get rid of the wild pigs in their areas, which have become a threat to them, particularly children.

The first part is, afaik, an exaggeration; wild boars are indigenous to the West Bank, even though they are a much bigger problem now than ever before. Wafa's report is one-sided - it doesn't give the settlers nor the Israeli government's view of the story - but the actual reporting seem to be sound: a 10-year-old girl in Yamoun was bit in the hand by a wild boar, according to local sources.

CNN touches on the wild boars problem in 3 cars torched, mosque defaced in West Bank:

"This is not the first time Deir Istiya village (has) come under attack by the settlers," Salman said. "Deir Istiya is surrounded by nine Israeli settlements, and we are attacked and harassed by settlers on daily basis." Salman said settlers released some 300 wild pigs into the farming fields of the village, which destroyed and damaged the seasonal crops of the Palestinian farmers.

I frankly fail to see much difference between CNN's take and Wafa's. Here is one article in the BBC about Israeli "guard pigs":

Rabbis back Israeli 'guard pigs'

Under Jewish law, pigs are seen as unclean

An organisation in Israel has gained rabbinical approval to train pigs to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

If that article had been published in Wafa it would have been called blood libel. But now it's published in the BBC. So what gives? Last year the Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli scientists would have "a complete cure for cancer in a year". Earlier this year it was fooled to publish slanderous op-eds by deepfaked author profiles. Wafa is absolutely not the best news agency, but it is also far from the worst. As a source for incident reports, e.g. A 16-year-old Palestinian was shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier during clashes in Beit Ummar north of Hebron.[10], it is very reliable. ImTheIP (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oxfam has also described boar attacks: here is a constantly present risk of seeing the settlers turn up in the fields to attack Palestinian farmers – a frequent occurrence here. In addition to this violence, there is also the tactic of letting loose wild boars, which wreck crops and scare the villagers. According to Arutz Sheva, Combatants for Peace has also spread the wild boars story. I don't think the boar story is true, but I also don't think it is proof that Wafa is unreliable since so many other media outlets have featured it (among them CNN). ImTheIP (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The rat story

In 2008, rat infestation was a major problem in Jerusalem. The Muslim quarter is densely built, run-down, and leaky sewage pipes are common. Perfect conditions for rats. Hasan Khater exists and he has complained about Israeli policies in East Jerusalem (which the Old City is part of). One common complaint among Palestinians is that Israel is trying to "Judaize" Jerusalem (i.e. increase the fraction of the population that is Jewish). Palestinians allege that as part of this goal, Israel denies them permits for construction and renovation works.

There exists groups of aggressive religious settlers that tries to take over Palestinian property in Jerusalem. The quotes from the supposed Wafa article (I haven't been able to find the original article) implies that it is these groups that are described ("dozens of settlers come to the alleyways and streets of the Old City"). If Wafa has reported a rumour about them releasing rats as if it were facts, that is of course wrong. However, calling it anti-Semitic blood libel is a stretch. Persistent rumors about organ harvesting circulated among Palestinians in the 1990s. They were also "anti-Semitic blood libel" until they were proven true. It's hard to know what is fact or fiction.

Perhaps it is also relevant that the Jerusalem Post journalist that wrote the article, Khaled Abu Toameh, is a fellow at the Gatestone Institute, run by Amir Taheri... ImTheIP (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing was proven to be true. This wrong medicine practice was specifically not against Palestinians but it was done to slain Israeli Soldiers too. Repeating anti-Semitic label is a beyond the pale. Shrike (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that rumors of organ harvesting spread among Palestinians already in the late 1980's. Brave whistle blowers proved the rumors true in the early 2000's or so. That the organ harvesting also affected Israelis is beside the point.

Israel-related animal conspiracy theories refers. There, the rat nonsense is referenced to an opinion piece of 2008 in an Irish newspaper that I found in the wayback machine. It says the story was in two Palestinian newspapers but does not mention their names and specifically does not mention WAFA. So the article misrepresents the source to have said WAFA, when it does not. I think I have wasted quite enough time on this tripe.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What Its have to do with opinion piece from 2012? It was report from 2008 by JPOST that first spotted the story. Shrike (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

See the article I mentioned, first sentence of the rat section, sourcing it to the Irish columnist (in 2008, the way back is 2012, perhaps the story gets better with each retelling?) and asserting that HE mentioned WAFA, which he did not. ImtheIP already dealt with the JP article. Significant that the actual Wafa article cannot be found. There WAS mice and rat infestation in 2008, complained of by Palestinians as "deliberate and willful neglect by the Municipality of Arab neighborhoods in the Old City of Jerusalem" and covered here here,Israeli violations in Jerusalem during the month of June, 2008. Perhaps this story was made up and circulated to cover this.Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This pro Israel archival source identifies the two Palestinian papers responsible,Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, controlled by the office of Mahmoud Abbas, July 18, 2008 & Al-Ayyam, July 17, 2008. Note that neither of these is Wafa and that this also agrees with the Irish reporter account leaving our friend at JP as the outlier. So that's the end of that.Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What Irish blogger?The op-ed is from 2012 Please give a direct link/quote.Anyhow it doesn't matter several Palestinian news outlets might have been printing the same anti-Semitic label --Shrike (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually reading anything I am writing? This matter is closed, it wasn't Wafa..end of.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did read you didn't proven anything your wild speculation doesn't count.JP is reputable source with history of accuracy Shrike (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not speculating, I provided two independent sources contradicting the JP account and the actual Palestinian newspapers that made the story have been identified, neither of them being Wafa, which also explains why the claimed Wafa article cannot be located.Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Again being printed in two other papers don't preclude it being printed in WAFA as per JPOST report Shrike (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You have zero evidence for that assertion whereas I have produced a concrete source...with quotes and dates just a few days before the JP article. And it is from a pro Israel source that that JP author has written for. Like I said, this stuff and pigs is all you got, give it up.Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the specific question?

"Is Wafa an RS?" is far too broad a question to answer. Is there a specific use of Wafa that you want evaluated? What's the context for this request? These broad deprecation discussions are really getting out of hand. WP:RSN used to be for specific questions about whether sources were reliable in specific contexts, not general free-for-all discussions about all aspects of a source. Wafa is a major news agency. It will probably be reliable in most contexts, but like many news agencies, there are probably specific contexts in which it should be used with caution or compared against other sources (e.g., for highly contentious subjects in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you might want to compare what Palestinian, Israeli and international news agencies are reporting). A specific question is answerable. A general discussion about whether Wafa is at all reliable will lead nowhere, or worse, will end up with yet another overly broad deprecation of the kind we've seen too often over the past year. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Fake news, making up non-existent dams

Every WAFA story has a grain of truth. The typical mold is that something bad happened in Palestine, and usually that has some factual basis. However WAFA typically presents such events as being controlled and directed by Israel, settlers, or "the Jews". Thus, Israel is responsible for rain, in 2015 WAFA published: Israel Floods Gaza Neighborhood with Rainwater, stating as a factual assertion that:

Almost every year, the Israeli authorities open the floodgates to their dams in the direction of Gaza and without prior notice, to discharge massive quantities of water that had accumulated due to the heavy rains in the Naqab region.

However, this was pure fake news, there are no dams that allow for control of flow of water in the Wadi, according to AFP:

But no such dam exists in Israel that could control the flow of water into Gaza, according to a team of AFP reporters on the ground as well as interviews with Israeli and international experts.

This outright lie by WAFA is typical, spinning the events of the moment to suit political purposes, even when the lie itself is easily refuted as false. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You notably failed to mention that Al Jazeera posted this material and that it was repeated by AFP (they might have been the first, on 22nd), by the Daily Fail and many other news media, including Wafa. AJ identified Brigadier General Said Al-Saudi, chief of the civil defence agency in Gaza as the source for the allegations (as did Wafa) and later retracted the article. I assume you will now be looking to delist AJ, AFP and others in addition to Wafa as fake news providers? You stated that Wafa "regularly publishes fake news" and yet you have only managed to contrive this example? Or are you too relying on boars and rats? (you claimed they are "treating Palestinian folkloric beliefs and antisemitic conspiracy theories as fact" but provided no evidence for this assertion) Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, WP:DAILYMAIL, and other media were confused by the 100% fake Palestinian propaganda and published it, usually with attribution back to the Palestinian officials. Al Jazeera, the Daily Mail, and other media, retracted their stories. WAFA did not retract, and it published these claims without attribution, stating as a WAFA-fakt that Israel does this every year. There's a big difference here, and it actually demonstrates that WAFA operates at a lower journalistic integrity than the Daily Mail which is banned from Wikipedia because of its poor integrity. Vici Vidi (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No, all it demonstrates is that you are trying to hold Wafa to a higher standard of behavior than AFP, AJ who did exactly the same as Wafa did. They were all misled by the Gaza Brigadier at his news conference. So, have you anything else except this one story? I am still waiting for evidence to support the assertions "regularly publishes fake news" and "treating Palestinian folkloric beliefs and antisemitic conspiracy theories as fact"Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This is silly. You are arguing that Wafa disseminates lies and half-truths by disseminating lies and half-truths. Here is an article about how a an Israeli dam burst in 2001 and what impact it had on the surrounding ecosystem, including Gaza: The Nahal Oz Reservoir dam-break flood: Geomorphic impact on a small ephemeral loess-channel in the semi-arid Negev Desert, Israel. It has lots of pictures so you can see exactly where the wadis and reservoirs are located.

The claim that Israel couldn't flood Gaza is false since a dam-break in 2001 in fact flooded Gaza.

There are three wadis in Gaza; Wadi Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, Wadi Gaza in central Gaza, and Wadi Silka in the southern Gaza. Water to Wadi Beit Hanoun and Wadi Gaza comes from wadis in Israel such as Besor. Israel has built an interlinked system of reservoirs and channels to harvest rainwater from the wadis in the Negev. This has caused the downstream Wadi Beit Hanoun and Wadi Gaza to dry up. In this way, Israel is diverting 30 mcm of water per year which otherwise would have benefited Gazan farmers. When Israel's rainwater capture system overflows, it results in sudden flash floods in Gaza, as described in this report from 2007, many years before flood libel became a thing:

Floods generally occur in the wadis only once every two years. The peak discharge and thus flood volumes are directly related to catchment size (Amit et al., 2007). Generally, water runs in the Gaza Strip wadis for a short time during the winter season; they remain dry for the rest of the year. Flooding in the Gaza Strip rarely occurs, and seems to take place only when the volumes of water in Israeli dams exceed their capacities. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the wadis in the Gaza Strip.

The Israelis don't warn the Palestinians when the system is about to overflow. There is at least one dam (proper "dam" - not reservoir) in the Negev, the Yeruham Dam, and it is indeed used for flood control. ImTheIP (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The repetition of debunked fake news above is silly. As AFP states: "no such dam exists in Israel that could control the flow of water into Gaza". You are confusing water reservoirs (which did not burst in 2015) and very small fixed dams with no control mechanisms, as pointed out by AFP:

What does exist here is a low stone structure, barely a metre high, next to a shallow concrete channel, which is sometimes referred to as a "diversion dam" -- whose purpose is to slow the flow of water so some of it can be diverted into a nearby reservoir for irrigation purposes, Kretschmer explained. It has no gates, nor openings, and when the flood waters hit, they simply glide over it as if it did not exist. "If it does anything, it actually reduces the quantity of water flowing towards Gaza, and not the opposite," Shahaf said.

There are small fixed diversion dams, that if at all reduce flood surges towards Gaza, and that are fixed stone structures. The allegation that Israel opened dams was false, as dams with control structures that could cause such a large release do not exist. Al Jazeera retracted, even the WP:DAILYMAIL[95] retracted. WAFA printed bullshit (and this is basic geography any local source should know, this is hardly an honest mistake), it did not bother to retract, it is still sitting with all its fake glory with no attribution. They even continue to repeat the dam bullshit years later: January 2019, January 2020, a regular January story on WAFA, ignored just like any other fake WAFA story. Vici Vidi (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, what "other fake WAFA story"? a) it's an AFP, AJ and loads of other media fake story, not just Wafa and b) it's still only one story not many as you keep implying. And Wafa did attribute, so that statement is also false.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, the earliest version of this story I could find goes back to 2010, a reliefweb (OCHA) story stating "In addition to the natural disaster, Israel has worsened the situation by opening a dam located in the Green Line which borders the Gaza Valley." and pointing to a source article from the Palestinian Red Crescent but that article only says "What has worsened the situation is the flooding of water from the Green Line area which borders the Gaza Valley." and says nothing about a dam. If OCHA claimed that in its own voice in 2010, which seems to be the case, then it's hardly surprising that the local citizenry believe it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

World Health Organization (who.int)

• who.int  

But it looks likely for scientific purpose from WP:MEDRS, which is generally reliable for COVID-19 sources. --The Houndsworth (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• What's the question here? WHO is obviously reliable, but will fail MEDRS for biomedical facts. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources like R&D blueprints were published by the WHO, for example, the phase plans for COVID-19 vaccine. --The Houndsworth (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the examples? Sounds like they distributed/hosted preprints. They did not author articles or review them? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 13:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the plan of COVID-19 vaccine from the WHO. [96] --The Houndsworth (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Most content on the WHO website is not written by WHO, but rather comes from whatever nation's government employees are liaison for their region with the WHO. There is a wide variation in the quality of content. WHO is a publisher with rather relaxed editorial standards. Just because a report is WHO branded does not mean that, for example, it is of the same quality as peer reviewed journal content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Political endorsements: Fox

Fox is correctly considered dubious for politics, does this prevent use of Fox as a source for political endorsements? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

WP:POLEND states:

1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

This was adopted after a community-wide RfC and is an obvious extension of WP:BLP given the potential impact of an erroneous claim of endorsement of one candidate or another.

Opinions (Political endorsements: Fox)

• Looks like a yes, on its face. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Context-dependent (not something we necessarily need a general yes/no for) - "no consensus" for Fox on politics (assuming we're not talking about the talk shows), which is why it's an open question (i.e. not generally reliable, not unreliable), so best to handle on a case-by-case basis. If some major national figure said something that other sources aren't considering an endorsement but Fox is, that might be cause for concern. On the other hand, if Fox is the only one to mention that some state senator made an endorsement and it seems more or less uncontroversial, I wouldn't see a problem with that (assuming the endorsement met the other criteria). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Context-dependent. I should point out Fox News is not considered dubious for politics; rather there is no consensus on whether it is or isn't reliable in that subject area. That means we need to assess such reporting on a case-by-case basis following the guidance from WP:NEWSORG. -- Calidum 13:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes on the presumption we are talking likely a printed news story from the news/official op-ed side of Fox News that is similar to a NYtimes official endorsement, then it should fine. --Masem (t) 15:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you misread the question. It's not about whether Fox's endorsements are reliable, but whether Fox is a reliable source for saying "Governor X endorsed Candidate Y for Senate." (The RFC is also worded in a confusing way, where a "yes" !vote means Fox is not reliable and a "no" !vote means it is reliable.) -- Calidum 15:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Only for itself and for professional politicians - Fox News should only be used as a source for the endorsements of Fox News and for professional politicians. That means elected office holders and such like not 'leaders of antifa' or 'very definatly a well respected political scientist'. El komodos drago (talk to me) 08:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes The fact of an endorsement is typically not a contentious claim. So I wouldn't see any problem with using Fox for that. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Does "yes" mean "yes prevent use of Fox" or "yes Fox is OK"? Lev!vich 21:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (Political endorsements: Fox)

• Are we talking about Fox itself endorsing a candidate... or Fox reporting that someone else has endorsed a candidate? In the first situation, ABOUTSELF applies... in the second, we probably need a second source for confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• One issue with endorsements is what exactly constitutes an endorsement. Sometimes someone will say something positive about a political candidate. When is that an endorsement? I don't think Fox fabricates quotes, but if at all dubious two sources are definitely needed. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe:, as mentioned in the background section, the guideline requires that endorsements in list of articles must be 'specifically articulated as "endorsements".' So simply saying something positive is not enough. While I haven't been involved in these matters, I assume it means even if New York Times and the Washington Post say person A endorsed person B, but all person A actually said is "I met person B and they seemed a great person", it would be rejected. (I don't think this is ever likely to happen, but I couldn't be bothered coming up with a more realistic example.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar. If its an endorsement by Fox itself they’re reliable, if its a third party endorsement then a better source needs to be found. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with Buidhe here. I would at worst consider this on a case by case basis. Fox was not seen as outright unreliable with respect to politics. The things that readers identified as problematic were related to, IIRC, reporting what people saw as conspiracy theories or downplaying/questioning concerns other news agencies raised (directly or indirectly). I don't recall anything remotely like false claims of endorsements. I think this is a case where we need to assume reliable until some case is made why it isn't. If Fox quotes Mrs Doe saying she will vote for Senator Jane, are we seriously going to argue that Fox made up the quote? Certainly if other sources cover Mrs Doe's comments we have no issue. But, perhaps Mrs Doe isn't someone the other news sources are paying much attention to. Fox might be the only news source that covered this. If Mrs Doe is widely covered then we could argue this is UNDUE content. However, if Mrs Doe is someone with more limited coverage then Fox, a major national news site, reporting her endorsement adds significant weight to including this content in an article. Fox isn't deprecated. Absent evidence that the endorsement should be questioned (for example it is clearly questionable to interpret the provided quote/info as an endorsement or other sources refute the claim) it should be treated as reliable. Springee (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If Fox (or CNN, or NYT etc) is the ONLY outlet to mention Mrs. Doe’s endorsement of Senator Jane, I have to question whether Mrs. Doe’s endorsement is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If we are talking about a well known Mrs Doe or Senator Jane I would agree. However, if one or both are more obscure there may not be as many sources covering them period. Perhaps this is a state or municipal election that Fox News (not a local affiliate) happens to take an interest in.

I think our issue is probably going to be with framing (thats where the Fox News “lies” tend to come in), the issue isnt going to be that "X endorsed Y" its going to be that "X, a radical leftist, endorsed Y” when X is neither radical or a leftist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Remember that Fox News was taken to court for fabrication, and their defense was that nobody would reasonably accept them as a trustworthy source - and the court accepted this. That alone makes them seriously questionable for WP:BLP purposes, which require high quality sources - not yellow-rated ones - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Being clever enough to work you work out of a case does not mean you are not a reliable source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

According to a recent US Court decision, it's perfectly legal to ban someone from Wikipedia for any reason, including "no reason at all". Sometimes it takes the law to reveal these shocking truths to the world. If someone ever challenges Wikipedia's right to call itself an "encyclopedia", you can imagine they would seek to mount a defence similar to Fox. Bosnian Curry Wurst (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not an RS, so your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That "encyclopedia" is now as much of a meaningless word as "news channel" when it comes to implied trust. In American law anyway. I mean, you clearly already know what the true implications of "Wikipedia is not an RS" are, namely that nobody bringing a court action on the basis Wikipedia is an encyclopedia has a chance in hell of succeeding, but I am guessing the same was known about "We are not a news channel" by the insiders at Fox. Bosnian Curry Wurst (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what this has to do with Fox's reliability. But you do so fair enough, it does not sway me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• The question is unclear, but news articles on Fox News are perfectly fine for sourcing facts like who endorsed which political candidate, if that's what's being asked. Is there a specific claimed political endorsement you're asking about? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Fox is marked on WP:RSPas of questionable reliability for politics: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." This suggests it would not be a good single source for what is, in fact, a claim about a living person - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel this has more to do with cases where they might claim, for example, "Newly released documents prove Clinton-Obama invented Russia story to discredit President Elect Trump". The specific facts of the newly released documents would be reliably reported but the conclusion drawn from those documents would be too much. The caution with an endorsement would come into play if the endorsement was not clear. However, if my Mrs Doe says, "I endorse X" in an interview with Fox we should treat that as a RS. Springee (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is a RS. Some people politically disagree with it doesn't magically make it unreliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • For politics, it specifically is not, per RFC - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't take that RfC to mean it's not reliable for politics (category 3 from the RfC IIRC). Instead I took that to be category 2 which was use with caution. So if the claim is extraordinary or contradicted by others don't use it. However, if the claim is reasonable on its face and not contradicted by other sources then it could be used. It was not a ban on the use of Fox News for any political reporting. Springee (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

        I took it that way too but for some reason Mx Gerard always seems to find a way of disagreeing with me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Is there some background I'm missing here? I'm familiar with the previous RFC on Fox News as a whole, but surely there is a reason this was brought up? -- Calidum 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  It is specifically referring to political endorsements, but I agreed it did not need to go to a RfC yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• They would be RS for what they say, not for it being true. So (per about self) this would be OK, after all I doubt even fox would lie about who they support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Does this even matter? Surely endorsements of this kind are of themselves public statements and should be a prime use of self-published material; i.e. the statements of endorsement themselves. Like the criterion of embarrassment, it's something that can't be lied about by involved parties. GPinkerton (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @GPinkerton: you may want to read/reread the background. For "lists of" articles, the community has established certain requirements, and one of those is that the endorsement must be covered in covered by "reliable independent sources". Self publication is explicitly not enough. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 164#RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements and Wikipedia:Political endorsements for details. Although I didn't participate, if you read the RfC one of the issues supports for this criterion raised is significance i.e. if it matters, some RS should have noticed and reported on it. I wonder if this is part of the background User:Calidum is missing. (Apologies if I'm mistaken.) Does Fox News, a source which some call into question on political matters, establish that significance in the absence of other RS? Note that none of this applies to non "list of" articles, but I assume from the background above that the concern here is over such articles. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm familiar with the background, not that particular RFC you linked to, which seems to just reaffirm existing best practices. My question is why have this discussion now. Is there some ongoing dispute where Fox News claims one politician endorsed another when that person did not? -- Calidum 13:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies then I don't know more. I would note though that per the RfC, it doesn't matter whether there is any dispute over someone endorsing someone. If it's not covered in a reliable independent source it shouldn't be in a list of article, period. Everyone on Wikipedia can agree that the endorsement happened, and everyone should agree until the RfC is overturned, it shouldn't be in a list of endorsements article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  I looked a bit more and I think this is the context [97] & [98]. While editing List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements#References to clean up clear problems, Guy noticed 36 endorsements are cited to this article [99] along with about 11 to other Fox News articles. I did not check how many of these are exclusively sourced to Fox News but at least one was. I suspect most of these can be sourced to other reliable independent sources but whether all can, I don't think we will know until someone tries. As I mentioned, if Fox News isn't a reliable independent source for political endorsements, then they don't belong in that article. There may be no dispute that there has been an endorsement, or that Fox News is generally accurate on endorsements but it doesn't matter, we need a reliable independent source. I have no current opinion on the suitability of Fox News as an RS for political endorsements, but can understand why the question arose in User:JzG's mind. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, that's what I was looking for. -- Calidum 15:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer

Worth having a productive discussion about these sources; the only meaningful thread I've found on RSN barely touched on the issue and mostly glanced off into irrelevance so it'd be nice to go back and have a more productive look. My main concern is the use of these publications:

• Skeptic (U.S. magazine)
• The Skeptic (UK magazine)
• Skeptical Inquirer

These sources are used throughout Wikipedia. The publications' wikipedia articles are heavily reliant on primary sourcing (which should hopefully be addressed at some point, but that's not neither here nor there), and are pretty terrible in terms of suggesting what makes them reliable.

The Skeptical Inquirer says they do some review of published work, but that it's primarily up to authors, which isn't a good sign.[100] The UK Sceptic used to say allows people to post blog posts, which means it seems like it would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:SPS[101] (the language is now gone on their current page, but doesn't really speak to how the blogs are run at all.) The US Skeptic actually has a proper masthead, but doesn't say what its editorial board actually does, and doesn't mention its review process at all.[102] (As a side note none of these publications actually pay contributors, which may or may not affect quality of submissions or editing but is worth calling out as a general rule.) None of these publications as far as I can tell are included in a rigorous citation index. My judgement at present would be that they are at best highly situational and probably need justification on a case-by-case basis per SPS based on who is writing them, as there are skeptics related to or attached to the magazines that have been quoted or profiled more extensively by publications such as the NYT, et al. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Can just anyone write articles for them, could I?Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, anyone can submit an article, but it won't get published without review. The Skeptic (the UK one) has recently changed hands and is edited by Marsh, latterly projects director of the Good Thinking Society and one of the best known and most intellectually honest skeptics in the UK if not the world. Skeptical Inquirer also has a high reputation, and is under the umbrella of CSI, the foremost skeptical organisation in the world. Skeptic is edited by Michael Shermer, whose star has been somewhat tarnished of latee, but nonetheless has a solid reputation. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That is true of any publication.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• All three are reliable for investigation of questionable medical, paranormal and scientific claims, especially anything to do with cryptids, UFOs or the David Icke World Of Batshit. Basically if it's on Natural News, InfoWars or whale.to, then these are reliable sources for the reality-based perspective. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

when you say, "all are reliable for the reality-based perspective", this means they are not reliable for describing the world view and arguments from the perspective of the proponents of these doctrines. We do not describe the doctrines of one group by the opinions of its enemies, regardless of which is clearly in the right.. The skeptical sources will naturally emphasize those views which they can most easily refute--which often means they will emphasise the most nonsensical. A clever enough writer can describe anything by ingenious exaggeration to make it appear ridiculous. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course we allow supposed "enemies" to describe the doctorines of others. We allow feminist experts to explain the doctrines of the mens rights movement, we allow jewish professors to explain the doctrines of neo-nazis, we allow liberal economists to explain the doctrines of supply-siders,.... We do all of this because, yes, sometimes one side is right and the other one wrong and real neutrality means acknowleding that fact. IF you have evidence that these paticular sources are using exageration then that would go toward there reliabiltiy but otherwise you comment is to general to be useful in this discussion.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sherdog.com

http://sherdog.com

Is it reliable?

I found it completely unreliable and unverifiable. It has no about page. The website in question's person (mixed martial artist) profiles are all over the place, seems outdated and and have huge discrepancies between other reputable sources such as the sport organizations themselves, UFC, Bellator, One or their media partners like ESPN, CBS, Fox, BT Sport, Independent or even the Athletic Comissions that organize competitions. But nearly all of the Mixed Martial Arts-related content have sherdog.com as the main source instead of the reputable sources that were mentioned above. A few editors seem to enforce it as the sole reliable source for thousands of biographies of living persons and their infoboxes. Even more various reputable sources that contain high-quality recorded footages or images or statistics or commission reports are disregarded in favour of sherdog.com. Conor McGregor's Height section of the Talk:Conor_McGregor page have a rather more detailed discussion about its reliability.

The site is reliable. I guess Sherdog is "self-published" but it has a very good reputation among mma fans. Likely, like many data-heavy sites, it introduces minor errors in its data to discourage scraping and republishing. Ofc, not all stats are equally reliable; for a top fighter like McGregor, you can expect most data to be accurate, but not for a no-name fighter that fights in a regional league somewhere. Regarding the height, why can't you use a range? E.g 5 ft 8 in to 5 ft 11 in ImTheIP (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Like you said, it's self-published. It has no about page. The data provided by the site tend to conflict other reputable sources' content although other reputable sources tend to share similiarity between them. Some of those reputable sources that I mentioned are ESPN, Fox, UFC, BoxRec, Independent, NSAC, BT sport, CBS, Independent. As an example, in McGregor and Alvarez's cases, those reputable sources' listings are also defintely closer to what other video footages and images provide. Sherdog.com on the other hand doesn't seem consistent or reliable. Especially considering they don't update fighter profile pages for decades, even after public becomes certain that data in most of those pages are clearly wrong. After an MMA competition where everyone can compare physical attributes for example. The most obvious example is the McGregor vs Alvarez match. As for using a range for height, weight etc., what should we do for a person that has 7 different listings for each attribute? Implementing height, weight, reach etc. ranges like 5'6 to 6'0 or 70 kg to 80 kg or 160lbs to 190lbs for every single person that has Wikipedia page would not be ideal and appropiate.Lordpermaximum (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's self published it has no business being on BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We've reached a consensus to disregard Sherdog as a reliable source and use the reliable, independent and secondary sources, such as The Independent and CBS in the case of Conor McGregor's height, in the Talk:Conor_McGregor page. The consensus was only for the height of Conor McGregor but I think it was a very lengthy and detailed discussion with a lot of sources which had the participation of 7 editors, one being an administrator, so that sherdog.com should be considered unreliable site-wide. Nil Einne also agreed to consider sherdog.com unreliable here and I also want to inform another administrator Woody who also found self-published sherdog.com which has no about page unreliable in the Talk:Dan_Henderson page after another lengthy discussion.

Does anyone including ImTheIp who found sherdog.com reliable here previously before the achievement of consensus for Conor McGregor's height, has any objections to sherdog.com being considered an unreliable source?Lordpermaximum (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I just learned thanks to Nil Einne that there's a strict policy to avoid any self-published source on BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Not only sherdog.com is an unreliable source, it cannot be used at all on BLPs because of the policy in question. This seals it.Lordpermaximum (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've an objection to finding it unreliable just yet - the previous discussion (11 years ago, IIRC) that found it to be reliable was flawed because it was literally three or four editors deciding it, after one asked the question, over a very short space of time, and that led MMA editors being able to declare "It's a reliable source, as agreed by WP:RS/N!". I understand your desire to move quickly on this, but there's no rush. And yes, I know that can be frustrating... I've learnt patience after having people stall decisions by creating 30-day Requests for Comment over issues that are obviously only going to go one way, but hey, patience is a virtue!

As to the substantive issue: lack of bona fides for sherdog, such as an 'about' page, and it's demonstrable lack of accuracy (whether deliberate or not) would preclude it from being a reliable source where other, more reliable, sources exist. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course Sherdog is a reliable source. I don't know where 'it's (sic) demonstrable lack of accuracy' has been shown or proven. Occasionally, sources differ slightly on things like height. It's hardly a crisis. In fact, Sherdog's just as likely right and the others wrong as vice versa. After all, it's the largest dedicated MMA database in the world. Before editors jump aboard here could we please consider that the vast majority of less high-profile fighters won't have a listing elsewhere. I would ask Lordpermaximum please to chill out a bit and stop saying things like 'We've reached a consensus' after two comments and 'that seals it' after three. Sherdog has not been shown to be unreliable at all. It's also a source that contains accurate method of finishes, provides a reliable and verifiable source of nicknames (more of an issue than you might think). Its strengths are massive and the fact that some other sources disagree on stuff that none of us knows anyway (not that it'd make any difference if we did) is no reason to conclude that it's wrong. In the McGregor example, if you Google 'Conor McGregor height' is says 5'8. Since Sherdog is also the source used for all infoboxes on MMA fighter pages, it might have been nice to inform editors that this discussion is taking place. I have neither the time nor inclination to comment further as I'd rather edit. There are lots of editors who edit MMA page regularly and their contribution should be sought. I have made my thoughts clear simply won't read and reply to another series of WP:BLUDGEON posts.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My dear NEDOCHAN, Google lists Conor McGregor's height as 5'9" now thanks to our consensus, like I told you before that it would. Have a good day.Perm 20:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

More of than not, Google takes its profile information from English wikipedia so that's where Google took it from. The change in Conor McGregor's Wikipedia profile will soon reflect on Google also. We'll try to reach at least a rough consensus here as I don't see any reason why we shouldn't expand the consensus we've reached for Conor McGregor. Also NEDOCHAN, I remind you and others to stop using sherdog.com as a source on any BLP as it looks there's a mass violation of biographies of living persons (BLP) policy per WP:BLPSPS. It literally involves thousands of pages. I'll report it in WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, pretty soon. I'll RfC for deprecation of sherdog.com next as it requires immediate action because there's mass violation of BLP policy which is taken very seriously.Lordpermaximum (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. You have absolutely no right to start telling another editor what source they can and cannot use.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sherdog is not self-published. Their "contact us" page is their "about us" page.[103] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, "if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.". Sherdog.com is a clear example of that, it has no about page, you can't volunteer to be an editor and it's not clear who's producing the content since there's no author sign in their articles, pages etc.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it is clear from that link I gave that they have an editorial staff, radio staff, and writers (contributors). Their publisher is Evolve Media. There is no requirement that their editors be volunteers. Their news articles do have authors.[104] It may be an ugly site, but you didn't do your due diligence in looking up this stuff. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Having authors doesn't mean it's not self-published. Please read the quote from the policy again. Sherdog.com is a clear-cut example of a self-published site. Although the violation of BLPs is important, our main topic here is the reliability of Sherdog.com. We don't even know where they get their info from and according to archive.org, they very rarely update the profiles of fighters if at all which makes it outdated also.Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the concept that the authors cannot publish an article without the approval of the editorial staff. The editorial staff is also not the publisher which is the company itself. Your reliance on WP:USINGSPS is misplaced since it is neither policy or guideline, and your arguments for strict adherence to that quote would render newspaper reporters to be SPS if their employer is the newspaper.[105] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

One instance of a fighter's height not matching what CBS and The Independent lists does not make sherdog unreliable. More often than not, sherdog lists the correct information. There isn't one individual authority that measures all fighters; they're measured by different people (networks or promotions) using different methods (a wavy measuring tape or stadiometer) at different times in different places. Common sense says there will always be discrepancies in such cases. Sherdog is as reliable as a sporting database can be when there is no single source to pool all its stats from. As for the site being self published, says who? I think the fact that their news section is filled with articles by multiple journalists says otherwise. – ².O.^Boxing 19:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a total outsider to this topic, but Sherdog is obviously not self-published, and it seems likely to be reliable:

• it's published by Evolve Media, which has over a hundred employees per their LinkedIn page
• they have a seven person editorial team and a twenty-two person team of contributors

Gbear605 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You and a couple others only cofirm the quote in WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works: "if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." What are we even debating here?Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, you're misapplying your quote - by your definition, all news agencies are self-publishing. Gbear605 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not my quote. It's a direct quote from WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." That's the quote you need to focus on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No doubt Lordpermaximum will still claim they are self-published because their website doesn't have an "About" page, even though it does. FDW777 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You should focus on the content and comment on the reliability of sherdog.com instead of reading my mind. About page is just an anecdote.

Sherdog.com is "completely unreliable" because it's self-published, they don't share how they get their information, their information usually contradicts other well-known reliable sites such as UFC, ESPN, Fox, Independent, CBS and those sources agree eachother and sherdog.com's "contact page" is the definition of ameteurish.Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You should focus on what you're being told, instead of saying what you think. Repeating the same mistake over and over again doesn't stop it being a mistake. There is zero to little support for your position, see WP:BLUDGEON. FDW777 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be civil and relax. In the mean time, check Proof_by_assertion, WP:RS and WP:V. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You should in turn checkout, WP:FORCEDINTERPRET and WP:STONEWALL Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. I suggest Lordpermaximum reads WP:SPS, since none of them apply to Sherdog. FDW777 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Sherdog.com

What is the reliability of Sherdog.com?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable, in the absense of generally reliable sources
• Option 3: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 4: Generally unreliable
• Option 5: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User Notifications about the RfC:

• Cassiopeia who voted for option 1, mentioned and pinged 21 other editors at WT:MMA#Reliability of Sherdog, and wanted those editors to ping other editors about this RfC. So far from that list only Gsfelipe94 joined the RfC and they voted for option 1.
• FDW77 who voted for option 1, opened a section at WT:MMA and informed other editors of the RfC.
• I voted for option 4, informed 4 of those who hadn't already participated in the RfC that were involved with the height discussions at Talk:Conor_McGregor which eventually reached consensus that I agreed with and had lead to this RfC as an expansion of the consensus. Out of those I invited, Cassiopeia voted for option 1, Bastun and Hunterb212 voted for option 2 or 3, GirthSummit hasn't voted yet. I also informed an administrator, Woody, who was involved with similar discussions at Talk:Dan_Henderson and voted for option 2 or 3. I also opened sections about the RfC at WT:BOXING, WT:SPORTS, and WT:WPBIO.

Please report invites, pings, mentions of any kind and newly opened sections that inform other editors about this RfC, so we can list them here in the spirit of transparency.Lordpermaximum (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

False Reports:

Anything below that is meaningful has already been covered above. Everything else is only disruptions and false reports that aren't related to the RfC.Perm 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot to add this fabulously neutral invite. But I really need your vote no matter what it is at WP:RSN#Responses_(Sherdog.com) if we are to stop them from using sherdog.com as the sole source....lol. – ².O.^Boxing 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

All of this because of our first encounter at Talk:Conor_McGregor where I had shared my suspicions about you and your friends? I didn't notify that user there, first. I actually invited him before and mentioned him here as one of the 2 editors that took part in the consensus we reached atTalk:Conor_McGregor but had not participated here yet. What you took out of context was from a discussion about Tony Ferguson which wasn't even started by me. You didn't even post the entire discussion deliberately in order to remove the context and blame me again for something I did not do again. Please don't turn this into another war and let people get sidetracked, again. You're extremely disruptive under this RfC. But I know you don't care as long as Sherdog.com becomes a reliable source because of your personal vendetta.Lordpermaximum (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll strike it and put it this way then: I think there's an option for your thoughts such as "reliable in the absense of generally reliable sources" which seems to suit your opinions or another option if you like, and, But I really need your vote no matter what it is at WP:RSN#Responses_(Sherdog.com) if we are to stop them from using sherdog.com as the sole source, are highly inappropriate comments to somebody you've previously invited to an RfC. And just to note, I have no vested interest in Sherdog whatsoever. I have never, in my 15,000 and something edits, used Sherdog in a citation. – ².O.^Boxing 02:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You took them even more out of context to make me look even worse. They're cherry-picked from answers to a user that was bothered by the use of sherdog as the sole source. The discussion which I didn't start is here at User_talk:Hunterb212#Tony_Ferguson.Perm 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Background (Sherdog.com)

Sherdog.com has generally been used as "the sole reliable source" on thousands of articles which are related to MMA and mostly WP:BLP. In favour of Sherdog.com, all reliable sources such as The Independent, CBS, ESPN, UFC, Fox, BT Sport, BoxRec, Bellator, One and Athletic Commisions such as NSAC have been disregarded. Lordpermaximum (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And the point of this is? None of that has anything to do with deciding whether or not Sherdog is a reliable source. But anyway, no. Just no. Sherdog has not generally been used as "the sole reliable source" on thousands of articles which are related to MMA and mostly WP:BLP. I task anybody to find me at least a start class MMA BLP that uses Sherdog as its sole reliable source. – ².O.^Boxing 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's not clear enough, what that means is those editors who generally edit MMA articles favour Sherdog.com over other generally reliable sources. Those reliable sources have only been used when there's no info about that particular topic on Sherdog.com. For example if one editor references ESPN as a source in an MMA page, it will be reverted by some hardcore MMA editors in favour of Sherdog.com as the only source if sherdog has info about that. This is against the WP:RS policy and it's the main reason this discussion has been started in the first place. But I wanted to hear the community's opinion about the reliability of sherdog.com first so I opened an RfC about that first. That's why this section is titled "Background".Lordpermaximum (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So, basically, your addition of this subsection has nothing whatsoever to do with evaluating whether or not Sherdog is reliable? Thanks for confirming that. – ².O.^Boxing 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it gives some background to the discussions that were happened before the RfC since it's still under the main section. The starting point of these dicussions was pointed out at the top of the main section and this section only refers to that background. It's up to other editors to bear this in mind or not while evaluating sherdog.com's reliability but I thought it was important since it's going to affect thousands of pages because of the fact that Sherdog.com is relied upon very heavily in those articles.Perm 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Sherdog.com)

• Option 4 - There doesn't seem to be any evidence for reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS). It doesn't look like there's a detailed about page of any sorts and it seems to fit the criteria of self-publishing. Its fighter infocards looked outdated when I checked the history of those from archive.org. Its runners don't seem to share how they get their information; therefore I think it violates WP:V and makes Sherdog a questionable source. After checking other reliable sources that create MMA-related content such as CBS, ESPN, Fox, BT Sport, The Independent, BoxRec, UFC, Bellator, One and Athletic Commisions such as NSAC more in detail and making thorough comparisons, I found out that those reputable sources generally agree with each other, unlike Sherdog which has a clear tendency to contradict them. Besides that, none of sherdog.com's fighter profiles has any author mention. We know it's generally used on BLPs although it probably violates the BLP policy per WP:BLPSPS by likely being an SPS according to the definition in WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. Considering some editors' tendency to use Sherdog as the sole source on many BLPs without evaluating other possibly more reliable sources, it's dangerous for Wikipedia and makes the Encylopedia open to many lawsuits, in theory at least. Espcially if the runners of sherdog.com decides to manipulate Wikipedia by adjusting some of the information on their website since it's relied upon very heavily. We've previously reached consensus to disregard sherdog.com and use other reputable, likely more reliable sources instead at Talk:Conor_McGregor which eventualy had lead to this RfC. That page has detailed discussions about the reliability of sherdog.com if anyone's interested.Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same."

• That's a direct quote from WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. That's the reason I think sherdog.com is an SPS if we go by that.Lordpermaximum (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Addressing each repeatedly made incorrect point one at a time.
  • It's self-published No, it's not. It's published by Mandatory, part of Evolve Media, LLC. Self-published means "man with blog" or "man with website", not a publishing company with 150 editors and writers across more than 40 websites.
  • it has no true about page The about page is right there, and it lists the editorial team.
  • runners of the site don't share how they get their information and this clearly violates WP:V I can look at any newspaper right now and they won't say where they got their information from either, it doesn't make them unreliable. WP:V does not require a reference to have a footnote for every single piece of information.
• Since there is no evidence to back up any of the other spurious claims made without evidence, I will simply dismiss them without evidence. FDW777 (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: Not self published as per above. All the articles in the 'News' section are attributed to their authors. As for the fighter profiles not having citations for the information given or an "author sign" on the pages, that's just silly. BoxRec, ESPN, and Fox have been given as comparisons (besides UFC, which is a primary source, they are the only three out of the nine sources mentioned that have fighter profiles); just like Sherdog, none of them have citations for the information given in fighter profiles nor do they have an "author sign". Finding two or three fighter's profiles, out of thousands, whose heights are disputed and reported at different measurements by multiple sources is by no means a reason to deem a source unreliable. – ².O.^Boxing 09:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Having an author on some pages doesn't mean it's not self published. According to to the rule in WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works:

"if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same."

From this alone it's clear that it's self-published, thus it openly violates WP:BLPSPS and on top of that it violates WP:RS along with WP:V too, when we consider the other reasons in the first response.Lordpermaximum (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You've already been informed that what you're quoting is not policy or even a guideline. So the quote, which you've used three times already in this RfC, five times in the whole thread, and many more at the BLPN discussion (where far more experienced editors have disagreed with your interpretation of SPS as well as flat-out dismissing any BLP violation), doesn't hold much weight at all. You can copy and paste the same quote all you like, it won't make it any more relevant. Calm down with the relentless WP:BLUDGEONing. – ².O.^Boxing 12:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please calm down and see Proof_by_assertion. The discussion you're referring to on the BLPN is still ongoing although you claim it's ended in one way. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not an SPS I have no opinion on the reliability of Sherdog since I haven't looked into that, and don't plan to. But I said above "if" since 2 editors had suggested it was an SPS. However now that I've seen more commentators and also read our article and looked into some other details, it seems clear to me Sherdog isn't an SPS. Some parts of it may be, e.g. obviously its forums but most of it doesn't seem to be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, could you check Sherdog.com a bit and/or read some of the discussion that's going on here? I would really like everyone that participated in the discussions to choose an option no matter what it will be. I also added a very short background for why these discussions started in the first place. If you could read a bit more about it, do you think there's enough evidence in favour of sherdog.com to give it a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I and a few others claim there aren't. If there are not, thousands of pages are affected by it for the worse because of MMA editors' tendency to use it as the sole source. Thanks for participation anyways even if you don't want to choose an option. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

• Not an SPS per Nil Einne. No opinion as to it's general reliability, but even The Irish Times and other papers of record get their facts wrong sometimes. That said, Sherdog is not the sole definitive source for MMA stats, and other sites, equally reliable, can absolutely be used as sources, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bastun, I added a section about the background of these discussions and the RfC that highlights your concern. But it can be adressed indirecly here by this RfC so that we won't need another consensus for your and my concern about that, in the future. I think option 2 or 3 is close to your thinking so you can always choose option 2 or 3. I would really like you to choose an option, no matter what it will be if we are to reach consensus here. Thank you for your participation even if you don't choose an option anyways. Best wishes, Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

• Option 2 or 3. I would have questions over its sourcing and accuracty and all of those "staffers" listed on the 'Contact us' page certainly aren't full time, as linkein searches show. That said, nothing to stop it being used as a source. Just not exclusively. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3: Not self-published, but I couldn't find significant evidence of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS). It may well be popular among MMA fans and have a small editorial team, but there needs to be significant independent evidence to make it generally reliable. It's probably usable but established high-quality sources (e.g. existing green WP:RSP sources) would be preferred. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: It's the leading source for such data globally and there's no evidence whatsoever that it's not reliable. This RFC was started by an editor who thought it was self-published. It isn't.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it's self-published. I want to remind you of WP:OWN, WP:But I'm an administrator!, User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #2, WP:Equality, WP:Newbies aren't always clueless.Lordpermaximum (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: It must be incredibly frustrating for those who edit mma fighters' pages and knows what Sherdog is to have to deal with this. ImTheIP (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3: It has been made clear to me after stumbling into MMA pages during an edit war on Dan Henderson (see Talk:Dan Henderson for extended discussion about a similar height issue to McGregor above) that the MMA community places Sherdog above other sources but without any consensus or discussion as to it's reliability. This RFC is the perfect place to develop a consensus which can be used to justify it's inclusion going forward. I agree with MarkH21's thinking here above. It isn't self-published under our own guidelines but at the same time there isn't any evidence whatsoever that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS) which is what we need to deem it a generally reliable source. The page itself doesn't make this clear. Sherdog is not the sole definitive source for MMA stats, and other sites, equally reliable or green WP:RSP, should be used where available. (Note: I was invited/canvassed to participate in this discussion by User:Lordpermaximum with this edit but I was intending on bringing this site up here at some point) Woody (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the disclosure. I have issued a canvassing warning on Lordpermaximum's talk page.[106] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• It wasn't canvassing because Woody has participated in sherdog.com's reliability dicussions before. I suggest you to read this quote: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" It's from WP:CAN and that's placed under "Appropiate notification" section. If it was canvassing it wouldn't be your problem because Woody as an administrator would handle it before you or anyone else. I reverted your edit and I will report you for vandalism if you do that again in my talk page.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In the warning, I also included the links of who you selectively recruited to participate, not just Woody.[107][108][109] You should review WP:VOTESTACKING and WP:BATTLEGROUND again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is the place to discuss the reliability of sources when weighed against our policies and guidelines. Please take discussions of editors away from here. Let's try not to get side-tracked here. Woody (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The wording was entirely neutral but the selection of individuals could be seen as trying to back up your point of view. Canvassing can be a pretty grey subject. I noted I was invited to this discussion to avoid any accusation of impropriety. @Lordpermaximum: next time I would give a neutral notification to key wikiprojects/editors that are closely related to the discussion eg WP:MMA (This has been done at WT:MMA#Reliability of Sherdog though the pinging of individual editors to this discussion is a bit borderline). If any doubt leave a notification at the beginning of this RFC to say who has been notified (similar to the many found at AFD). Woody (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Morbidthoughts, it's not true because I only tried to reach out to those who hadn't participated in this discussion at RSN. Others who were against my proposal in the beginning did participate here except just one editor who admittedly said she needed a week to reply to the ongoing discussions that started this RfC in the first place and she was very busy, just yesterday. Next time do your research properly.
• Woody, please see above. He's just making an empty accusation and hiding the other side of the truth. Only 2 editors that participated in the previous discussion were'nt notified because one of them wanted us to give her some time, around a week. The other editor that I didn't notify was an administrator that involved in the discussions as neutral in the beginning and we were in the same side of consensus in the end. So if anything, I hurt my case by not inviting him/her.

Thanks to you I learned that they pinged every one of those editors that have been using sherdog.com as the sole source on anything MMA-related. He was blaming me for canvassing and then I learned this. It's funny though the one that pinged all those users is that one editor who said she needed time to respond to previous discussion in the talk page of Conor McGregor. It looks she simply tried to stall and deny consensus but she failed.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: Per fellow editors comments. I believe Sherdog serves as a common ground for most of the information. Obviously they are not the ultimate guide to it. If we have other reliable sources, we should take that in account and use it as the most reliable option for that case. We use it as means to add fight results, but they're not always right. To me they are still a reliable source, but I never took them for the only option available. I believe such cases require discussion and people should be open to consider other sources as more accurate than Sherdog itself. That being said, Sherdog is definitely one of the most reliable sources in MMA media regarding database and news as well. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• You chose option 1 but it sounds like option 2 suits your opinions more. Can I ask why did you choose option 1 with those thoughts then? Is it because they who use sherdog.com as the sole source pinged you and tens of others to come and vote here at WT:MMA#Reliability of Sherdog?Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You probably didn't see my comment Gsfelipe94. Don't you agree me with me that your opinion sounds more like option 2? Choosing option 1 with those opinions sounds like a mistake.Lordpermaximum (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2: It is not a self published source, and it is written by sufficiently specialized people (I navigated here [110]) . The tone of the information is perfectly fine. Also, I don't think they need to disclose how they get information, as I have never seen this being required on any sort of newspaper. Overall, I think all three points of WP:SOURCEDEF are quite fine, with maybe the publisher being a little subpar. I'd say the website still qualifies under WP:RSEDITORIAL. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 05:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: Besides certain point have maked by other editors, I here add (1) Sherdog is largest independent MMA media site in the world and (2) Sherdog is the official content partner

of ESPN reported by Sprot Illustor. As ESPN is considered reliable - reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS), and they partner with Sherdog (use Sherdog's coentent) that would make Sherdog a reliable source. (3) Sherdog is not a self publishing firm for it is own by Evolve Media LCC, thus Sherdog is not a self publishing company. (4) There was also discussion in the past in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with the outcome that Sherdog is a reliable source - see here and this RFC would be the updated version. (5) overall, Sherdog do meet in term of content/tone/NPOV, WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:SOURCEDEF. (6) Site note: Sherdog is voted by MMA fighters the leading source of breaking news, fight reviews and in-depth features sites - see [https://www.worldmmaawards.com/mma-awards-category/mma-media-source-of-the-year/ HERE. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• There's no outcome that found Sherdog reliable before. The link to that RSN discussion shows it was almost a decade ago it was attended by a couple editors who were like "it looks kinda ok" and that was all about it. As for the ESPN deal, the link states it was made 13.5 years ago. It also says "As part of the agreement, ESPN will highlight exclusive, in-depth Sherdog content contextually within ESPN.com, including news, interviews, videos, event listings, and more. ESPN.com's new Mixed Martial Arts section index will also feature Sherdog's Fight Finder module, which allows users to search the largest fighter database online for stats and personal information. Sherdog's weekly online Radio show will be offered at ESPNRadio.com and for download via the ESPN PodCenter." None of those things that were mentioned in the quote are found on ESPN right now and they haven't been found on ESPN for years. ESPN (along with other reliable sources) and Sherdog have been contradicting each other for a long time and any time you can check for those discrepancies between them, now or then thanks to archive.org. So bearing all of this in mind, it's pretty clear that deal wasn't for a lifetime and it ended a long time ago. Probably years ago.Lordpermaximum (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that deal wasn't for a lifetime and it ended a long time ago. Probably years ago. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is not permitted. Do you have a source to say that it probably ended years ago? To add to what CASSIOPEIA said on fact checking; the UFC's The Ultimate Fighter series used Sherdog as a source for checking contestants records, as seen here. "You MUST have a minimum of 3 Professional MMA fights to be considered. All records will be verified on sherdog.com & mixedmartialarts.com. If we cannot verify your record on either of these sites you will NOT be eligible to tryout." The world's most prominent MMA promotion seems to think that Sherdog has a good reputation for fact checking. – ².O.^Boxing 13:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• An insignificant news article from 2.5 years ago which was about TUF entrance which is not considered an official UFC fight. As for other acussations, it doesn't even worth answering. As an administrator already pointed out "This discussion is the place to discuss the reliability of sources when weighed against our policies and guidelines. Please take discussions of editors away from here. Let's try not to get side-tracked here."Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, for 1) above, do you have a source rather than an assertion? For 2), that article you've cited is from literally ten years ago, and that same article also states that UFC had pulled Sherdog's press credentials; and also that they hadn't had access to the UFC for most of the preceding five years! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun First of all, I come and comment here in good will. UFC is a private company and not a sport organization like FIFA, as such they do what the want - we all remember well Ariel Helwani and his associates were pulled form UFC press credentials for being just doing their job as good journalists would and should do. The source is from Sport Illustrator and being pulled the credential has nothing to do with the source reliability and independent. I have placed my vote and for those who disagree, they can give evidence/comment/guidelines of why they think Sherdog is not reliable or independent. I am rather sad to see one inch height different of Conor McGregor in source would lead to so much uncomfortable and unpleasant discussions in so many articles and editors' talk pages. Do note content of the MMA articles come from many different sources and the infobox which is an optional is sourced by Sherdog. Those parameters in the infobox (such as style, stand, trainer, rank, university and etc) which could notvbe obtained from Sherdog fighter profile would need to sourced elsewhere if info is added. This is just a normal practice in other sport as well to use a sport specific database in the infobox / game /sportsperson record / results. Changing a fighter height for one more inche higher is not big deal, but it would effect thousands of thousands of MMA articles in Wikipedia would not only the height but the fight records, team, fight out of, nick name and etc. If it does not effect in such a big scale, I would not comments for I have invited to settle a numbers of edit warrings/content dispute and it was not pleasant just to read those comments from editors for some of them were not there to discuss/understand/collobrate/support each other/learn from each other but just fight, troll just because they wanted to win the arguments due to the fighters are from their countries/same ethnicity/just riding the hype train and lack of Wikipedia guidelines and communicated as if they are in twitter /utube. Stay safe Bastun and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2.0 boxing's comment clearly refers to the reliability of the source and none of it relates to you or any other editor. They're right, only WP:OR is behind your argument re ESPN.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what NEDOCHAN said. I'm addressing your argument, which is original research, which is policy. But anyway, all fights within The Ultimate Fighter series are officially sanctioned bouts, promoted by the UFC. So the requirement that a fighter's record is confirmed by Sherdog relates to an official UFC bout. Which gives credibility to Sherdog's reputation for fact checking. – ².O.^Boxing 13:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3: I believe Sherdog is somewhat reliable in the sense that it is up to date with match statistics and fighter's records. However I believe the info such as height and weight of fighters is not always the most accurate. Comparing Sherdog to ESPN's website you will find that ESPN lists the height and weight measurements of most current fighters in the major promotions such as UFC and Bellator just like Sherdog does. And it updates these measurements after every weigh in. Sherdog on the other hand does not update these measurements therefore you have outdated information such as some fighters being listed at different weight classes than which they currently fight in. So in my opinion a compromise would be to use ESPN stats for height and weight of any fighters whose information is available there, and match records and stats for fighters unavailable on ESPN's website still be cited from Sherdog. Hunterb212 (talk) 7:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Really? You've started discussions at two different noticeboards (which are still active), both of which are currently showing consensus against your opinion that the source is unreliable and somehow a serious BLP violation, and now you open an RfC? This is getting a bit daft now. This all stems from you saying sherdog is basically shit because you found a video source that says Conor McGregor is 5'11, contradicting sherdog. Shall we also start an RfC to attempt to get CBS Sports and The Independent deprecated as well? They also disagreed with your video source after all. – ².O.^Boxing 23:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are two different topics on two noticeboards. One is about the reliability of sherdog.com, the other you mentioned is about the BLP policy violation on one particular article. They have loose connection. One of them stems from sherdog.com being the sole source on thousands of BLPs with its very questionable, unreliable data which violates WP:RS, WP:V and the other stems from one particular website's self-publishing identity which violates WP:BLPSPS on a BLP article... If you want to response on the reliability of Sherdog.com, please do. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry this is madness. Lordpermaximum is now going through and editing their old comments retrospectively and therefore riding roughshod over the discussion and replies. This cannot be permitted. Admin attention is required and I think ANI might be necessary.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I edited my vote comment without changing my vote to make it more precise after getting new information from everyone involved, and made multiple consequent edits to fix grammar mistakes and typos because admittedly I'm not a native English speaker. Because of that I often try to fix my comments later because I generally realize those mistakes later. I don't even get what are you acussing me with here? But I'm not surprised since you're doing that all the time because I don't agree with your opinion.Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What's your first language out of interest? I am an EFL teacher so am curious.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask another editor about their first language, and they are, of course, under no obligation to answer. In any case, there are several editors participating here who do not appear to have English as a first language - and that's fine! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I edited my vote comment without changing my vote to make it more precise after getting new information from everyone involved...which is something that definitely should not be done. Other editors will read the comments and votes in the RfC. There's no need to refactor your comment to include other people's points, especially when you haven't looked into those points yourself. There's also the bludgeoning issue which is rather tedious. You don't need to reply to every comment you disagree with to repeat your points over and over and over again. – ².O.^Boxing 13:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Lordpermaximum reads WP:STICK and does something more productive instead of the constant arguing here, since there is absolutely zero support for their claim is self-published. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You should tell that to your friend Squared.Circle.Boxing who had extremely disruptive behavior under this RfC and tried to damage it as best as he could.Perm 04:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The above used "Perm" is User:Lordpermaximum (see in source edit mode) not sure why they choose to use Perm name suddenly in the disussion. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It was too long.Perm 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Byline Times

What is the reliability of the Byline Times? This article could be of relevance in the Great Barrington Declaration article. GPinkerton (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• They have an explicit strong bias, but they are also trying to do journalism properly. I don't know of any red flags about their past coverage ... but I'm sure someone will now post some - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Byline Times are signed up to IMPRESS [111] which, in my opinion, does a good enough job of fining papers for misleading stories and getting them to promptly publish corrections that it forces them to either do the RS level fact-checking beforehand or go out of business. El komodos drago (talk to me) 08:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• I cannot comment on the specific reliabilty of the publication, but I can see that the editorial team and senior reporters are all extremely experianced journalists with excellent reputations and a history of working in mainstream legacy media, so I would expect high standards. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• I recently evaluated whether to use this source for a BLP I'm working on. In that very particular case, I decided to use this source, so there's one datapoint. From what others say, it sounds like this might be a generally reliable source beyond my very specific use case. Jlevi (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and for your particular question, I think Nafeez Ahmed is a great general journalist on environmental issues, and the article you link would be strong enough for a BLP. Jlevi (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Congressional Tribute

This comes up every once in a while, a few times in the past couple of weeks. The Congressional Record publishes tributes in its 'Extensions of Remarks' section. These include tributes to members of a congressperson's constituency. According to our article, Witnesses in committee hearings are often asked to submit their complete testimony "for the record" and only deliver a summary of it in person. and it then makes the (un-sourced) claim that The overwhelming majority of what is found there is entered at the request of Members of the House of Representatives. I've seen it argued that these tributes are not indicative of notability (because they constitute service to a constituency), but more importantly-- and why I am bringing it here-- that there is no editorial oversight of the tributes, meaning that they can only be reliable for sourcing 'Person X received a congressional tribute'. However, I cannot find any way to confirm this.

Are congressional tributes generally reliable (particularly as sources of biographical information)? -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would classify these as self-sourced content based on what you described, and should only be used in accordance with the five-factor WP:SELFSOURCE test. Neutrality^talk 00:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your opinion is accurate: not for notability, and only in accordance with WP:SPS. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Potentially inappropriate use of personal communication

There is a policy application discussion over at Talk:List of largest empires#Empire of Japan. The question is whether a particular instance of using personal communication with an author to assess the reliability of a source for a specific piece of information found within is appropriate. Complicating the matter is the fact that the source in question is not the original source of that particular piece of information; an earlier source which is not reliable when it comes to this particular subject matter per WP:RSCONTEXT has been found, and it contains the same piece of information while citing an even earlier source which we have been unable to locate (and thus may or may not be reliable).

The discussion on the talk page has stagnated, and I would like input from more editors weighing in on this. I was unsure if WP:RSN or WP:NORN was the more appropriate place for this, so I posted it to both. TompaDompa (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not that communicating with an author is inappropriate, it's that their reply won't carry much weight anyway, so it's not usually worth bothering them. A source says what it says in writing. Ask again here if you want views on what a specific source is reliable for. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: But I do want views on whether that specific source is reliable for that particular piece of information; the assertion is that it is not, and the argument put forth as to why relies on the communication with the author. That's why I'm asking here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

But you'll need to post the source here so we don't have to trail through loads of stuff to find out what it is. I can see a name Conrad mentioned in the discussion but there's no Conrad currently cited in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the source in question: Conrad, Sebastian (2014). "The Dialectics of Remembrance: Memories of Empire in Cold War Japan" (PDF). Comparative Studies in Society and History. 56 (1): 8. ISSN 0010-4175. JSTOR 43908281. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-07-08. Retrieved 2020-07-07. In 1942, at the moment of its greatest extension, the empire encompassed territories spanning over 7,400,000 square kilometers. TompaDompa (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification about applying WP:IAR for interviews done by Daily Mail on Great Barrington Declaration due to lack of media coverage

AS per the advice of Newslinger, I am proposing applying WP:IAR to using the Daily Mail as a source for interviews with the co-signers who are not getting enough media coverage or the opportunity to express their views. In WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail, the following paragraph said "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.". Right now, the Great Barrington Declaration article is in a very bad shape; a reader who reads this article won't get any context about the declaration or why the people who signed the declaration did it, and will have to go elsewhere on the Internet due to the lack of information in the article. In addition to the lack of WP:NPOV, the article in its current status will fit more with the title "Responses to the Great Barrington Declaration" than the current title. Consequently, I feel it is warranted to apply WP:IAR to include more context about the declaration and the reasons the signers/co-signers signed it for. Since many of the co-signers didn't get the chance to appear in main stream media due to the highly politicized nature of the subject, I feel that this is one of the exceptional cases that WP:IAR should apply to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail specially that it includes only interviews with co-signers (window for co-signers to express their opinions) not factual information. What do you think? And will it help if I added an introductory statement like "In an interview with the Daily Mail" to warn the reader about the source? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The CheckUser scan in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton § 11 October 2020 determined that Knowledge Contributor0 was not a sockpuppet of Brian K Horton, so I've unstruck their comments. — Newslinger talk 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Knowledge Contributor0: Quoting from the Daily Heil is not going to reduce politicization; quite the opposite. It's an extremist propaganda outlet with an egregiously poor reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and misreporting interviews and misquoting interviewees. That, among other reasons, is why it is not allowed. COVID-19 is not a niche topic, and plenty of reliable sources that are not screeching tabloid horrowshows cover the subject at hand. We have no need of words printed on such rags as this. GPinkerton (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not about COVID-19 which I feel it is going this way but it shouldn't. This is about the title of the article which is the declaration, and trying to present information about the context the co-signers signed it for. When better sources are available to get their views, we won't need to quote the daily mail, but until enough media coverage - if it happened - is available I believe that WP:IAR is applicable in this case to provide the reader with the context information. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's poor reasoning at best, allowing a notoriously unreliable source because we can't find reliable sources. No way, no how. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

+1. This is an attempted end run around verifiability, notability, etc. To my mind, not a good exemplar of a WP:IAR situation. Reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's why I suggested adding "In an interview with the Daily Mail" to the text to highlight this fact to the reader. Given that some of the co-signers already expressed similar views in other verifiable sources, I see that the main reason that the source was deprecated doesn't apply in this case and the exception mentioned above in the RfC should apply. Applying WP:IAR will add to the quality of the article without compromising much about verifiability.Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Just an fyi, this is another brand new account looking to discuss the Daily Mail in as many days, I suspect that this another Brian K Horton sock, though considerably less conspicuous than last time, I am happy to be proven wrong though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0, it is hard to think of a worse case for IAR than inclusion of content from a right-wing tabloid that nobody else has seen fit to cover.

Also, a request here citing IAR with your eighth edit is more than a little suspicious. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If the coverage is for the opinions of tens of prominent scientists including a Nobel Prize winner that many main stream media outlets chosen to ignore because the proposal defies the approach favored by the scientists that the media used to regularly quote, then many media outlets may be in direct conflict of interest with the declaration coverage because it undermines public trust in the media outlet's coverage of scientific issues given that the public and governments already acted based on the previously mentioned approach. This situation is kind of a once in lifetime situation that I didn't see before, and that's why I made this proposal to apply the WP:IAR exception to get enough coverage that for apparent reasons many main stream media outlets may be unwilling to cover. I hope that my proposal be evaluated based on its merits not on the person who made it. And after all, it is just a proposal, so if the majority are against it, I would consider it rejected and no harm is done anyway. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has been caught fabricating direct quotes and entire interviews multiple times. If the interview is only found in The Daily Mail you have no idea whether or not it actually happened. If it is also in some other source, use that other source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, but given that some of these scientists already mentioned their views in the declaration and in some other media outlets, the chance that the daily mail will fabricate an interview to confirm the declaration view is negligible given that it will make more sense to make the actual interview than to fabricate it. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, it likely shouldn't have its own article. I don't see what it's longstanding notability will be anymore than any other think tank declaration made every 2 to 3 weeks. Koncorde (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A think tank can make any declarations they want and it may go unnoticed. But tens of scientists including Nobel Prize winner declaring a new public policy proposal related to the field they are specialized in may not go unnoticed. For this declaration to be dismissed, it must have been dismissed in collective systematic reviews as per WP:RS/AC, otherwise Wikipedia editors will be making personal elections that is not theirs to make. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of words, very little meaning. RS/AC is irrelevant - this is not a question of whether their statement is or is not consensus and whether it is "Academic" is debateable, it's a statement rather than an academic point of view being presented even if the people at the bottom are academics with a background.

The question is it significant enough outside of its own primary source nature to warrant an article that seems to just be there to promote a particular view point (and to do making requests to use the Daily Mail to support it).

Secondly, is the statement in and of itself particularly significant beyond what has already been said / tried by countries such as Sweden?

Thirdly is it treated as a significant / valid POV by other sources (i.e. peer review).

The answer is "not particularly", "not particularly" and "not going to happen as it's just a statement by a think tank paid for by the remaining Koch". Koncorde (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

First, it is an academic view not just a statement. It was published as the editorial of the BMJ in May after the lockdowns were over under the name "Stratified Shielding". About its significance, if WHO thinks it makes a good point, and the US government met with its scientists, it is a matter of debate between tens of scientists, and UK updated its guidance today to shield the vulnerable after hinting to this few days ago; then it looks like it is significant. But the real question is: who decide how significant it is? us as editors or we need an external source? And how do we decide about its significance? If we were able to measure its significance and decided that the article should be deleted because it is not significant, should we remove other Wikipedia articles of less significance?

Second, yes the statement is significant beyond what was applied in Sweden which was the do nothing or education approach, no shielding of any kind was applied to any group in the society. Sweden top epidemiologist Anders Tegnell already expressed his regrets for not doing enough to shield the elderly in nursing homes.. But I don't really think that what's new about it is our call to make. We are supposed to be just editors summarizing information for the reader.

Third, yes, and actually peer reviewed studies are already being published on the effectiveness of the approach and how to identify individuals who should be shielded. This again highlights the important point of not passing our scientific judgements to the readers, and instead sticking to Wikipedia spirit of trying to provide comprehensive coverage to the readers with WP:NPOV.Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A public statement asking for mass signatures is not the same as an editorial in the BMJ which is not the same as being an academic statement. Everything after that I stopped reading because if you are misrepresenting right from the first instance I am not trusting anything else you link to as I am going to assume you are going to try and use unrelated sources in the same way. Koncorde (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You said that whether it is "Academic" or not is debateable, and I wanted to show one reference to their statement being academic by showing it in the editorial of a scientific journal. If that doesn't fit your definition, then please give me an example of an academic statement declaration so that I can check if this declaration fits the definition or not. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying because someone published an editorial in the BMJ that anyone sharing that POV (unclear, original research) is therefore publishing an academic source per RS/AC. After the fact you are backfilling the things associated with that viewpoint that may or may not have happened as a result of the BMJ editorial, or a.n.other study or source.

My point of view is that a statement by academics is not under the purview of RS/AC. It's simple. For example, Academic Consensus states:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

I struggle to see how a statement that can be signed by anyone, and has been, could possibly be considered a reliable source other than for those who signed the bit of paper at the top, and certainly should be attributed solely to them and not some broad spectrum of scientists (especially in the absence of any significant scientific content within the letter; which instead just states some broad stroke policy ideas).

Anyone signing what is effectively a glorified petition is subject to scrutiny in any case because it's easily spoofed. Koncorde (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying that it is an academic point of view but I didn't say it is an academic source. I already gave examples of peer-reviewed papers that concluded that focused protection for the vulnerable can reduce the number of the deaths, these are academic sources. I included these only to demonstrate it is not a think tank making a statement which was your argument as to why this declaration shouldn't have an article. So, the statement as you said is a reliable source about the 3 signers/44 co-signers and it is attributed to them not to a think tank. Does it deserve its own article which is your original question? I would say yes given the weight of the signers/co-signers. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Then that is original research. Does it deserve its own article? Does 3very statement by a think tank deserve an article? There are lots of them. The WHO puts out lots of statements, we don't create an article for each one then opine on who does or doesn't agree with it either. Koncorde (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No, original research is research paper published without/before peer review, and this declaration is not presenting a research paper for review. There are already peer reviewed paper who talked about the focused protection approach under many names, and this declaration is mainly a statement and petition of what was presented is many other peer-reviewed published papers. So to answer your question, does every statement by a think tank deserve an article? No, not every statement deserves an article because it will depend on the weight of signers/co-signers and the nature of claims they make. If WHO made a declaration petitioning the whole worlds saying that Many people globally will die needlessly, then it will need to have its own article. Ten of top scientists making a declaration that they can save many people from dying, petitioning the world to join them, and governments meeting with them; deserve their own article. Actually if this declaration doesn't deserve its own article, many many articles should be deleted from Wikipedia to avoid double standards. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, we WP:IAR'd already in the Great_Barrington_Declaration#Authors section, citing an interview in Jacobin and pointing to some editorials the authors had published, some of which i did not see mentioned in other RS. fiveby(zero) 21:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• The DM can't be used for attributed opinions and quotations... because they have been proven to fabricate them. Not for any other reason. (t · c) buidhe 07:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

True, but in this case, it would be easier for Daily Mail to make the real interview than to fabricate, given that some of these scientists already expressed these views before. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If its important RS will have picked it up, if they have not neither should we. The Daily Myth makes up quotes, alters it own historical content. It cannot be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the exceptional situation in this case. Many main stream media outlets that represent the RS already promoted an approach favored by the scientists that the media used to regularly quote, the public and governments already acted based on it. It will be very hard for many media outlets to provide coverage of the declaration without undermining public trust in the media outlet's coverage of scientific issues. And that's why I think that the WP:IAR exception should apply in this case. At the very least, Daily Mail doesn't have this conflict of interest in this case and it is in their own benefit to make the actual interview and not fabricate unless they want to sabotage their own goals. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that we're talking content that also falls into the realm of MEDRS (that is, the proposed Declaration appears to have numerous medical experts calling it a Bad Idea (TM)) FRINGE likely applies and we should be wary of necessarily giving too much weight to the rational/science behind the declaration unless those are also backed by MEDRS-type sourcing. Which the DM is clearly not. --Masem (t) 16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be numerous medical experts on the side of the declaration with even more notable scientific output as well to the point that there is no proof so far that their view is a minority view in the absence of systematic reviews that explain the current landscape. Given the latest attack from WHO on lockdown approach favored by some experts who called the declaration a bad idea, and given that one of the WHO scientists said that the declaration makes a good point, I don't believe it is up to Wikipedia editors to dismiss the declaration as a fringe scientific view. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if the DM were not banned, it usually violates weight to include information that is only included in one publication. The reasoning is that readers want to know about important aspects of a topic, not unimportant or trivial aspects, and we determine what is significant by the degree of coverage. TFD (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually using the Daily Mail here is balance the weight since the quotes of the critics of the declaration are quote by many media outlets while the signers/co-signers of the declaration don't have much window to express their views. This skew in the media shouldn't be reflected in the article. Given that there are no systematic reviews published to explain the current landscape of theories and hypothesis and their weights (makes sense because COVID-19 is still new), the only option that I see is to provide a balanced view is weighting by the number of scientists which is not possible if some scientists are being ignored in main stream media outlets. The proposal is not quote only Daily Mail, the proposal is to quote daily mail when there is no better source to guarantee balanced weight based on the number of scientists until systematic reviews are available that can guide us towards the right weight.Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has a bias which is reflected among other things by what information they find most important about a topic. Wikipedia has decided that weight be assigned to information "proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Since in every article editors will disagree with what is most important, some criteria for deciding are necessary. To you, neutrality is achieved by balancing corporate media with the extreme right. But I really think that we would need a change in policy to do that. By the way, in may opinion, IAR means that we should ignore the letter of policy or guidelines when doing so would go against their spirit. That principle is the basis of equity law and is part of accounting standards in the UK. But the spirit of neutrality (which I always thought was misnamed) is reflecting mainstream bias. TFD (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If spirit of neutrality is reflecting mainstream bias in media coverage of scientists' views, did we apply that when creationism/ID was dominant in media (due to bias) and non-existent in Science? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is "no better source" than the Daily Mail for a particular point-of-view, then that point-of-view is irrelevant and should not be cited in this project. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So when do you think the WP:IAR exception to the DM mentioned in WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail should apply? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I just don't understand why we need to touch the DM here at all. I look through google news hits and I'm seeing a rather healthy (ha) discourse in sources on both sides (more tending to downplay the document obviously) that necessarily the interview with the three behind it isn't adding much, DM or not. This is where my NOT#NEWS soapbox comes out - not that this isn't a notable topic, but think about writing this as what the article will be like in 10 years time, not what is important "now". --Masem (t) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If Google decided to censor the website without explanation, then when the news went public they removed the censorship also without explanation, then how do you know that what you see in the search results is not biased given that the search engine already took a side? By the way, the interviews I am referring to are not with the 3 main signers but with some of the co-signers, but it may happen in the future that one of the signers speaks to the Daily Mail and we will have to omit what was said if WP:IAR is not applied. Thinking long term, the article in my opinion will be in a state of continuous development giving the continuous development of events. So the article should summaries everything known about the topic right now, and definitely in 10 years things will be different because knowledge about the subject will be totally different. Imagine how Coronavirus disease 2019 will be in 10 years, and think if you should eliminate anything right now because it may not have value in 10 years. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You have neglected the conditional clause of IAR, namely If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining WP, then (and only then) does IAR apply. Adding quotes which may be fabricated and have no reliable source is not an improvement or maintenance of WP. Therefore in this instance IAR does not apply and the rule not to include information sourced to the Daily Mail should be followed. Cambial foliage❧ 12:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's true if it is fabricated. But as I mentioned above, in this case the Daily Mail has direct interest in publishing the real interview rather than fabricate. Why fabricate if the real interview will say more than you hope for? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a forum for gathering wider opinion of the community, not for individuals to hammer away at the same point endlessly to all who differ. You opened a proposition for discussion, and within 3 days more than ten editors responded firmly in the negative, with barely a flicker of support. You have your answer. Cambial foliage❧ 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I have my answer. But before I conclude and list all arguments made for and against, I want to see if there are any more arguments I can include in the summary. This whole discussion would be pointless, if it doesn't end up with a summary of all arguments raised to save other Wikipedia editors from going into the same discussion again. What do you think? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

thepeerage.com

I don't spend my life at RSN, and probably like a number of other editors the first point at which I realise something has got depreciated is with a change to an article on my watchlist. In this case this edit on the MGWR on Sir Ralph Smith Cusack altering me to WP:DEPS and a bit of deft searching will find it on WP:RSP, though not under 'T' (Its under a bundle at 'P' ... its quite easy to find if one know the old ctrl+F trick). The discussion was at a title which did not initially encompass Thepeerage.com; it being a third source added subsequenctly with less prominence; leading to possible inherited tainting from the other two sites. The RFC, see  2020, had some subtantial WP:VAGUEWAVE anti self published source feeling that is not always backed by Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS seem to effectively bar the use for BLPs, so use at e.g. Jeremy Hosking is likely a problem - however that does not cover the case for the deceased biographies. The RFC was non-admin closed and had other irregularites including an unsigned comment (by JzG ), hints of some possible "antii-peerage" bias rather than concentrating on the source. The source compiler, a Darryl Lundy, has come to the attention of RSN on several occasions before, per [112]. There seems to be little doubt Darryl Lundy appears to do diligent checking and generally seems to cite his sources (usually Burks etc) and be open to notification of errors. Perhaps "unreliable" in Wikipedia speak but probably "unreliable" in real world speak. There is usually options of replacing the theppeerage.com with the cite reference or using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT however there is really danger here of people simply replacing thepeerage.com with the underlying source without checking the underlying source. While the closure of the RFC may be technically correct and allows Wikipedian to smugly dismiss Darryl theppeerage.com as "unreliable" in Wikipedia world at Midland Great Western Railway seems almost slanderous at first reading.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

SPS does not only apply to BLP's. If people do not check a source then they should not be adding it. Allowing a dubious source is not a solution to that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Peerage isn't only a SPS its a low quality SPS, shocking that anyone would have tried to use that garbage source in the fist place. Lundy is a self promoting non-academic, nothing they have to say is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I am somewhat concerned that may be taken as a personal attack. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Is Lundy an editor here? Please spell out for me the nature of this WP:personal attack if it concerns you so much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Concerns me enough to raise a report at ANI. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes Djm-leighpark, I noticed... You did place a template on my talk page after all as well as tag me in the post itself. This third notification is a bit much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It might be a BLP violation, which applies to all pages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The “kook” part might be depending on how its interpreted, I meant it in the “harmless kook” way not the “dangerous kook” way. Everything else is objectively true and demonstrable. If you think “kook” goes too far in describing this author then I can strike it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"kook with an obsession for self promotion" GOES TO FAR.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you accept self promoting non-academic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really, "non-expert" is all you need to say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think hobbyist is the only term that would be technically supported by a source (although non-expert or non-academic both seem reasonable given "or any training in historical methods"),[113] although there aren’t many that aren’t published by Lundy (hence the self promotional part). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not a SPS is self promoting is important as it would perhaps preclude the use of the source even for WP:ABOUTSELF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As RSP indicates, thepeerage.com has been discussed numerous times oves the years, the main issue is that it is just some guys website, and is no different than that say of a railfan, we should be using the sources that he is using, rather than thepeerage itself. Nothing indicates that lundy qualifies as an subject-matter expert according to wikipedia guidelines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

But key points of those discussions were not brought to the RFC; at least in part due to the bundling. As far as I can tell thepeerage.com typically provides good citing of the sources used which is really useful. Self publichsed sources are able to be used BLP's per WP:BLPSPS however the thepeerage.com judicious use of citations means it possible to be used in non-BLP situations where only WP:V is required. A major problem with depreciating thepeerage.com is people will simply look at the citation it uses and provide that without actually looking it up, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. The fact that it isn't even indexing properly on WP:RSP at present nor advice given on the correct way to use the sources it cites while perhaps technically ok is not really great for editors visiting WP:RSP ... its not leading them naturally into best practice. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"...unless written or published by the subject of the article.", so we can use peerage.com for information about Lundy, but no one else.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, there were instances of cites to Lundy tagged with a comment to cite the original, that had been in place for 8 years or more, and nobody fixed it.

There's evidence in {{sps}} / {{better source}} tags that people have been identifying Lundy as unreliable for at least a dozen years. Nobody fixed it.

The only tag that routinely gets fixed is {{cn}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

yep. I think we've proven by doing the test that anything other than removing the bad cite and replacing it with a {{cn}} basically doesn't work to get a bad cite fixed - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

With every damn deprecated or dodgy source. It is a waster of time tagging them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Its due diligence and best practice. Unfortunately it can be a waste of others time if its not tagged; and the time taken to fix constructively can take even more of one's life.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So we tag it, and site there as it is all the time for years tagged until its finally removed, or we stop waiting time and just remove it. Sorry but timer and again this is the case, I myself removed tagged uses of depreciated sources where it has sat there for years. Sorry its now down to those who want this material to make the effort, we tried it your way and nothing was done.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there editors here who don't know ctrl-F? Anyway, I don't see any reason to re-litigate the multiple discussions thepeerage.com has spawned: it's clearly an SPS by a non-expert, there's nothing more to say on the matter. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If ctrl+F has to be used then its better to get rid of the index as the index on WP:RSP is misleading. And this isn't just for the benefit of editors, it can also be potentiallly traced in by readers (and a report 8 years ago claimed only 1 in 10 knew the ctrl-F shortcut). On at least one mobile web browserI use ctrl+F does't exist (though there is "find on page" from a dropdown menu. Actually the index on WP:RSP doesn't seem to be present on my phone browser, but I'm known for my blindness and was luddite about smartphones under I needed to scan by QR to go pray in the park and programming by 80 column Punched card more my thing. Most will likely search the table via the sort order which likely was never designed for multiple sources. The whole things not the greatest UX design but the first column wasn't likely though of to cater for bundled discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The question as to whether Lundy is an expert is actually far from clear. His band of expertise may be narrow in linking names to cited content in other publications; but within that scope he seems generally accurate. Google scholar shows citations for "thepeerage.com"; many will likeky be predatory journals, some I believe are not. In all events the bundling here is concern both in the handling of hte end result and perhaps even the credibility of the processes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Its "recognised expert", in other words other RS use him as a goto, he is widely published or has won awards. Its does ont mean "is not always wrong".Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Google scholar is beginning to show recognition of use of thepeerage.com and royalark.net; however many such; but I think not all; will be predatory journals. Even if depreciated thepeerage.com seems to finely define it sources making alternative sourcing of facts relatively .... it is a pity the money spent on book digitisation and the open library does not seem to extend to these sources ... some may have online access ... and perhaps more importantly volunteer time to resolve. royalark.net indicates its sources but these are wider and more difficult to place 1 to 1 against facts. The absolute minimum is the sources should not be bundled in the WP:RSP table to allow the indexing to work smoothly ... and the bundling simply allows cross tainting and trashing of sources.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I now only sources listed at RSP are counted as being on the RSP list, not sources they use. So no sources are not "bundled in" with peerage.com, they are judged on their own merits. Nor are sources required to be online.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think their complaint is that thepeerage.com, royalark.net, etc. were all handled by the same RfC and so are all in the same Perennial Sources listing, which means their alphabetization is also bundled. I agree that this is annoying—each listing ideally should show up as an individual alphabetized entry with at least a "see [bundled entry]" instruction. I can't really parse their argument for using Lundy, though. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, if that is the case I agree, separate them in the RSP list.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven thankyou for agreeing the bundling in the RSP list source column should be unbundled. Given my current intake of stout I will now recuse from this discussion as I am inclined to use language I learnt to be necessary to request a pony to reverse a haycart shifter under a cock of hay and per the your contributions on my talk page such comments would likely be inappropriate. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Requiring article talk page notifications for RfCs that would remove references used in those articles

There is an increasing trend to hold an RfC here to deprecate a source, which is then followed up by editors removing existing references to that source from articles. However, there are currently no notifications on articles or their talk pages that a source is being considered for deprecation (unlike templates, where {{tfd}} appears in the articles affected). This is effectively a fait accompli - editors working on article content that aren't watching this page don't hear about the discussion until it's too late to participate in it.

I propose requiring that notifications linking to the RfC are added to the talk pages of affected articles so that article editors can participate in the RfCs before they are closed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey (talk page notifications)

• Support as proposer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some sources are used in hundreds or thousands of articles. To put notices on every talk page would be spam. (t · c) buidhe 18:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Buidhe. It's not practical to send up to tens of thousands of talk page messages every time a source is discussed. Many RfCs on this noticeboard do not result in deprecation even when it is presented as one of four options. As an alternative, RfCs on widely-cited sources have been promoted on the centralized discussion template, which is displayed on most noticeboards. Editors can opt into receiving updates by watchlisting Template:Centralized discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Newslinger and Buidhe: Perhaps a notice could only be triggered if the source is likely to be deprecated? If it affects so many articles then it's even more important to provide some sort of notice. I can't see how watchlisting Template:Centralized discussion would help, since the discussions aren't in the edit summaries, and most editors wouldn't know to look at it (first time I've seen it in 15 years!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  I can't support this kind of trigger, since it would interfere with consensus-building (and only when the RfC is likely to find a certain result). Here's an analogy: when an article is nominated for deletion, we don't automatically notify all of the editors (potentially hundreds or thousands) who have contributed to that article, even though the deletion discussion might result in the removal of their contributions. Doing so would be disruptive due to the number of notifications and would be considered improper canvassing, since in most cases, an editor who has invested time and effort into an article is more likely to defend the article than an editor who has not done so, regardless of whether there is a good reason to keep/delete the article. Implementing automatic large-scale notifications for sources being examined on this noticeboard would be similarly disruptive, and result in a similar influx of editors who are more likely to defend a cited source because they have invested time and effort into bringing an article to its current state, regardless of whether the source is reliable. However, I can support notifying related WikiProjects about RfCs on this noticeboard, which would be similar to the article alerts that are generated by deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that CENT is not as visible as it should be, but ultimately the objective should be to make CENT more visible, rather than trying to make templates appear across thousands of pages, which is impractical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Support I appreciate the idea of having more invested eyes on discussions, however I feel this may be a solution looking for a problem. My impression with this board is sourcing specialists commenting on potential sources.
  Adding dozens, or hundreds of invested comments will unlikely change the outcomes and instead will likely add grief to those monitoring the board. Glee^anon 19:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Gleeanon409: I'm raising this because it is a problem - I've seen multiple sources removed from articles I've worked on without being able to participate in the discussion (for the latest, see Talk:Nan Rendong). Wikipedia doesn't work by 'specialists', it works by consensus, and if you don't involve the editors affected then you shouldn't be claiming consensus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Looking at Talk:Nan Rendong you appear to be talking about CGTN. The CGTN discussion was extremely well attended and the consensus was overwhelming, there really isn't much of a question about whether CGTN has published misinformation so deprecation was a no-brainer. Are you suggesting the discussion was somehow deficient or that consensus would have been different with even greater participation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: This isn't about a single reference (which is why I didn't mention it at the start of this discussion), it's about the general approach that is taken when deprecating a source. If this page decided to deprecate NASA, how would I know about it until the references start to be removed? Or if you want to focus on CGTN and this specific article, it was unexpectedly removed, I checked it and it looked OK, so I restored it, it was then removed again, and I restored it with a request to discuss it on the talk page, after which it was undone again and I started a discussion on the talk page. I'm still waiting for a link to the discussion about CGTN. Can you provide it, please? Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  You might want to try going to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and then ctrl f-ing until you find it. Why am I having to tell you how to find something so basic? Aren’t you an admin or something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: Link 1 is to [114], it was a discussion to no consensus. Link 2 is to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"CGTN"_and_"CGTN_America",_both_Chinese_media_outlets, which is, um, this page but a section that doesn't seem to exist. No link to a consensus discussion, let alone a discussion that I can contribute to? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  The relevant RfC is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_China_Global_Television_Network. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Click on the blue arrow box/2020 above link 1 and 2 or just click the link provided by Nikkimaria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back and Nikkimaria: Ah, I see! It was above the links I was looking at, and just saying '2020' wasn't too helpful. You hid the link well. So the next step is that I should add a comment at [115]? Except, of course, that discussion is now closed - so what should I now do to be able keep the reference in the article? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  After consideration it does seem to be a valid concern of cultural imperialism, among other factors, leading to a partial or full depreciation of sources that actually may have valid sourcing issues on Wikipedia but are being dismissed wholesale.

  I also think it’s unrealistic that the editors who are building articles would be watching CENT or other project pages but they might see a notice on the article talk page that’s on their watchlist. At the end of the day we want to make the best decision and those using the sources might have un-obvious knowledge.

  I suggest a trial of a bot notification triggered after a 7-day period or so if it seems some sort of depreciation is likely. The bot could target a mix of articles 1) with the most use of the source, and 2) most actively edited articles. Glee^anon 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, if none of us respected consensuses we weren’t personally involved in then things would fall apart here pretty quickly. This is a bad idea both on a practical and philosophical level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The more general issue here is setting a best practice for notification when some robot is making editorial decisions at scale. Should this discussion only happen at the established Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group or should there be some broader Wikipedia community discussion? When the BAG was established the bot activity was relatively low and more about maintenance. Increasingly bots are making editorial decisions, which is unlike prior bots managing templates or administration. Just to throw out an idea: if a bot is going to execute editorial decisions, then as a pilot, it should post messages on the talk pages. Perhaps a good scale would be
  • First 10 articles - post on talk page of all
  • 100 - 1000 articles - post on 10% of them
  • More than 1000 - post on 100 talk pages

A diverse editorial conversation should happen before operating at scale. I do not think the conversation should be endless, but the conflicts between humans and automation in the editorial space are growing. We need to have a well developed process which people trust for this. Limiting conversations to mostly technically minded editors is not viable when the effect is an editorial, and not only maintenance, decision. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No one is talking about bots executing editorial decisions, and this isn't a particularly technical-focused board. It's not clear how this post relates to the discussion at issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No Bluerasberry this has nothing whatsoever to do with bot editing, there are no bot removals going on here - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bots, and no bot has ever made an editorial decision wrt to content. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It is challenging for me to imagine a situation where someone wants to remove 100s or 1,000s of citations and does not consider using bots to execute. I anticipate a future where bots facilitate the removal of deprecated sources. If consensus is in opposition to that then great. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the principle at issue - I would actually say TfDs and similar have the same problem, since even though there is a visible notice it doesn't trigger on watchlists unless you watch the affected template itself - I agree with commenters above regarding the practical issues with this proposal. In most cases it would be more trouble than it's worth, and in the few cases where deprecation does result I'm concerned it would bring more heat than light. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: At least until a credible solution to ensure higher impact depreciations see sufficient audience; taking the "short-cut" effectively excludes most contributors from discussion. It takes very little effort to depreciate a source, it takes a far far far greater effort to repair the damage. If a lot of talk page need to contacted then the same number of article pages will also need edits; One might argue Template:Unreliable-source?Template:Unreliable source? or Template:Self-published source? should be applied to the same number of pages after the decision to alert readers to the problem. So if its going to have a wide impact then widespread warnings should be given. Just because it looks "too hard" doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears there is no template for “Unreliable source”. Surely this would be a better solution than something on the talk page. Downsize43 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'vw fixed the typo in the "unreliable source?" template. That can only be applied post-discussion, ie after the discussion result, which is too later to enter the discussion.00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the problem is the deprecation of sources per se, it's that some editors then remove the citations, or worse the citation and the content it cites, without apparently making any serous effort to find a suitable alternative citation, or without reading the surrounding text and considering the effect on it that such a removal of content has. I've seen this happen, even when RfCs have said that the source may be used if no alternative is available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Pigsonthewing: Agree . We need to take WP:PRESERVE and WP:CAUGHT UP more seriously than we currently do. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - we have a central place to advertise RFCs already, and the RFCs go there; and this proposal would trivially not scale, as noted already. And the proposal turns out to be a procedural objection to the slam-dunk deprecation of CGTN after an attempt to edit-war it back in, which, um. Can you show a better example of claimed harm that quite such a wide-ranging response as this would clearly be proportionate to? - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per buidhe. This would only serve to annoy the vast majority of editors, especially in snow cases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Not notifying editors who are going to be directly affected by a RFC is highly problematic. In fact, failure to notify nullifies the local group decisions that are made on this board. As has been stated by many editors the perennial list of sources is simply advice for editors. Please note the quote at the top of that page "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Many of the individuals who oppose the notification process are the same individuals who are highly active on this noticeboard. These individuals unfortunately have gained too much unchecked decision making power. The Wikipedia community is going to have to deal with this problematic concentration of power. Notification of the wider community of editors who will be affected by these endless RFCs on this board is one step in the right direction. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a public notice board everyone can look at and edit. Nor are editors affected by these decisions, content is. These are not "your" articles, they are ours. Source only get brought here (and deprecated) when their use becomes an issue with accuracy or fairness.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some deprecated sources are used in tens of thousands of articles, and notification like this would basically amount to WP:CANVASSing in some cases. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support — the trend to deprecate news sources from countries considered to be strategic rivals of the Anglo-American world (e.g. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela) has been accelerating. Often, editors here represent a small and not necessarily representative subset of the larger Wikipedia community, and decisions to deprecate are not based on falsification of the news itself, but instead upon editorial views. I'll be blunt: the removal of international sources is converting an international encyclopedia into a parochial and politically biased source of information, and this trend is destructive to Wikipedia.
  • First, it cannot be a bad thing to involve larger numbers of people in these discussions. The idea that people working on articles where these sources are used are naturally biased contributors is an admission that the decisions being made here might not be supported by the broader community.
  • Second, what has happened to the longstanding practice of using this board to evaluate sources and claims on a case-by-case basis? Those discussions were fascinating and helpful. By contrast the deprecation discussions appear to devolve into us-versus-them, black-and-white groupthink where the Cold War is invoked as a positive model.
  • Third, the deprecation trend, and the manner in which it has become popular, needs a broader and high-level discussion on Wikipedia. The proposal here is a good stop-gap measure, but more input is needed on how and why large numbers of international papers from major countries — including the word's two nuclear superpowers that aren't the United States, and the world's most populous country — are suddenly being removed from this site. -Darouet (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Perhaps @Mike Peel:’s suggestion that if depreciation looked likely then bot talkpage notifications should go out deserves more consideration. Maybe triggered at the 7-day mark so there’s time before the discussion ends? Glee^anon 15:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Buidhe as plainly impractical; it'd make the InternetArchiveBot spam seem mild by comparison. But I do think it's important to have adequate notification for the bigger discussions here at places like WP:CENT and perhaps the WikiProjects of the countries where the news outlet is based (to address Darouet's point above). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Slatersteve, JzG here; also WP:NOTBURO. Major proposed deprecations can go on the centralized discussion template. Neutrality^talk 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Neutrality, absolutely agree: we need to make sure that participation in deprecation RfCs is meaningful. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, patiently unworkable and would frequently spam massive numbers of articles. We regularly have centralized discussions that will affect large numbers of articles and generally do not post notifications on each of them. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I would like to re-emphasize Darouet point. The zeal with which people remove content from articles that are only tangentially related to why the source was deprecated also shows that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Mass blanking of pages is exactly the censorship we often rail against.Albertaont (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support within a reasonable, practical limit. If you know that it's used in 10 (or maybe 20?) articles, then you can copy and paste a one-sentence template notice to those talk pages. If it's 50 or 100 articles, then we can't do that manually, and maybe we either don't do it, or we have a bot do it. Also, hopefully this would make it obvious when editors try to ban sources that aren't being used at all, which is a pointless and WP:CREEPy waste of everyone else's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  To give an example, at the top of this page is an RFC about The Mail on Sunday. The person who started the RFC writes "it's only been cited 11 times". Surely we could notify eleven talk pages? The other current RFCs involve more (those URLs are in approximately 100 to 3,000 articles), but when the numbers are so low, it seems only appropriate to notify the potentially affected articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in the RfC, the Mail on Sunday situation is complicated, there were many hundreds of citations to print references to the Mail on Sunday, and some of the citations from the Daily Mail website were likely based on MoS content, but it's impossible to know by just looking at the url. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, at time of deprecation there were 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Those are good examples of when not to post thousands of notices. If the RFC is about subject-specific sources, then it might be useful to notify a relevant WikiProject, or maybe to tag a couple of pages, but I don't think we should post thousands, or even hundreds, of notices. When the source is only used in a few articles, I see no reason why those few articles can't be notified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as not practical and biased. Notifying hundreds of talk pages would cause more trouble than any potential gain. It would also lead to the question of a biased selection of respondents, as pages that avoided using the potentially unreliable source would not be notified. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as practical and reduces bias. Practical efforts to improve and widen community participation in sourcing policy decisions should be supported. This is a great example. We should not discount a proposal such as this based on one technical (and extremely dubious) argument about it being time-consuming or requiring a bot. Page watchers who both support and are against the use of a source will be notified. Cambial foliage❧ 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  "requiring a bot" should not be seen as a barrier here - it's straightforward to code one that looks for a given URL and posts notices on the talk page. I could easily code a bot to do this, but I wouldn't want to operate it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I symphatise with Guy here. It's not practical as it would lead to living with the chore of puting notifications on thousands of articles in some cases and it would "definetely" lead to canvassing(WP:CAN).Lordpermaximum (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm open to changing my vote if the bot idea of Gleeanon409 is feasible.Perm 09:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of content on China-related articles

As a consequence of the RfCs on Global Times and Xinhua, some users have been stripping citations from large numbers of China-related articles, which will probably lead to the eventual removal of large amounts of information about China. To give a few examples of items removed just in the past day by one user:

• [116]: Removal of a source describing how delegates for the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party were selected.
• [117]: Removal of a source describing production of Type 055 destroyers.
• [118]: Removal of source describing criticism of a famous Chinese actress' performance in a particular movie.
• [119]: Removal of source describing visa regulations in China.
• [120]: Removal of source describing the command structure of Chinese police.
• [121]: Removal of source describing the performance of a Chinese athlete in an international competition.
• [122]: Removal of source describing the Chinese premiere of an Indian film.
• [123]: Removal of source describing Chinese audience reaction to a major Chinese film.
• [124]: Removal of source documenting that a Chinese official was under investigation by a Communist Party anti-corruption agency.
• [125]: Removal of source documenting where a 2015 conference between the Communist Party and Kuomintang was held.
• [126]: Removal of source describing which routes are flown by a Chinese budget airline.
• [127]: Removal of source that lists Alibaba's sales revenue on China's unofficial "Single's Day" holiday.
• [128]: Removal of source documenting a Chinese film industry award won by a Chinese actor.

These are all Global Times sources, but I've seen similar things happening with Xinhua, which wasn't even deprecated. When the discussions occurred here about Global Times and Xinhua, I don't think most users realized just how much completely mundane, factual information would end up being unsourced (and could end up being scrubbed from Wikipedia). I think there should be a pause on these mass removals of sources, and a discussion about whether or not this is what Wikipedians really want to happen. In my opinion, much more focused guidance should be given, particularly about Global Times. Broad deprecation is damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes poor sources need removing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrongthink surely. Surely where there are poor sources the object should surely be wholelistic to try to improve the encyclopedia in the most efficient way. This may at times mean replacing sources, at times tagging sourcess to assist others to improve, at times removing content. And the approach may be context dependent. It takes little effort to delete content; and somewhat more to replace it. If we take a thepeerage.com source a section or two above, remove it completely and very difficult to find the underlying source it cites unless one knew it was there and trawled through history. There are those who come to Wikipedia to build an encylopedia, there are those come to feast on destroying others efforts, though few are probably totally at that extreme.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider it worse to include things that may not be true then to remove them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

But they aren't removing "things that may not be true". They are removing the citation and leaving the "things that may not be true" right there in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue should be what do we gain or lose, if we remove dodgy sources and content our overall reputation for accuracy might improve,, If we allow it to stay we keep our reputation for inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not risking anything by relying on the Global Times for information about the command structure of Chinese police, the routes flown by a Chinese budget airline or the date of a conference between the CPC and KMT. By stripping GT and other Chinese sources, however, we are at risk of losing a lot of content, and ending up with a narrow view of Chinese issues that comes entirely from the outside. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes we are, you are seeing it here, "but its reliable for this..., thus why not for that". We need to discourage the use of bad sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

How are we seeing it here? Whether a source is reliable is not an absolute all-or-nothing question. Sources can be reliable in some contexts but not in others, and a blanket rule is rarely constructive. The diffs I gave above show that the Global Times is being removed as a source for large numbers of articles in which I would contend there are not serious concerns about its reliability. Context used to be a key factor considered at WP:RSN, but the recent move towards RfCs and official deprecation of a growing list of sources has led to a much more black-and-white framing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well the first link can be seen as an example of party propaganda "look how we are tackling corruption". Second "launched in the Dalian", not built by, it may be pedantic but it failed verification, Third do we really need to know what one media outlet thinks? its trivia. I stopped at three, none of this is needed or useful or really needs better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The first source was simply used to reference the fact that the Central Committee approved a selection procedure for the 19th National Congress. That's a simple factual matter, and I don't see how its inclusion constitutes propaganda. The second edit summary does not say "failed verification." It says the source is deprecated. Global Times would be a perfectly fine source for claiming that a ship was built by a certain company and launched on a certain date. For the third edit, the issue is how Chinese audiences reacted to a certain film. In this case, the Global Times is accurately summarizing the widespread reception of the film in China (largely unfavorable). Many sources could be used for this particular claim, but it's an example of accurate reporting from the Global Times on an apolitical issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No you think it is, the community disagreed. The fourth link, I cannot see any mention of connecting flights.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The community expressed worries about political propaganda, but I don't think most people had mundane factual matters on their minds, like who won a particular acting award. The mass removal of such straightforward information from articles, which I think will be highly unexpected to many who took part in the RfC, is why I'm raising this issue here.

About the fourth link, the source was apparently being used to reference the change in outbound visa policies, not the detail about connecting flights. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If the community thought that the sources were unusable for politics but could be used for simple factual statements, they could have gone for generally unreliable or even "other considerations"; they went for full depreciation, which is unequivocally stating that no, it cannot be used for "who won a particular award." I agree with the statement below that this reads like you are trying to re-litigate the RFC - the usage of these sources you are arguing for here is one that the community has clearly and unequivocally rejected. There is a little room to discuss the best way to go about removing these sources, but the community consensus is unequivocally that our ultimate goal should be to get our usage of them down to nearly zero - used for nothing at all outside of the tiny slivers of usage allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF and the like. If you disagree with that, you need to start another RFC, because it doesn't sound like you accept the outcome of the previous one. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Of your first four sources two should have been tagged anyway, two (it can be argued) are trivia. So I am gona say if this is an example of what we are losing I do not see an issue, and in fact would argue this may be one reason it was deprecated. It is either being misused or used for stuff we really do not need.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, the default is to exclude poorly-sourced material. Anyone who wants to restore it after replacing the source with a reliable one, can do so.

In practice what happens is the same old circus of a handful of people insisting that people who remove bad sources bear the burden of supporting the content by finding a better source. No, that is not how it works. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Global Times is not a poor source for most of these cases. There were concerns about GT being used for political purposes, but that does not mean that it's unreliable for all sorts of mundane information. What is going to happen is that as more and more Chinese sources are deprecated or otherwise deemed unreliable in broad spheres, there will be very few sources left for many Chinese topics. Xinhua is still considered broadly reliable, which at least means there's some coverage of Chinese issues, but some users have argued that the RfC close is essentially a deprecation (which is a gross misreading of the RfC result, in my opinion), and are also systematically stripping Xinhua from articles.

We really are going to end up in a situation in which we will have an exclusively American or European view of China and Chinese topics, and many topics that are poorly covered in American and European sources (i.e., broad swaths of Chinese issues) will simply be removed from the encyclopedia. I think that what's unfolding here was not intended by the community, and that much more focused guidance on usage of Chinese sources is necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• We shouldn't cover topics at all if there aren't reliable, independent sources that report on them. It is better than repeating propaganda which may (or may not) be at all accurate. If Wikipedia existed in 1970 and we were trying to report on the Soviet Union, we would have to choose between Soviet propaganda and the writings of Western anti-Soviet writers, who didn't turn out to be much more accurate. If a country bans reliable sources from operating on its territory, yes, that does substantially reduce what can be said about them. Maybe they should consider allowing press to operate freely? (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that some of the judgments have been too broad, and some of the deprecated sources are actually highly reliable for wide ranges of uses. When the Global Times reports that Spring Airlines services a route between Shanghai and Ibaraki Airport, or that Chinese actor Wen Zhang won the Best Male Lead award at the Hundred Flowers Award, there's no serious doubt that those reports are factual. I can understand avoiding the Global Times to make factual statements about contentious political topics (e.g., statements about the US-China trade war should carry in-line attributions), but stripping out all sorts of simple factual reporting about movie awards, airlines, film premieres, dates of conferences, etc. is destructive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw some of these removals in my watchlist earlier today and am very troubled, both by the removals and the cavalier and unprofessional attitudes used to justify them. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Good riddance to bad sources, the solution here is for the Chinese government to allow independent media to operate in mainland China. We also have plenty of reliable regional papers in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and India which provide significant coverage of China, heck theres even the Hong Kong papers which may I remind you are Chinese so I don’t see the argument for including joke level unreliable (in the case of Global Times) sources as a means to balance out American and European sources as we already have a ton of good non-American and non-European sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no influence over the Chinese government's media policies, and one of my concerns here is indeed that deprecation RfCs are being used to make the political point you just expressed, regardless of the impact on the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, we have no influence over their media policies, we only react to them. The point I just expressed is not political, it wasn’t even close. On a side note please retract your WP:aspersions that I am engaged in tendentious editing or provide diffs which support your argument, thats just about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a WP editor by another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment directly above mine was overtly political. We can't influence Chinese government policy. That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves. Proposing Chinese governmental reform doesn't do anything to address the concerns I've raised here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Its procedural not political, editorial independence is one of the core components of our reliability policy. China currently does not tolerate or allow editorial independence on the mainland (HK is for now an exception to the rule). I guess technically I was wrong, there is another solution: we could completely change our reliability policy. Why that would be more reasonable than the Chinese government allowing their citizens basic human rights is beyond me though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

^ Now that statement right there, that one *was* a little bit political. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can see why I'm worried that deprecation discussions are being influenced by a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you also see how the way you’ve gone about saying so is a personal attack? I’l revert it for you if you don't do it speedily, you cant just make such serious allegations on a noticeboard and then refuse to back them up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves. As far as I can tell, no one is doing so; they are just removing depreciated sources and leaving a fact tag on material that lacked a valid source (which is what fact tags are for) so the statement can be properly-cited in the future. The fear you're expressing here (that the text will later be deleted) is entirely hypothetical... and if you're deeply worried, your time would be better-spent finding valid sources for those unsourced statements rather than trying to throw red tape in the face of people who are making commendable efforts to improve our sources by removing depreciated sources according to the RFCs requiring such removals. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is an attempt to relitigate the RFC deprecating CGTN. If you want to un-deprecate CGTN, you need to start an RFC with any chance of doing so - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC, so I don't know what you're opposing. I'm asking for Wikipedians to consider the effects of some recent RfCs, which are now becoming apparent, and which I believe are quite different from what most commenters at the RfCs would have intended. Additionally, this is about a number of sources. I gave examples from the Global Times, but I could also give examples from Xinhua. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I have, and I agree with it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I'm guessing you mean Global Times rather than CGTN (which wasn't mentioned here, although both are deprecated)? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Global Times content that isn't political shock jock isn't high quality reporting anyway, and similar content will likely be found in Xinhua and other Chinese language sources. CGTN's written content is also quite shallow and better reporting will be found elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Let's impose some order on this process. I propose that we start by adding a {{better source needed}} tag wherever the deprecated source exists (without initially removing the deprecated source); and then, after some reasonable period of time (I would think a few weeks), remove the deprecated source and switch the tag for {{citation needed}}. BD2412 T 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want to set a hard and fast rule, since it is very contextual. Obviously anything related to a WP:BLP without a proper citation must be removed on sight, and anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL without a proper citation should almost certainly be removed on sight (in both cases an editor could, if they choose, alternatively search for a valid source to immediately replace it, if one exists; but simply removing the text is always justifiable for those.) Beyond that there's a range of options - immediately replacing the source with {{citation needed}} tag is fine, as is adding a {{better source needed}} tag. Editors can also remove even unexceptional, non-WP:BLP-sensitive text cited to a depreciated source immediately if they're confident a source cannot be found or if they feel there's something else objectionable about the text. I would say that it's generally down to the judgment of individual editors; removing depreciated sources and addressing text cited to them is important and already difficult as-is, so we should avoid tying it down in red tape. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• As Aquillion has pointed out previously in discussion of the Daily Mail (I can't quickly find the link), RSN can't require editors to treat deprecated sources more leniently than merely bad sources. Your proposal literally protects a deprecated source more than it does a mediocre source, and that straight-up contradicts the provisions of WP:NOR concerning reliable sources, which deprecated sources almost never can be, and definitely shouldn't be presumed to be - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• The entire purpose of depreciation (as opposed to mere unreliability) is that the source adds nothing and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is almost always valid (and, in fact, desirable) to replace a depreciated source with a citation needed tag. There's a little room to discuss the best way to go about it, but I would strenuously oppose anything that would add red tape or formal restrictions to the process. I also disagree with your implicit assertion that this will lead the text to be deleted - lots of text retains a citation needed tag for years, and most people perform at least a basic search before deleting article text. The most likely effect of replacing depreciated sources with CN tags is that editors will replace them with better sources, if they exist. Since a depreciated source harms the reputation of the article by its presence, and could mislead a casual reader into thinking that a statement has a valid source, replacing it with a CN tag is always an improvement. Finally, I object to the way you titled this section - "sources" are not "content", at least in the way we usually use the terms here, so stating that content is being removed makes what is happening sound far more alarming than the uncontroversial changes you actually list. Please retitle the section to state that sources or citations are being removed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Is it? I thought that we used words like "banned" or "prohibited" when we meant that something could not be used on Wikipedia. Deprecation has quite another meaning to me – much closer to "eventually, this needs to be upgraded" than "wholesale removal will happen in 3, 2, 1..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• As many editors have expressed already, it's fine to tag deprecated sources (like Global Times and CGTN) with {{better source}} or replace them with {{citation needed}}. If it was Xinhua (which is WP:MREL with specifics given in the WP:RSP entry and is not deprecated) then intext attribution and/or {{better source}} and/or {{citation needed}} is appropriate depending on the context. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Pinging Amigao, since OP's given examples are all their edits and they haven't been notified yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  The right tag to use here is {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}. BFG (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this ongoing. Amigao has removed over 250 instances of Global Times just in the past day. Scroll through to get a sense for how much completely mundane factual information that Global Times is actually reliable for is being removed: [129]. For example, the existence of a railway station in Zhejiang, China is now unsourced: [130]. The Global Times is obviously perfectly reliable for this sort of information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Global Times isnt actually reliable for that though, no deprecated source is. I’m confused here, are you challenging the deprecation of the Global Times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In real life, yes, Global Times is perfectly reliable for this sort of mundane information, unless you can show they have a track record of inventing fake Chinese high-speed rail stations. I don't think most people participating in the RfC realized that this is the sort of information that would be removed, as the discussion was almost entirely about fears of political propaganda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in your life but not mine. Its a little insulting to suggest that your fellow editors who participate in that RfC didn't understand what they were doing, don’t you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, Horse Eye's Back, I think it is bad faith to assume questions about sourcing that arise when users like Amigao go on a crusade against a deprecated source are completely fair, and saying GT isn't reliable because it is a deprecated source seems to be circular, or some sort of is/ought fallacy. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about GT’s reliability, thats as close to a settled fact as anything on Wikipedia is. If you want to know exactly why editors (myself included) consider the Global Times to be unreliable you can peruse the RfC. I cant parse what you’re saying before the second comma. Can you maybe rephrase it or correct any typos? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• • So look for better sources, I did and now its not unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And again, one source (arguably it was primary, now its a trivial mention), so there is a question of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's the main train station serving a county of over half a million people. Of course it's notable. But this is exactly my point - one user alone is stripping sourcing from hundreds of articles a day, which will lead to a lot of content being removed. It's great that you found a source for this one example, but are you going to go out and find replacements for the hundreds of other sources this one editor has stripped just today? Unless the Global Times is actually unreliable for information like the existence of a railway station, then these mass removals are purely damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If it is notable RS would have noted it, that what notability is. Again, you are the people who want this information, you are the ones whop make the case and find the sources. I think it is clear I do not see how mush of this is valuable or encyclopedic, we are not a (for example) directory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You've now nominated the article in question for deletion, making exactly my point for me: [131]. An article about the main high-speed railway station for a county of over half a million people, which would be considered a major city in most parts of the world, is now up for deletion. A lot of information about China is going to get deleted if this goes on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You might want to recalibrate your expectations there, 500k wouldn’t even get into the top 100 most populous counties in the US. I know to some extent its apples and oranges but your arguments do seem to be getting a bit hyperbolic and overwrought. The sky is not falling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Number 100 on that list is the county containing Jersey City, which is a major city by anyone's definition. If you'd be okay with deletion of the article describing Jersey City's central transportation hub, then you won't have a problem with the deletion of Changxing railway station. There's a bit of arrogance in brushing off the deletion of an article about a major transportation hub like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Most stations around the world don't have a unique article, they get covered on the page for the line overall. It doesn't seem like Changxing railway station is much of a hub, regular speed trains use a completely different station (which doesn't have a wikipedia page) and it has no local metro connection. Of the 11 stations on the Nanjing–Hangzhou Branch of the Beijing–Shanghai high-speed railway only five have wikipedia pages. If the lack of pages worries you find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and there will be little opposition at all to creating a page for all 11. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The more Chinese sources get deprecated, the more difficult it will be to establish notability for things that are obviously highly notable in China, such as high-speed rail stations serving major cities. Your argument is circular: there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources, because that will only lead to articles like Changxing railway station getting deleted, which is no problem because it's not notable, which we know because there are no non-deprecated sources that discuss it, which is why there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources. If my goal were to remove content about China from the encyclopedia, I couldn't think of a better way to do it than getting all the major English-language Chinese sources deprecated for mundane facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting as a solution? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think this is a rather mistaken view of things. It's true that for station articles that do not exist yet, they are listed in line articles. However, the movement is toward making station articles, not consolidating them in line articles. Individual station articles are generally kept at AfD. The standard that you are suggesting here is not the standard used at AfD or elsewhere, and certainly isn't applied to stations in Western countries. I would also note that government sources are considered perfectly acceptable for such articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen from my vote on the relevant page I don't support the deletion of that page, I do however support the removal of the GT source from the page and I reject Thucydides411’s argument that it would be perfectly acceptable to use GT on this article. As I told them I will tell you “The sky is not falling,” Changxing railway station is not going to be deleted. There isn't going to be some sort of Saturday night massacre of China-related pages, you might notice that many of the people removing CGTN and GT references are some of the most active wikipedia editors article creation and expansion wise in the China space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The meaning of "deprecated", again, does not mean that these sources must be immediately flushed and removed per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. New additions should not be added, but existing ones need to be evaluated to see if the content they were supported can be backed by a more reliable source, but there is no deadline for their removal, period. A mass removal done without the planning of community consensus (of which neither RFC in question that I see had discussed) is within the WP:FAIT territory and that editors see this as disruptive is a problem. If the community wants to see all such links removed "quickly" then a separate RFC to set a grandfathering plan ("You have 3 months or until Jan 31, 2021 to handle these links in articles or otherwise we will remove them and the content they support en masse") would be needed. Or those that want to see these links remove need to be showing they are taking semi-human involved steps to review each removal to make sure there's no other possible method with minimal disruption (which here could be simply tagging with {{better source needed}} or similar inline templates.) --Masem (t) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You've made proposals similar to your "grandfathering plan" for deprecated sources repeatedly. They've been rejected every time. Do you understand why they've been rejected every time? What's different about this one? And if you're making an accusation of bot removals, you need to actually make the accusation, and actually back it up - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Because everywhere else on WP where "mass" actions are done of this scale and where there is not clear consensus for removal or the action, there is usually an RFC to establish this type of grandfathering and/or the editor that initiates the action rolls back their actions until they're told its ok, or if they refuse, they are admin-acted against as being disruptive. Again, key is the language of "deprecated" which is not the same as "banned". If the RFC said "banned" that would be different allowing for this mass action. Otherwise, a careful plan to remove the links is only warranted, which what has been demonstrated is clearly not. --Masem (t) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • What is the appropriate path here? Keep in mind the users being discussed have been doing "mass action" for about 100 articles a day or more, so in the time of our discussion, another several hundred articles have been stripped of sources. {{better source needed}} seems to be a reasonable request directive for now, as there clearly is a hunt to strip out data from across wikipedia on mundane topics. Apparently, someone thought it was offensive to cite CGTN for the fact that china was developing a 600km/h maglev, when there are videos of it circulating online you can easily find. The user didnt even bother to put the {{citation needed}} tag. Albertaont (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I too have been concerned with Amigao's warpath against Global Times, especially given their persistent refusal to engage with anyone on their talk page about the issue. I'm offering another recent example of an instance where I used GT in my intermittent overhaul of Censorship in China: Special:Diff/977243274. In that particular edit, GT provided a) details of a phenomenon reported on in Western media, but with added specificity (i.e. naming the companies involved—Mango TV/Hunan Broadcasting) and b) novel information about censorship and morality germane to the subsection overall, namely, noting a Chinese study that indicated consumption of pornography was on the rise in China despite government campaigns against it. GT is a very flawed (and often obnoxious) source, but even saying nothing of the language barrier, the inaccessibility of CNKI means that lots of Chinese research cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia. It can also be useful in obtaining biographical information for notable interviews, e.g. Dong Mingzhu, who was interviewed by GT in September. Again, the benefit here is verifiability, insofar as the source is in English and does not require fluency in Mandarin to check. This is why I still support a designation of GT as "generally unreliable" except for specific circumstances, such as when it adds to details events/topics already covered in reliable sources. Even without another RfC, I believe that Amigao's continued mass deletion of GT is not particularly constructive, particularly given their uncommunicativeness. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. CGTN is IMHO a propaganda outlet, and reducing reliance on them as a source can only be a good thing. Removing sources outright is however counterproductive, it is better to mark them clearly as being deprecated, (eg. {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}), and work to replace them. This also places the article in and can be handled from there. When you want to replace an unreliable source, having the unreliable source at hand is a good thing, and marking it as such. An alternative would be to create a template that handles a reference inline, and thus hides the reference from public view, while maintaining it for editors. If you find material that is unverifiable, by all means remove it. BFG (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • People keep advocating tagging instead of removal of deprecated sources - that is sources that should not be used in Wikipedia at all - but it has one big problem: it doesn't work. Nothing ever happens. The tag sits there for months or years. We've literally tried your proposal, and it results in nothing happening. Functionally, this sort of proposal just tries to replace doing something about the deprecated source, that should not be used in Wikipedia at all, with doing nothing about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I will actually advocate for removing unverifiable information. If you put in an effort to check a source, and see there is no reputable source to back the claim, please remove the content. Leaving it with a {{citation needed}} or just removing the unreliable reference is not improving Wikipedia. BFG (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

      David Gerard, if this were the Daily Mail I'd probably agree with you. I submit that the original discussion for this source is flawed and being used for mass removals in a way that was not foreseen. It's quite a jump to go from "this source is too bellicose to be trusted editorially" to "we must remove its non-controversial statements about railway stations immediately." I'm not sympathetic to taking a hard line here; show your work please, and as it applies in this case. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• The September RfC found strong consensus to deprecate the Global Times. In fact, the consensus here is about as strong as the consensus to deprecate Breitbart News (RSP entry) in its 2018 RfC, and there are only eight uses of breitbart.com   in article space compared to the 129 uses of globaltimes.cn   and 375 uses of huanqiu.com  , which indicates that there is more cleanup to be done with regard to the Global Times. When a removal is disputed, one solution is to discuss the removal on this noticeboard, as we are doing now. WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source", so removals of deprecated sources are consistent with policy unless an exception such as WP:ABOUTSELF applies (and even that exception is subject to an evaluation of due weight). — Newslinger talk 09:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at the RfC discussion, I don't see any discussion at all of the effect of deprecation on countless mundane subjects, or of Global Times' reliability for simple, non-political facts. The discussion was overwhelmingly focused on the role of Global Times in voicing hawkish foreign policy views. The consequences on articles like Changxing railway station and countless other non-political China-related articles was not discussed, and does not appear to have occurred to anyone in the discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

So just to be clear you’re telling people who participated in the RfC that they didn't understand what they were doing? I voted 4 and it was always my understanding that GT would be removed from articles like Changxing railway station. Because thats literally how deprecation works, if I didnt think it should be deprecated I would have voted 3 or better like I did for Xinhua. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that there was no discussion of the implications for countless articles about mundane, non-political subjects, just like Changxing railway station. Whether or not some editors (other than yourself) had that in the back of their minds is impossible to tell, but it definitely was not raised or discussed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be? Its inherent in the deprecation of a widely used source, as far as I can tell you are the only one who didn't understand what deprecation meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:DEPS, deprecation is not banning or blocking a source, it simply means it should not be used further and further attempts to use the source at a reference are cautioned against. I'm reading some taking "deprecation" as "we must remove the source immediately from Wikipedia", which is nowhere in policy of how we treat deprecated sources. We do want to remove deprecated sources in time, but that should be managed without disruption, which is implicit by making a source deprecated. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing deprecated sources isn't a “must” (unless its a statement about a living person not covered by about self in which case it *is* actually a "must") its a “can” and as such removal is voluntary. Its voluntary removal by multiple editors thats being complained about here, not a bot or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't use Breitbart News for uncontroversial content, either, unless there is a valid exemption under WP:ABOUTSELF. There was no consensus in the RfC to carve out an exception for the Global Times's coverage of railway stations, so it is also considered generally unreliable for this topic. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Folks, can we please take it down a notch? The discussion above is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not familiar with the Global Times, and I will defer to those who say it's the Daily Mail of China or whatever have you, but when we wind up with abominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station I think it's okay to admit that we made a mistake somewhere along the line. This has the potential to exacerbate our existing problems with systemic bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  GT is actually significantly less reliable than the Daily Mail (although both are too unreliable for use on WP), at least the DM has editorial independence and operated in a system that respects basic human rights. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure that comments like "abominations like" are taking it down a notch. That AFD sums up what many are saying, that article was a one line stub with one source until the one source was removed, and now (thanks to efforts to keep it) has been massively improved (note, this is not saying its passes GNG). Tagging it would have just meant it would have remained a one line directory entry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  But what this is is disruptive. The actions being taken to remove the sources without any attempt to find replacements is against the intent of deprecated sources and is a WP:FAIT action that needs to be stopped immediately, until the community can decide what the proper approach is for dealing with these links. The bot-like actions and lack of communication by Amigao (based on the minimal discussion on their talk page) is very disconcerting and that's the issue. (At least with something like David Gerald and the DM link purge David was extremely responsive and appears far less bot-like in their review of the links). --Masem (t) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no requirement to find a replacement though, however if its a BLP there is actually a requirement to remove the source and all sourced text. In my opinion removing a deprecated sources is almost always an improvement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree its disruptive, no more so then arguing for their retention without finding better sources. But you are right, we are not required to remove them. But I would suggest that those who want this material sourced do what was done at Changxing railway station and find them (but this time without pushing). Hell if the amount of effort put into this "not an RFC" was put into replacing sources this might not even be an issue (again I refer back to the rash of work over at Changxing railway station).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's disruptive as first, multiple editors have complained about the actions here and directly to the editor in question, and that the actions have triggered some "irreversible" processes (per WP:FAIT) that are difficult to reverse or correct en masse. While tagging for "find a better source" may be an issue, that's not the same as that's not an irreversible process, so nowhere close to being the type of disruption that removal of sources considers. I'd still strongly urge that all such mass actions stop and a community agreement to some process to untangle the deprecation be figured out before any further mass action be taken. --Masem (t) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  And others have said they have no issue (or even agree) with their actions. On the other hand they have said this thread is problematic and an attempt as at a back door relaunch of the RFC that deprecated the source (which they see as disruptive). But if you want an RFC, launch one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Again, deprecation doesn't mean banned. Those criticizing this aren't challenging the close of the RFC in my read, they're challenging the rush to remove the links against what "deprecated sources" means on WP and general policy against creating disruption. --Masem (t) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  All the edits I’ve seen so far have been 100% reversible either mechanically or through a direct revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  AFDs are, however. That's exactly where FAIT originated from. --Masem (t) 16:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  AFDs are actually reversible although you need some admin help. This is a discussion about removing deprecated sources though not AFD, the only AFD discussion referenced here is well on its way to a snowball keep which suggests that our current system works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  The issue though is that if these source deletions cause a lot of AFDs in a short time that would require the same group of editors to have to run around to find fixes for, that's a fait accompli action that we do not want an editor to create for others and is strongly strongly discouraged. The original situation was an editor that nominated numerous articles for AFD a day for numerous days in a row, which is what ended in an ArbCom case and the creation of WP:FAIT to warn against this type of behavior. Now, yes, many of these source deletions aren't creating AFD-worthy situations, but there is enough concern about AFDs being raised that FAIT 100% applies here - that one editor is potentially forcing a group of other editors to have to act quickly to save/keep their articles or their content. That's the whole point about avoiding disruption. --Masem (t) 16:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I see 13 articles here (at least) only one has been AFD'd. Sorry not seeing how this is leading to a mass of AFD's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  If the hypothetical you describe ever occurs then WP:FAIT would apply, it has no bearing on the issue we are currently discussing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, source depreciation is not a blanket ban, and there are reasonable uses for using them, for example in articles specifically about the propaganda mouthpiece, or in articles about propaganda related to the mouthpiece. Indiscriminate and overzealous tagging such as this is counter-productive, in my opinion. This article is specifically about Chinese propaganda, of course it would need to cite what Chinese propaganda outlets say. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  This particular use of the Global Times (tagged in Special:Diff/983674054) is in a gray area, since it cites a study conducted by the Global Times about the content of the People's Daily. Although both are state-run media organizations, they are separate entities with different leadership and editorial objectives. I would not consider this citation a valid application of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  This case is less about WP:ABOUTSELF, and more about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. Contextually, the topic of this Wikipedia article makes the usage of the CCP mouthpiece reasonable. Yes, I also strongly consider Global Times to be a generally terrible source that spreads misinformation and should be avoided as much as possible, however, let's use some common sense here: For what purpose would this reference intentionally spread misinformation about the sentence being cited? It currently feels like there's a giant Wikipedia-wide kneejerk reaction against CCP-sources like the Global Times, Xinhua, People's Daily, etc. without properly considering the context they are being used in. I agree that for 99% of cases these sources should not be used, but if we are to approach this issue sensibly and not reactively, editorial discretion is necessary for the remaining 1%. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest that if you're trying this hard to come up with excuses to use a deprecated source - that is, a source so bad that a broad general consensus has found that it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia at all in general - then you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've been courteous, so I'd appreciate an appropriate level of reciprocity please. I've been around for almost the same amount of time as you, I'm no newcomer, and your tone can be interpreted as condescending. How context affects the usability of a partisan reference also depends on how the Wikipedia article presents the position being cited. Consider the following three example sentences:

  Barack Obama is an enemy of humankind.^[REFERENCE]

  A 2009 editorial from the Xinhua News Agency made the claim that Barack Obama is the enemy of humankind.^[REFERENCE]

  According to a 31 December 2009 editorial from the Xinhua News Agency, Barack Obama is the enemy of humankind.^[REFERENCE]

  Here, you see three different hypothetical scenarios where a partisan CCP source might be used, however they are written with different nuances and provide contrasting implications. The first example attempts to pass off a statement as fact using a Xinhua citation, and thus is unacceptable; the second example makes it extremely clear to the reader that X is sharing a position on Y, and thus (from my perspective) is an acceptable use of a Xinhua News Agency reference; the third example pretends to be impartial, but is ambiguous as to whether it is attempting to state a position as fact, and can potentially be written with the aim to deceive the reader, and thus is unacceptable. Now, back to the article Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, the prose already clearly explains to the reader that the People's Daily, China Daily, Global Times and Xinhua News Agency are all state-owned media organisations owned by the government of China, and it clearly presents all statements from the PD, CD, GT and XNA as claims made by those outlets, rather than facts. Based on this, I would like to argue that the use of the Global Times source is editorially ethical and responsible from a contextual perspective. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Just a point of order, PD, CD, and GT are all party owned media organizations not state owned. I admit that the totalitarian single party state nature of the PRC makes this one slightly challenging but Xinhua is the only organization on your list technically owned by the Government of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  That is true, though the article prose can be adjusted where necessary to reflect such technicalities. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Purchase links

In the last month, I've twice happened upon articles which show books written by the long-dead subject with links to google books. Formerly, the links would open to a selection from the book or article being referenced, but now many show as no-ebook available and lead only to purchase links. Last year I believe I saw an article in which similar Amazon purchase links were removed by another editor, and presumed that was because such naked commercialism was against some wikipedia policy. In the case of historian William B. Hesseltine (whose books were reissued several times before he died in 1963, well after the long-standing 1923 U.S. copyright cutoff date, now minimally extended), I knew some works were available free at Hathi Trust, so substituted those links for the google link, and also noted where the google link was purchase-only not a ref. Yesterday I came across similar links in the case of the linguist Edward Southey Joynes, who died in 1917. I sent a message to the talk page of the administrator/editor who had checked the links on August 15, and he suggested I contact another administrator, who (before I checked my email because of scammer calls that have plagued me) suggested I post here. I really am not a great technician, but prefer to spend whatever time I can spare adding content (such as local background and slaveholdings in yesterday's Joynes articles) that overseas editors (much less readers) can't otherwise access. I don't have time to spend hours learning and parsing various wikipedia policies, much less get caught in long discussion threads. Is there a wikipedia policy against purchase links? Or has google just changed its public domain works access policy?Jweaver28 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy against purchase-only links, see WP:LINKSTOAVOID #5.

Links to Amazon or Google Books can be OK in a book citation if they actually offer the text of the book (or at least substantial, relevant excerpts) without purchase; compare Template:Cite_book#URL. Both do so for many copyrighted works in a legal way, see also Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

(The question is a bit offtopic here, but there is probably no perfect venue for it.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It cannot be assumed that the excerpts on Amazon fairly represent the book. if fixed excepts or no excerpts are provided for a particular book on Google Books, they too do not provide reliable information about the book. All links to commercial sites for books should be changed to those from OCLC or another library cataloging agency/. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Google Books, this claim runs against longtime consensus, see e.g. WP:GBOOKS.

Do you have actual examples where Amazon's "Search Inside" misrepresented the content of a book?

And no, there is generally no reason to promote OCLC or other agencies with a link - we have WP:ISBN as a standard, vendor neutral solution for pointing to cataloging information. (By the way, OCLC is an organization with a questionable ethics record too, and in any case book citations are not the place to fight capitalism or hand out prizes to favorite nonprofits - the criterion for a link is whether it provides the reader with useful information, specifically in this case the text of the book or parts thereof.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Google Books a purchase site? I mean, they do sell books, but they also offer previews/snippets for a ton of content they don't sell. In either case, such links (to Google Books but also Amazon) can be useful when they offer previews of pages and such, but a related problem is that what works for one person won't work for another due to geoblocking, and that some books that offered preview switch to no preview and so on, so those links can rot overtime. I think the ideal solution would be for a link from a reference to be 'smart', and take you to a page that gives you a choice 'do you want to view this book in Google Books, Amazon, OCLC, worldcat, etc.'. It beats defaulting to one or another platform based on one editors preferences~and would offer the most value to the reader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Having worked through the lawsuit around Google Books, I would not consider Google Books' primary purpose to be a "vendor", since not all books can be purchased from that. It is meant to be a digitized library which you can potentially pay to access. Yes, Google/publishers can make money from it, but that's part of their goal and not their primary goal with it. Amazon, on the other hand, is 100% a vendor, the "look inside" feature an add-on to trying to sell you books. --Masem (t) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, thank you. I also see this as different from, say, Amazon sales pages; I prefer Open Library or similar, but Google Books is useful and I feel less bad now. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that underneath Google's attempt to digitize books from Universities when it started the project was a financial goal (no corporate company does something like this without that), its not clearly a direct financial/revenue benefit to them as Amazon, which was already selling books and just duplicated the feature (roughly speaking). I agree it is better when we can to link to Archive.org or similar open projects if we can (the current lawsuit from publishers pending) but Google books isn't an issue while Amazon is. --Masem (t) 16:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Mises Institute articles

I would like to discuss the usage of articles from Mises Institute, a lot of which appear in right-libertarian articles, and sometimes in articles related to economics. I would like to propose that this source should only be used as a primary source about the Institute itself, and opinions of its members, but it's an unreliable source of information for anything else.

Background

Mises Institute is a non-profit "think-tank" promoting right-wing libertarian economics. Most of its content are op-eds, but also some "educational" content and definitions.

RfC on Mises Institute

Should Mises Instute articles be allowed for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers? BeŻet (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• No / Generally unreliable. Think tanks are not generally reliable unless there's a strong reason to think otherwise, since the "default" structure of a think tank does not include any sort of fact-checking or accuracy - most think tanks exist to advance particular agenda by hook or crook, so to speak, not to cover things accurately the way a news or academic source would. Some think tanks do exist that have earned enough of a reputation that they could be considered reliable for stuff other than their own attributed opinion (eg. probably the Brookings Institution), but the Mises Institute is not among them. They reflect the opinions of the people who own and fund it and nothing else - citing them would be like citing an ad campaign. See the numerous past discussions about using think tanks as sources, which have generally reached the same conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• LOL no - opinion that is not notable unless it has been noted in RSes separate to Mises. I would tend to apply this to opinions of its posters too - not worth noting unless they are so notable themselves that even their blogposts would carry weight as sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC}
• Hell no. Their mission is to promote an agenda, and that is orthogonal to our purpose. A dark money funded unaccountable "institute", and a perfect example of why our sourcing policy requires reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Aside from your conspiracy theories and mockery of the name do you have an actual argument? Are you still mad that they have a coat of arms? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

    Pelirojopajaro, I am not up for a discussion of the objective merits of sealions.

    And, for the record, they don't have a grant of arms, as they themselves make clear. Their corporate logo is the Mises family coat of arms, which is not at all the same thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Prior practice is that they should be considered unreliable if their articles advocate for something which is generally disapproved of here. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely not. Certainly not reliable for statements in Wikivoice or statements of fact. Even use for statements of attributed opinion should be avoided/very rare: because the institution is on the fringes, promoting offbeat or unsupported notions about economics, law, and history, the due-weight test would seldom be passed. Neutrality^talk 05:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: It's a fringe advocacy group so its opinions are unlikely to be DUE. For most economics articles, reliable sources may include peer-reviewed articles and standard textbooks, but not think tanks or advocacy groups of whatever stripe. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure how this request should be answered. To answer directly, I would say no, the institute should not be used for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers (that is to say, for statements of facts). But yet, this does not appear to be what is originally asked/said which is that the publications by the institute is an unreliable place for information. This seems to me to be a very different question altogether and we would need more than a few cases to show that Mises is an unreliable source. I would also like to point out that there are think tanks which the wider community here has found to be acceptable despite their strong political views (or "partisan agenda" as some people would say). To me, it would appear that consistency in deciding whether Mises's views on political matters are acceptable would be key here. Fortliberty (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable if you are careful. They are often just excerpts from reliable books. The rest should be treated like every other blog. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But in this case the book should be quoted then, not mises.org BeŻet (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No because they are not a reliable source. So absurdly selective in their use of evidence and narrow in its interpretation, that in relation to serious scholarship they are disconnected to the point of autism. Cambial foliage❧ 22:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Evidence please and (name) calling something autistic doesn't help either your argument or the argument your arguing for. Flickotown (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't though, did I. Mischaracterising other editor's comments is not a form of (counter-)argument. Cambial foliage❧ 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this isn't an RS issue, it's a WEIGHT issue. If you think it's unreliable then you have to explain why - specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just saying Mises is biased (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't nearly good enough. There are other sources which are equally as biased as Mises and they aren't redlisted. (Cf. CATO, CEPR, MEMRI, on the WP:RSP noticeboard) Flickotown (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Genuinely cant believe that MEMRI hasn’t been deprecated yet, the Israel-Arab partisan's continual refusal to see reason when it comes to reliable sources is a pain in the ass. That being said two wrongs dont make a right, no way in hell should we be using Mises. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As I told OP so I will also tell you. If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just griping about Mises and how there is no way in hell anybody should be using Mises (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't good enough. Flickotown (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ummmmm... I don’t think theres much of a debate (this is pretty much a snowball at this point) but in a situation like this the burden is on those who seek to *demonstrate reliability* to do so not the other way around. Its also not an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the content they post are opinion pieces, and their definition pieces are not written in a neutral way, but from a fringe point of view. This is also clear in the language that is used. It is quite obvious why they are not a reliable source of information. BeŻet (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Designate as No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply if I have to choose. This is in keeping with how other sources similar to Mises's profile has been treated. Flickotown (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• No Self-published borderline fringe advocacy site. Reliable for their views, but that's about it. Ravensfire (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Like all of the others, there should be no such generalization Beside, the criteria argued above (and organization with an advocacy type agenda) would rule out nearly all organizations. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  North8000, no, there is a specific issue with think-tanks which is not seen in other sources. Think-tanks are built from the ground up to look like scholarly institutions, and their purpose is to create a veneer of legitimacy around an agenda, often paid for by people who will directly benefit if that agenda is advanced. We should exclude all think-tanks, regardless of ideology. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I don't agree. Unfortunately Wikipedia core policy & guidelines do not require expertise or objectivity or actual reliability to be a wp:rs. But let's say that we do want those things. If we generalize about sources that would disqualify most modern-time media, starting with the New York Times, most books on political topics and figures, all advocacy organizations etc.. A more useful attribute is expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it A think tank, especially since they generally do research, could be a very reliable source on matters of fact. But in areas of opinion, their writings are opinions and should be handled as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  North8000, er, yes they do. The R in RS is "reliable". Guy (help! - typo?) 23:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I wish that you were right. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  But they are not a reliable source of information, because they embody a very specific, fringe point of view when it comes to economics. This is not maths, chemistry or biology. BeŻet (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable Has anyone checked the information in the main article? This is a mouthpiece of the far-right. :
  • "A 2000 "Intelligence Report" by the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate, "devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics." "
  • "In 2003, Chip Berlet of the Southern Poverty Law Center described the Mises Institute as "a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics", also noting Rothbard's opposition to child labor laws and the anti-immigrant views of other Institute scholars."
  • "In 2017, the president of the Mises Institute, Jeff Deist, gave a speech at the Mises University conference, where in his concluding remarks he stated that the ideas of "blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people". Nicholas Sarwark and Arvin Vohra, then the chair and vice-chair of the United States Libertarian Party, condemned Deist's speech, with Vohra stating that "the Mises Institute has been turned into a sales funnel for the White Nationalist branch of the Alt Right". Vohra further accused the Mises Institute as a whole of being "authoritarian, racist, nazi"." Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Popculture Top 10 lists

Many popculture articles (about comic books or such) are often using references to the Top 10 list (a phenomena which should get its own article one day, if more sources like [132] exist - but that's an aside). The question is whether such lists are reliable and worth including, as usually they contain almost only plot (plus occasional basic facts about originating publication and creator), and next to no analysis. Recently another editor compared such lists to clickbait, and I do agree that they seem to be a very low quality source. Usually they don't explain their methodology, and contain just a description of whatever they discuss, with no justification, just assertions. But how low? Should we ban them or let them be? And should they count towards making a subject notable, given their proliferation on the Internet?

Examples of usage (often such lists form a major or only part of reception of many weaker articles about fiction); I will provide full quotes as some of those articles may end up being deleted one day. Comic Book Resources listed the character as part of He-Man: 15 Most Powerful Masters of the Universe, Comic Book Resources listed the character as "He-Man: Eternia’s 15 Mightiest Villains", Lion-O has received a mostly positive reception from critics: Comic Book Resources ranked the character 15th Best thing about ThunderCats. io9 ranked Lion-O 5th best thing about ThunderCats., Cheetara has had a mostly positive reception from critics. Comic Book Resources ranked the character among 11th Best thing about ThunderCats.io9 ranked Cheetara 2nd best thing about ThunderCats.... Comic Book Resources consider Cheetara the 10th most valuable Thundercats toy., Total Film ranked Zod #32 on their "Top 50 Greatest Villains of All Time" list in 2007. Pop-culture website IGN.com ranked General Zod as #30 on their list of the "Top 100 Comic Book Villains"., and so on.

More examples of such lists (from websites like Comic Book Resources, Screen Rant, IGN, io9 and similar portals, which seem to be usually reliable - but this mass production of loq quality clickbait-ish lists, which seems like it could almost be automated by some script, is worrisome: https://www.cbr.com/dc-comics-most-powerful-immortal-villains/, http://www.cbr.com/no-team-no-the-15-most-terrible-super-teams-in-comics/ , , http://www.cbr.com/generations-the-15-best-marvel-legacy-heroes/ , https://www.cbr.com/10-most-awesome-moments-from-marvels-star-wars-comic/ , https://www.cbr.com/teen-titans-best-worst-costumes-ranked/ , https://screenrant.com/comics-greatest-superheroes-marvel-dc-ranked/ , https://screenrant.com/dceu-the-batman-b-list-villains-gotham/ , http://www.cbr.com/the-best-female-fighters-in-mortal-kombat/ , https://www.cbr.com/good-and-bad-thundercats/ , https://io9.gizmodo.com/all-31-thundercats-and-their-foes-ranked-1767083095 and https://www.cbr.com/valuable-thundercats-toys/ , http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20101224011850/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html , and so on.

What should we do? Should those lists be culled? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Lists that simply give lists but do not give more than a brief description of why stuff is on the list is something we slangly call "listicles" and are basically useless as sources and for notability. They should be removed, and then notability re-evaluted if these were being used to support it. --Masem (t) 04:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, listicles are, as Masem says, worthless spacefillers. I always remove "was #32 on Widget World's Top 100 Widgets" and the like from the lead of articles, and my general view on lists is set out in Wikipedia:Awards and accolades. As sources, these are worthless IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Is WION a reliable source?

WION News has a reputation that is unusual in India for being not state-owned but still spreading alot of nationalistic propaganda. They seem to be more of a rumor mill which puts out articles after reliable sources like Times of India or Doordoshan News. The best analogy might be Breibart News in the US. I would say that thier written articles are much better than thier youtube channel, but again, thats not saying much. Albertaont (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Albertaont, firstly please read WP:RFC. Since WION hasn't been discussed here before and because this is not formatted like an RfC, I'll treat it as a general query. For the whether WION is reliable or not, I'd say no. It's not really independent from the state due to its ownership being in the hands of a ruling party backed member of parliament and lack of segregation in its editorial and corporate leadership.

On a sidenote, The Times of India (RSP entry) which has already went through an RfC isn't exactly reliable either while Doordarshan is the official state owned news broadcast and would be reliable for non-political information, it's pretty useful for basic facts on government schemes and such. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I’d say that additional considerations apply, its independent of the state (in a democracy party =/= state) but the overall quality is just too low for it to be truly reliable. As Tayi Arajakate said theres not a good firewall between the corporate promotions business and the news business. That being said this is a source that has improved over the last few years quality wise which is a nice thing to see, this source has potential but its just not up there with what we generally consider WP:RS. I would say its fine to use in most cases as long as its attributed except when it comes to Indian politics in which case the BLP issues with using it cant really be surmounted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

One note though, WION does a better job of covering East and Southeast Asia than its Indian peers. Its not really enough to sway my vote today but I think it speaks to the fact that if the quality of the source and its editorial independence improve this is a source that could be very useful for us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

To me it looks reliable. You have not provided any cases where Wion has allegedly spread nationalistic propaganda and it seems like that is at a minimum needed to establish that this media channel is a serial purveyor of fake news. I would also say that the political connections of the founder shouldn't be enough to automatically disqualify the newspaper from being used. Many media outlets in the West are founded by people with political connections. From what I have seen of their reporting, especially reporting on world news, their articles and videos are incredibly well researched. Full of details that surpasses even the ones from Europe and English speaking countries. Many of the personalities working there used to work for other major media outlets and sometimes they interview leading experts from around the world to discuss various issues too. Fortliberty (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not only it's political connection that makes it problematic, although it does indicate a lack of independence. It's the connection combined with the kind of news it propagates, as it stands it appears to be recently active news outlet, set up just to spread the ruling party's propaganda and for the sake of making my stance clearer, I'd recommend against kind of use other than in uncontroversial self descriptions. Within the short span that it has been active (since 2016), there's multiple questionable and outright fake reports that can be attributed to it. A few recent examples would be as follows:

• Publishing reports of a mass cremation in Wuhan with the help of an unrelated forecasted model being presented as satellite images, along with its counterparts at The Daily Mail (RSP entry), The Sun (RSP entry) and IndiaTimes (online tabloid which was segregated a few years ago from The Times of India). For example, The Daily Mail and IndiaTimes retracted this report but it's still up on the WION website as of today (Archived link).

• Claiming that Narendra Modi was apparently selected as the leader of an international task force on covid, which is outright false.

• Repeated promotion of the Chinese lab virus conspiracy theory. Sometimes it is attributed to a certain virologist while at other times it's left ambiguous or outright presented as a statement of fact. Compare this and this and this, for example.

• It even published the sensationalist hoax of Hanta Virus being this "deadly new disease" from China after Coronavirus (See this for example) and the sensationalist claim that the ozone layer was healing due to lockdown caused by coronavirus.

• Multiple other examples of reports taken from social media without any sight of basic fact checking, such as this this or this.

• etc, etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment. Please see WP:RFC for a guide on the RfC process. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lifehacker

Have there been prior discussions of this site? My own opinion is that the information is unreliable unless the author of a particular piece is known asan expert, and that it's interviews exists for the purpose of PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This site is one of the many new media outlets (disclaimer: I actually used to read it a lot a while back). I guess the key question is what editorial oversight they have, and what distinguishes them from blogs... Right now, I consider contnet from that site weakly reliable, with a note that they do have some sponsored/ad content, but I think that is easy to vet out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• DGG see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174 § Self-published blogs run by Gawker Media, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102 § Lifehacker (a third mention is lifehacker.jp, which may be unrelated). I concur with your analysis of the source itself. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly/academic articles: higher standard of sourcing?

• Perpetual virginity of Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dave Armstrong, National Catholic Register
• St. Paul Center
• Dr. Brant Pitre, Distinguished Research Professor of Scripture at The Augustine Institute
• Tim Staples, apologist at Catholic Answers
• "Thanks, but Dave Armstrong isn't a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia - RS for academic articles means someone with academic standing. Brant Pitre is RS, but the rest are not."
• "Here's the policy on scholarly sources - and an article like this is a scholarly article."
• I am curious to know if I read the policy document wrong. How have we defined "scholarly or academic articles" and how many I know when the heightened bar of WP:RS engages for such articles, disqualifying reliable secondary sources as worthless? Is this a situation like WP:MEDRS? Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

None of these looks like anything I would accept as scholarly or worth citing. Indeed, reliance on them would certainly be undue, seeing that they are clearly biased. GPinkerton (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. Elizium23 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more of a due weight question. High-quality academic sources carry more weight than other sources that, despite meeting Wikipedia's reliability standards, are less thoroughly researched and vetted than peer-reviewed scholarship. This is most explicitly stated in WP:NPOV § Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance (WP:VALID), which prioritizes "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship" over other sources to determine the relative prominence of competing views. This does not mean that non-academic sources are automatically excluded when academic sources are available, but it does mean that less reliable sources should have a lesser emphasis if they contradict the consensus of high-quality academic sources. No comment on the specific sources listed here. — Newslinger talk 06:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But see: WP:USEBYOTHERS. Encyclopaedic content on theological matters is not usually sourced to devotional websites, denominational journalism, or whatever the "St. Paul Center" is. I'm dubious that Pitre is much needed either. His seems to be a proselytizing private university in Nowheresville and for a subject such as this there really are better sources by more reputable publishers. What standard work on the issue cites Pitre? What reviews has his work generated in academic journals? Who peer-reviews it? GPinkerton (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

An organization's blog would almost certainly not be considered a high-quality academic source. No comment on Pitre. — Newslinger talk 07:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, you really should have informed me that you were opening this thread. Achar Sva (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, except for WP:NEWSBLOG. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that an organization's blog is necessarily unreliable, but only that it is most likely considered less reliable than peer-reviewed scholarship. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• If academic sources cover a topic, other sources should generally be replaced with scholarly ones. I have no doubt that there are many scholarly sources that discuss the concept of "perpetual virginity of Mary" so whatever can be replaced by scholarly citations should, and if it can't be sourced to scholarship should probably be deleted as UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• What buidhe said. This is a topic that is the subject of a bazillion scholarly articles and books, we really don't need random apologists. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Raheem Kassam and https://thenationalpulse.com/ - can they be used for BLPs?

Or indeed anything, see their use in the last 4 edits of this editor.[133] Doug Weller talk 11:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No. There's no editorial oversight, history of quality publishing etc. It's literally the pet project of the former editor of British version of Breitbart (Kassam) pushing overt conspiracy theories (and trying to get them cross posted to other similarly unreliable sources like the Post Milennial). I don't revert much when sourced, but those were blatantly misleading.

It became even more obvious when actually reviewing what they said in the one article linked. The whole Soros / anti-China attack line, misrepresenting who / what things are, and the roles played. As I said on that users page, one of the "two people" associated with the evil plan is Kevin Rudd. Of course they don't say that in the article in case anyone questions it. Koncorde (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. Propaganda blog, and if it keeps being added we should blacklist it. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Changxing railway station

Are https://web.archive.org/web/20160305074921/http://txy.chnrailway.com/news/20120827095100.shtml and http://cxnews.zjol.com.cn/cxnews/system/2013/07/01/016597095.shtml RS for information about the station?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The first is from China Railway Network (About page), which describes itself as under the National Development and Reform Commission (co-organized with other Chinese national organizations & a magazine), so it's more of an WP:ABOUTSELF source. The second is a local newspaper for Changxing County. They're usable in some but not all contexts. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

For instance, I wouldn't count the first source for GNG in the AfD for Changxing railway station, but it could be usable for basic information.

The second is a local newspaper and not a major news outlet. In general, I would only borderline count local news coverage towards GNG; they're not the best sources for demonstrating notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, given that Changxing County has a population of 620,000, I would consider it a large enough place for its local news to probably be reliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• If the issue is notability neither counts. If the question is just whether or not they can be used China Railways is ok for about self and the local paper is a no-go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Should Fox Business, Fox News, or any right-wing media deprecated?

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.

---

I believe that Fox News, Fox Business, and any other right-wing sources like Breitbart, New York Post is unreliable because they are very poor fact-checking when reporting about crime, and social issues and afiliated with far-right organization. When i cite any economic news, i don't want to cite it to Fox News and similar website, instead i more rely to BBC, France 24, and anymore that i fact more high quality reliable. Also when i cite international events, i would more cite on BBC than any right wing media like RT, CGTN, Fox, and many more that i considered low quality non-reliable. Should all or most right wing media be deprecated as reliable source? 182.1.228.70 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, sources are not deprecated based on their presumed political orientation. Among the sources listed in your comment, Breitbart News (RSP entry), RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), and China Global Television Network (RSP entry) have been deprecated because requests for comment on this noticeboard found that these sources have a tendency to publish false or fabricated information. Additionally, CGTN is more of a far-left outlet than a right-wing outlet on the left–right political spectrum (relative to the other sources listed in your comment), considering that it is a state-owned media organization based in China. — Newslinger talk 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We had a request for comment recently on Fox, with consensus that Fox is reliable outside the areas of science and politics. The New York Post is a tabloid, and tabloids are all marginal at best, regardless of political lean: I would not cite the Daily Mirror any more than I'd cite the Daily Express. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 15 October 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.

theins.ru , is it reliable? (The Insider)

Working on articles dealing with involvement of hackers for instance

• Dmitri Sergejewitsch Badin

I come across the media outlet the Insider([134]) for above mentioned case specifically "Clown" from the GRU. Who hacked into Angela Merkel's mail? A search on wikipedia revealed the source domain used previously , but the media outlet does not seem to have an article describing it on enwiki. Do we know anything about the media outlet? The media outlet is mentioned in the Awards section of Bellingcat but not in the European Press Prize article listing the aforementioned award.Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 17:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Kazakh-government funded outlets

• The Astana Times was described by The Diplomat as a publication founded by a public relations firm at the behest of the Kazakh government (source)

• EU Reporter seems to have a pro-Kazakh editorial bent and close ties to the Kazakh embassy in Belgium. (Sample articles: [135][136][137])

• Edgekz.com is run by the same PR company that runs The Astana Times. (PR Agency's website)

Would other editors agree that we should not use these sources to describe Kazakhstan's human rights and environmental record? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree: they're not editorially independent from the Kazakh govt. If we're going to copy PR it should be attributed and not cited to fishy whitewashed sources at the bare minimum. (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Certainly not, the EU Reporter might have some independence but otherwise none of these should be used to describe human rights or environmental record of Kazakhstan. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The Globe Post

Is The Globe Post reliable for this edit? Please note that the content is verified by this source, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)