Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323

Archive 320

Archive 321

Archive 322

Archive 323

Archive 324

Archive 325

→

Archive 330

Xinhua News Agency

Per Sun (2015), "When Mao told Xinhua to ‘take control of the earth’ and engage in international communication, his premise was clear: that the media were the propaganda tools of the CCP... In the 1990s, Jiang Zemin’s numerous external propaganda policy directives again re-affirmed the official line that Xinhua was the ‘mouth and throat of the Party, charged with the dual responsibility of both internal and external propaganda, the mission of both being to promote the CCP and Chinese government’s policies’."

Per Brady (2015), "In early 2009, Beijing announced that it would invest ¥45 billion (roughly US$7.25 billion) into its main media outlets in order to strengthen its international news coverage and global presence. As part of this campaign, known as “big propaganda” (da waixuan), Xinhua News Service increased its number of overseas bureaus from 100 to 186. That same year, the Global Times (a popular tabloid with an international focus owned by People’s Daily) launched an English-language edition. CCTV International also began broadcasting in Arabic and Russian, and in 2010 rebranded itself as CCTV News."

It appears that Xinhua, the Global Times, and CCTV International (aka CGTN) are all part of the same propaganda campaign that the CCP has used to increase Beijing’s global presence. Why is it that the Global Times and CCTV International/CGTN are now deprecated while Xinhua remains largely unchallenged?

Normchou (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua in general has a higher standard than CGTN/CCTV and Global Times. One blind spot is to misinformation/disinformation which originates within the official Party/State ecosystem, for example Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Kazakh virus. I would say additional considerations apply, they’re fine for statements about the Chinese government’s position on an issue but I would not in general use them for objective statements of fact and I would *never* use them for the BLP of a non-Chinese government official. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be helpful it if you could provide some corroboration and analysis for the statement that Xinhua generally has a higher standard than the other two outlets. Normchou (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You are west centric. Would you do the same for Chinese official? (i. e. Never used western reports for BLP of Chinese official.) The Master (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua is a news wire that produces factual and broadly unbiased (in terms of content, biased in terms of story selection) content largely for other news organisations. These fall into two camps: foreign news sources that use Xinhua to complement their reporting (e.g AP News [1], BBC [2], The Guardian [3] and it's a partner of AFP [4]); and Chinese government sites that spin the stories for propaganda. Xinhua has attracted some moderate praise in RSes in the past [5] [6] and its output is generally best described as boring (China's industrial output further expands in November is literally the current second to top story on the business page). In recent times it has been more roundly criticised (this article from the Guardian is a good example. It is also hilarious) but as far as I know no one has characterized it as inaccurate. ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that the issue can be boiled down to the reporting of factual content, and how (ir)replaceable Xinhua is in that regard. My own observation has been that headlines such as China's industrial output further expands in November are almost always available via a primary source such as the National Bureau of Statistics of China's website. Normchou (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Half the things Xinhua reports are "this subway opened" or "this power plant went online" or "this port moved xx% more containers than last year" which don't seem terribly controversial. Primary sources are incredibly hard to navigate and translate if you don't know Chinese. Xinhua's news has clean and precise english, which makes it easier for editors and readers to understand and also fact-check if necessary. Albertaont (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I need to point out that, in cases such as "China's industrial output further expands in November" like what Normchou has named above, Xinhua is the primary source just like China's statistics bureau, Xinhua's role is irreplaceable when making such announcements on official statistics and press releases because this is one of the main roles Xinhua was designated for when it was founded. China's new laws, regulations, announcements from Beijing, and so on must be published through Xinhua and no other means. This is a tradition that dates back to telegraph and morse codes, and even until today, important law releases such as Hong Kong's new national security law this July have to involve every other media's journalist nervously refreshing Xinhua's newswire feed. Xinhua is widely cited by other media for official announcements and it dates way back. Some instances that I have noticed include when the Communists established the People's Republic in 1949, or once towards the end of the Cultural Revolution when the New York Times translated Xinhua's announcement into English unaltered. This is not mentioned in Xinhua News Agency's entry, but starting in the early 2000s, Xinhua started to call itself "Xinhua," prior to that, its English name was "New China News Agency," and before the 1990s, "Xinhua" was often romanized as "Hsinhua" or "Hsinhua News Agency." Go to any newspaper archive and look for "Hsinhua," there will be tons of instances of Xinhua's words being cited. When serving as Beijing's "telegraph operator" for announcements, Xinhua is the ultimate primary source.

In addition to El. D, besides AFP, Xinhua also has collaborations and image exchange agreements with AP, Reuters, Japan's Kyodo News Agency, and several more, and Xinhua has been supplying images to the AP since the 70s. On an unrelated note, CCTV/CGTN also has image/video footage exchange agreements with CNN, and you can definitely see CCTV's footage being used on CNN, while CNN is cited as sources on CCTV. Also, I do consider that the Guardian's article on Xinhua is nonsense. That Xinhua's press release which shamelessly praised Xi Jinping is essentially what you would have been expecting from Xinhua. Firstly, on high Chinese officials, Xinhua does release official profiles for them (which may shade negative news or imperfections of them). Secondly, when it comes to Xi Jinping, do except Xinhua praising him like North Korean media praising Kim Jong-un. Thirdly, Xinhua's English service may not run stories of Xi's personality cult as often as its Chinese version, and that's probably what makes the Guardian's journalist surprised, but hell they run tons more of such propaganda stories every day in Chinese and that also includes CCTV on its prime time news program Xinwen Lianbo. Xinhua has been running such stories all the time, and getting surprised by them most likely indicates that the Guardian's journalist needs to consume more Chinese state media to get an idea of how they behave. --Techyan（Talk） 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Techyan: your information is dated, these days CCTV/CGTN are reporting that CNN produces fake news about China such as this piece from January: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang”[7] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism, but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.

Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine. --Techyan（Talk） 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Added {{reflist talk}} to prevent spoiling my notice below. Feel free to continue talking about the propaganda nature of Xinhua. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think User:Albertaont strikes the right note here. Xinhua is reliable for many topics, though of course they won't be neutral on Chinese politics. They are not even in the same ballpark as tabloids like the Global Times. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this has apparently been discussed before – see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. --The Master (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Trump awarded NYT as his fake news awards doesn't means the NYT is a fake news website. Although the NYT has some controversies, most of its reports are reliable. Banning the Xinhua also doesn't means we are discriminate against Chinese.--BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT is a left wing proporganda machine in USA and Fox News is the right wing counterpart. Chinese state media is much more reliable then NYT. There is a lot of fake news in NYT. google:fake news new york times site:globaltimes.cn. Finding an excuse to discriminate against the media representing Chinese people is slapping the faces of 1.3 billion people.--The Master (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think posting random nonsense to RSN is unlikely to convince anyone of your position, and strongly suggests WP:NOTHERE - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You are nonsense. Stop ad hominem! Chinese state media are much reliable than some media controlled by money groups and aimed at satisfying the bias of its readers. Strongly suggest you to read google:fake news new york times site:globaltimes.cn Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist. --The Master (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Chinese state media are like Russian state media, and the state media of many nations. They push propaganda alongside their regular news reporting. They are good enough for ordinary news, but not for political stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a Chinese Wikipedia user. I'm from Hong Kong, China.

I can't help but participate in the discussion. On the question of the reliability of Xinhua News Agency, as a Chinese national and Wiki user, I think I have a good say in this issue.

Everyone here may have some strange or even bad views on the media in our country. In this regard, I would like to tell everyone here that the Chinese media is not high compared with Western countries in terms of freedom of the press, but there is no doubt about authenticity and effectiveness. Xinhua News Agency has been an official media with a long history. Xinhua opened international affairs in 1940 and has been facing the public for 80 years. Even if the evaluation is mixed, not every news media can satisfy everyone. But its still existence can show that it has its own value.

Xinhua News Agency may be regarded by some as the government's propaganda media, but Xinhua, as the official media, bears the image of China, and the news and news released should be responsible for China's image. I think Xinhua has been able to release effective news.

So Xinhua News Agency is regarded by some people as the propaganda channel of the Chinese government. I can only say that everyone has their own views. But the news and news released by Xinhua News Agency are real and effective. Several Wikipedia users mentioned Xinhua's cooperation and praise with other internationally renowned media, so I don't mention it here. But it is enough to see that Xinhua News Agency is internationally recognizable and a reliable and effective source of use.

I can't represent anyone, but I also pay attention to the news and what happens around me. Edit entries on Chinese Wikipedia. We also need to provide reliable sources. I've always been happy to use Xinhua News Agency as my reference source. So at least I think it works.

（“抱歉，我只能用中文写这一篇回复。这一篇回复是机器翻译，如果有人能将此译为正确的英文版本、让读不懂中文的维基人能够看得懂的话，我将非常感谢。 ”）

（Machine translation,The specific meaning is subject to the Chinese version.Translation:[8]）
-Wiok^{TALK‧Wikipedia-zh} 15:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The above comment from the Chinese Wikipedia editor, Wiok, minds me of the corresponding page of WP:RSP in Chinese[9]. It appears that there was no consensus on whether the Chinese version of Xinhua is a reliable source, either.

由于《新华社》是中华人民共和国官方通讯社，其发表的政治类新闻需要审慎对待，尤其是涉及到与中国大陆相关的负面新闻更要谨慎。對於中華人民共和國的正面新聞或中性新聞，只要不是出於誇大或扭曲（變成正面新聞），新華社可以作為可靠來源。其转载或编译的国外新闻，应尽量用原始出处的新闻替代。
(Since Xinhua News Agency is the official news agency of the People's Republic of China, the political news it publishes needs to be treated with caution, especially when it comes to negative news related to mainland China. For positive or neutral news from the People's Republic of China, Xinhua can be a reliable source as long as it is not exaggerated or distorted (turned into positive news). For foreign news it reproduces or compiles, one should try to replace it with news from the original source.)

It would also be helpful to see Chinese Wikipedians having a discussion again regarding this matter, since the last discussion was in 2014. Normchou ^💬 23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with Xinhua being a reliable local news source as, even being considered as propaganda service by much Wikimedians, it normally can fulfill the role of a news source provider. But I'm quite weary of political news, particularly in US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and anything China had its tooth against. I'm not stating that Xinhua should be outright banned, or as what some users said, completely allowed, but the nature of Xinhua can loosely corresponds to the reliability of RT, or Al Jazeera. English version is better than Chinese version, but may still contain some propaganda or whatever Wikimedians think it as biased. --1233 ( T / C） 15:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You says Xinhua "being a reliable local news source" but not about political news in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang. Aren't Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang part of China? Though Taiwan is yet reunified. For Hong Kong and Xinjiang, do you think Western media being more reliable than Chinese state media?--The Master (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It should get the same treatment as RT (formerly Russia Today) at WP:RS/P: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Xinhua is a useful source, especially for everyday news like the examples Albertaont gave above (new metro lines, industrial output, and so on). It's certainly not in the same category as the Daily Mail. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Xinhua should be put above medias like NYT and Fox news. It is a state media and has its reputations, unlike western media controlled by interest groups and aims at satisfying the bias of its readers. They only cares about money, that's the difference. Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist--The Master (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: points out to me Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Here are some references proving western media are biased in Chinese reports. I list below for you to verify. There is no reason to discriminate agianst Chinese reports before discriminating the biased western reports.

• 江力涵. 美国媒体对华报道偏差形成机理与影响研究[D]. 浙江大学, 2019.
• 张亚兰. 从西方涉华国际舆论中看西方国家对中国的偏见[J]. 视听, 2016 (6): 139-141.
• 高原. 谈西方媒体对华报道的偏差与失真[J]. 新闻战线, 2013 (5): 97-99.
• 吴奇志, 王眉. 西方涉华报道的偏见及成因分析[J]. 中国记者, 2008 (10): 82-83.
• 薛涛, 张荣美. 西方媒体涉华报道中的 “傲慢与偏见”——以两起恐袭事件报道为分析样本[J]. 现代传播: 中国传媒大学学报, 2017 (1): 163-165.
• Commentary: Time for West to get rid of bias and show world the real Hong Kong
• Interview: Western media reports on Hong Kong biased -- German sinologist
• Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist
• Opinion: What's really going on in Hong Kong? Time for West to get rid of bias, double standards
• Western media's sustained anti-China bias: Global Times editorial
• Western media loses high ground with biased HK reports
• Pulitzer Prize won't alter Western media’s bias
• Western media reporting on Tibet full of bias--The Master (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• You have listed a large number of propagandistic, non-neutral and unreliable sources from Xinhua and Global Times, please stop promoting your anti-western sentiments, it's not helpful.--BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please constrain yourself to addressing the argument, declaring a editor to have anti-western sentiments seems irrelevant to the discussion and seems, in my view, to amount to censorship of a political viewpoint. I mean, I agree that editors should approach Xinhua stories on issues where the Chinese government is a stakeholder with the view that is at least biased but can we not be accused of parroting "anti-eastern sentiments" from our government? To avoid this, we must listen to all the opinions from editors and assess the argument's validity per our own policies not simply discard them on grounds that we believe that an editor has "anti-western sentiments". I am sorry if I have sounded too harsh, and I agree with the general thrust of your post but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the general desire to flatly disregard The Master's arguments on here on the grounds that they are Chinese. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

While there is consensus that RT "publishes false or fabricated information", it would be helpful to provide instances of Xinhua doing the same when arguing that they should be treated the same. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, looking at the sources, I see that the Journal of Democracy is part of the National Endowment for Democracy. While I have no serious reason to doubt the reliability of the article you cite or the journals as a whole, I am somewhat concerned about the link. For context, here is a New York Times article about some of the shady stuff the NED does. [10] ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to question the reliability of Journal of Democracy you should start a new section to specifically address that issue. Introducing irrelevant information in terms of WP:RS is unhelpful to the discussion and susceptible to fallacies of the red-herring type. Normchou ^💬 04:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no good reason to doubt it, I just wanted reasurance that editors had considered the link irrelevant for the purposes of this RSN. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be depreciated as per reports from The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, NYT, and from evidence of its reporting on Tibet and the Dalai Lama, also noted in these first rate RS. Reliability is directly contrary to being "effective". Furthermore, Xinhua's reports on the capitalist-model economy in Tibet and elsewhere in China cannot be assumed generally reliable either, since the fabrication of reports cannot be assumed to stop with economic reporting. Normchou, depreciation should be applied equally to CCTV, Global Times and to Xinhua. Andreas Philopater, to provide what was suggested: There are numerous examples that Xinhua "publishes false or fabricated information" during the 2008 Tibetan unrest and its aftermath, and continues to currently do the same.

1. Here, the number of Chinese "civilian" deaths is noted as false[11](per translated edits of text), since the only reported deaths of Chinese in Lhasa at that time that I've come across in numerous sources/RS occurred in a building fire, where 4 Chinese died and 1 Tibetan died as well. Also omitted are reports of 140+ Tibetans killed by Chinese forces during the same time period. Here's the NYT covering the same info [12]
2. Another is reported via VOA[13]and the NYT above, where Xinhua blames the Dalai Lama for the spontaneous uprising, a charge disapproved by numerous RS. (I'll refractor in more and better examples.)
3. In 2008, another death might have occurred outside Lhasa, to a policeman in Garze, while here's an AFP via France24 comment about "fabricated" (to use the term above) Xinhua reports[14].
4. Machine gun use in 2008 was not reported by Xinhua, but a report of leaked documents which support the eyewitness statements on machine gun use exists[15] and is reported by RS Tibetan Review[16].
5. In 2009 Barnett also reported on the deaths, and included more due to building fires inside and outside of Lhasa[17] and to shootings by government forces.
6. In 2012, evidence of more Xinhua's fabricated or false reports on political violence by China's govt, again by France24[18].
7. A 2013 report of a France24's reporter being harassed in Paris "mafia style" for editorial content, by Chinese diplomats. (Included as an illustration of the serious nature of Chinese propaganda)[19].
8. In 2014, France24 reports Xinhua's sources are not reliable,Xinhua, which cited the Xinjiang region publicity department in its report,... and that China's public executions are not reported[20].
9. A 2015 Reuters report on China's attack policy on the Dalai Lama, and on Xinhua in "The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has to be endorsed by the central government, not by any other sides, including the Dalai Lama himself,” Zhu said, according to a March 11 report in the state-run Xinhua news agency.[21]
10. A 2020 NYT detailed opinion article on forced labor system of nomadic peoples in Tibet, which is denied by Chinese government (Xinhua mentioned but paywall popup prevented inspection of lower text area.)[22]
11. In 2018 The Guardian details unreliability, "creative writing", and agenda pushing by Xinhua[23]with a quote that it distinctly pushes "Chinese agenda", and of the govt CCTV and related media, The whole point of pushing that kind of propaganda out is to preclude or preempt decisions that would go against the People’s Republic of China.. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 11:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

• Xinhua is a good and reliable source and should be retained. It is no less reliable than major Western news sources. Its coverage of China is unmatched by other English language sources. For controversial statements that are not supported by other source, it would be enough to use attribution. Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Declaring Xinhua "good and reliable" makes no difference as declaring RT as the same. Both are controlled by government and echos corresponding government's voices. A media with such influence by an authoritarian government should always leave a question on its credibility. The lack of acceptable public editorial guidelines should also add doubt on its reliability. I'm not stating an outright ban, but should proceed with extra care as reporting in some cases are irreplaceable and would be fine. --1233 ( T / C） 09:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• We just had an RfC on this in September. Why are we having a new informal discussion on the same points? — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Was wondering the same, it's in RSP and I don't think anything has changed since the assessment there, has it?Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I tried to point this out above. This strikes me as an unnecessary/superfluous discussion given that the RfC was only a few months ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian sources

Since the source review process lists several Russian sources as deprecated (e.g. RIA Novosti, TASS, RT), I find it curious that there are no similar Ukrainian sources so listed. In reviewing the products of UNIAN.ua, for example, there are instances of news reporting that are no different than those on the mentioned Russian news sites - other than they are from a differing point of view. Why are official Ukrainian media sources any more reliable or credible on matters of importance to Ukraine than are Russian ones? The deprecation of at least the listed Russian sites (without topical limitation) functionally amounts to Wikipedia censorship because it blankedly removes those sources from being acceptable as source citations. On the basis of Wikipedia policy relevant citation citing these source have been removed. In this way a limited number of Wikipedia editors have pronounced as pariah sources those with whose reporting it is politically acceptable to disagree. It would be better for the fundamental stated purposes of Wikipedia (free exchange of information) to allow free citation which would allow the readership to engage in a discussion of veracity and/or come to their own conclusions.Moryak (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources as far as I know which systematically spread Ukrainian propaganda (not even UNIAN, which I would say is reliable for reporting everything which happens in Ukraine as far as it does not touch Russian-Ukrainian relations - like TASS or Interfax in Russia; may be the only things which are published by the institute of National Remembrance are close to pure propaganda). On the other hand, most Ukrainian sources which call themselves mass-media are nothing more than blog-agregators, they just repost twits and Facebook posts of celebrities without making any effort to fact-check. In this sense, I do not think any of these qualify as reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't find this curious. I don't even understand the essence of your question. Are you saying that based on the fact that some sources are found generally unreliable, we should recognize other as generally unreliable? Some sources are just not useless (i.e. Russia Today), because they spread false, distorted or partial information. We don't lose anything when we don't use them. And I don't see any problem with UNIAN.--Renat (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RT is a public-facing, foreign focused, TV channel and as a result, it faces more pressure from its government to distort reporting and is more likely to be used as a source by Wikipedia. UNIAN is a news agency meaning that it largely provides news to other news organisations and its output seems to be mainly domestic. UNIAN is used by foreign RSes (eg [24]), so I would categorise it along the lines of RIA Novosti, TASS, or Xinhua as reliable but to be used with caution in certain areas. The fact that is privately owned may well confer greater reliability. Seems to be not worth listing on RSP. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Somali Dispatch

The "About us" section says "Somali Dispatch is the first full fledged English website that addresses the unique information needs of the growing English speaking masses in the Diaspora. Established in 2019, the website currently receives thousands of visitors a day. It is independently run and can be accessed and contributed to from around the world." It hints at some connection to CKCU FM in Ottawa, Canada, but not much else in terms of credentials. The attributed author for all of the articles is one of two names: "Admin" or "Mohamed Adan" which suggests this is a website maintained by one or two people. It's currently being used to source Somali president Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed's kinship with Siad Barre, which isn't supported by any other sources that approach WP:RS (it's alluded to in a few partisan Medium articles, that's about it). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS would forbid this usage even if this were otherwise reliable, which I doubt. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't see anything about it that would qualify it to be used in any way. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable It doesn't have a gatekeeping process, as noted by OP; it does not have a physical presence by which it could be held liable for what it publishes (no address listed on website and WHOIS has a privacy mask); it is not recognized by RS as RS (a cursory Google News search for "Somali Dispatch" and "somalidispatch.com" doesn't return results in RS). Chetsford (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The Diplomat

User:Horse Eye's Back added a statement on the reputation of People's Armed Police in Special:Diff/989899561.

The statement is as follows: The People's Armed Police are both feared and mocked by the Chinese public. It comes from an article from the Diplomat.

The author of the Diplomat analysis/opinion piece in question, Bonnie Girard, stated that [i]n general, it is safe to say that the PAP is not well-tolerated by a majority of Chinese, who both fear the PAP’s right to make arbitrary arrests and mock its members for their often brutish, thuggish tactics, implying that the PAP as a whole has the power to enforce law and make arrest. Furthermore, Girard does not provide evidence for this claim in the Diplomat article.

Previous publications states that [e]xcept the MPS-led active service troops within the PAP, such as the Border Defense, Firefighting, and Guard Corps, other PAP units do not have the power to impose sanctions (e.g., arrest and detain) , and that [t]here were law enforcement services that reported to the MPS: the Public Security Border Defense Force...; Public Security Firefighting Force...; and and Public Security Guards Force... The reforms addressed this problem in part by divesting the PAP of most law enforcement and economic functions

User:Horse Eye's Back stated that The author is in fact a professional and subject matter expert (Girard is widely published as a quick JSTOR check can confirm) where au:("Bonnie Girard") on JSTOR and au:Bonnie Girard on WorldCat yields no result.

Girard's claim contradicts what the previous published sources known about the PAP and therefore exceptional. Does this source qualify as multiple high-quality sources required by WP:EXCEPTIONAL? -Mys_721tx (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Tapol bulletin

I'm working on the Izaac Hindom article and I found out about the Tapol bulletin (you can search the whole collection in [25] here). As you can read in the article, the bulletin was published by a group of political prisoners based in London (Tapol itself means political prisoners in Indonesian) to monitor human rights issues for Indonesia. But what makes me doubt the reliability of the source is when I read this particular edition.

Tapol accuses Hindom of "Javanization" (you could read on page 6 of the bulletin) and cites Kompas, 26 October 1982 as their source. When I check Kompas, 26 October 1982, the title of the headline reads as "Transmigration in Irian Jaya not "Javanization"" (Transmigrasi di Irja Bukan "Jawanisasi"). Furthermore, they quote Hindom (a Papuan) as saying "This will give birth to a new generation of people without curly hair, sowing the seeds for greater beauty." (note that curly hair is the main characteristic of Papuans, so he's basically saying that Papuans are ugly) The bulletin also quoted Hindom stating Irian Jaya (Greater Irian) will soon become Irian Java, or Javanese Irian. However, a Tempo source noted that this was only a joke.

Aside from the controversial statements, Tapol is frequently cited by journals, such as this and this.

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably fine, based on how it is cited by journals, but that it should be attributed in the article. The only thing that seems that concerning is the first point you mentioned, but without further context (for example, the specific text in both of the articles) I'd say it's fine. Zoozaz1 talk 04:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people

Is this raw data an acceptable reference for the date of birth of living people? It seems to fail WP:DOB in that it's not widely published by reliable sources (is raw data really a reliable source?). At least one entry on the list is incorrect, see Talk:Paul Maskey#Birthday. FDW777 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the contradiction between the sources of the two legislative bodies, I would defer to the MP's personal posts. This is a case of generally reliable does not mean always reliable. Generally speaking, though, I would trust a legislative body for basic information about its members. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the information doesn't even appear on profile pages, it's raw data. Is it even "published" in any meaningful way? FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That list is clearly unsuitable as the sole source for DOBs or frankly anything for anyone covered by BLP. It would probably be better to have asked this at WP:BLP/N than here though. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Irish Times and Irish Examiner

Are these Irish newspapers reliable references at John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) (Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article) and Claire Kerrane (Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article)? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, standard, reliable newsorgs. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• I second, @buidhe, both totally fine.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?

Should "Jihad Watch" as a source be deprecated?

Apparently this has never had a formal RFC to actually deprecate it, though the previous discussion in April 2020 [26] seemed to indicate a clear consensus that it should be deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why? Is someone trying to cite it as if it is reliable? (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw this edit by @LaundryPizza03: [27]. I looked back to the last discussion [28] and it seemed pretty firm towards deprecation, and yes, it still seems to be used for citations [29]. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:Also I note that your response in April 2020 was "It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy.". IHateAccounts (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support There was near-unanimous support for deprecation in the last discussion, and as noted by MarioGom (talk · contribs) in that discussion, various RS have described Jihad Watch as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Also blacklist, per IHateAccounts' findings. There are 320 pages that link to Jihad Watch, including 38 articles that use it as a source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Really? This is getting silly. If we have to have a formal RfC for every obviously shit source out there, this will be a never-ending task. The RSP initiative is in danger of becoming an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Really? I think Alexbrn is spot on. Why would we bother for a source that isn't being used. This again is a problem with the way deprecation has evolved from a tool for a very specific case into something that seems to come up every time someone sees something they don't like. I would suggest this is closed as unnecessary. Springee (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Please withdraw this. Under normal circumstances I'd just close this, but because you've put a formal RFC tag on it it needs to waste our time for 30 days unless you withdraw it. Deprecation is a tool for a few, very limited, situations in which there's a source which we deem unreliable but which has the appearances of a legitimate publication or website and consequently people try to cite it in good faith. If someone is seriously trying to cite something called "Jihad Watch" as a legitimate source, that's a competence issue not a matter for RS/N; we don't need a formal RFC for this any more than we need a formal RFC on whether Star Trek is a documentary. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  I believe it would do a disservice to Wikipedia if I were to withdraw this RFC. Per my reasons and those by LaundryPizza03 stated above, the reasons stated by Hemiauchenia below, and the fact that the site is used as a source on multiple WP:BLPs currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  If it's used as a source (on a BLP or otherwise) for anything that seems even slightly dodgy, you should remove it -- neither deprecation nor an RfC is necessary for that. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's already listed as unreliable at Perennial sources. There's no need to deprecate it. TFD (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate I think some commenters don't understand how prominent Jihad Watch used to be, it's not just some random conspiracy blog run by a nobody, but a prominent website, associated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes the deprecated FrontPage Magazine. Jihad Watch has even drawn comment from one of Pakistan's prime ministers, and its author is described by the SPLC as "one of the most prolific anti-Muslim figures in the United States". The website is currently cited 38 times in article space per jihadwatch.org  . I that stripping out the non-aboutself references to this source is something that needs doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have aborted this unnecessary RfC -- the number of possible unusable sources is infinite, they do not need to be run through RfCs one-by-one. Find something useful to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Given that the April 2020 discussion wasn't a formal RfC, can it be used to deprecate the Jihad Watch without going through another discussion, given how strong the concensus was? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  The world is not divided between "sources that are usable" and "sources that are deprecated"; there are categories such as "sources that are so clearly unsuitable for basic factual statements that to hold structured discussions about them is a pointless waste of time" and "sources that no one has ever seriously proposed to use to source anything" and "sources that are already listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP". Absent a clear need, the world is not made better by formally deprecating things in these categories -- running an RfC to confirm an existing and unchallenged consensus is a pointless waste of time. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I said exactly the same thing during the Zero Hedge deprecation RfC at which time Zero Hedge had around 20 Wikipedia citations which I felt was really more about making a point rather than a useful source deprecation. The real need is to strip out non-aboutself references to Jihad Watch, which I have done to several citations already. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate, if it isn't absolutely clear yet. I note the associated FrontpageMag is expressly deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  It is absolutely clear, and that's why I've removed the RfC tag, again. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, if this site is being repeatedly spammed across article and there is indisputable consensus that it is generally unreliable, shouldn't this just be referred to WT:BLIST? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, of course, this RfC is a waste of time, which is why I've removed the tag again. IHA, please notice how almost everyone is saying the same thing. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  @JBL Hi, IHA's adopter here. I have been silently watching this RFC in order to provide offwiki feedback. I was not planning on making any comment to avoid accusations of canvassing or tag teaming, etc. However, I feel the need to say, as an outside observer, that it is incredibly clear that people are not saying the same thing here. Some people are saying it shouldn't be depreciated, and other people are saying it should. Both sides agree it's a bad source, but I still see a good faith disagreement as to what to do about it.
  If you have an alternative means for IHA to get the result that they want (ie. depreciation, blacklisting, edit-filtering, or auto-reverting), then please feel free to suggest that. Until then, IHA seems to be following the only method laid out within Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to achieve their desired outcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  I concur that it's a reasonable RFC to raise here, and ask that the RFC tag not be removed again. We've seen before (e.g. Mail on Sunday) when an apparently-gratuitous RFC had to be run, just because some people insisted the obviously terrible source closely associated with an already deprecated source was great actually and kept putting it in. If we have to nail this one down, we might as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  So far, there is a clear consensus among the people who have participated in this RfC that it should never have been opened, and zero people arguing that Jihad Watch is an acceptable source (which is, of course, further evidence that an RfC is not needed). The situation of the Mail on Sunday is completely incomparable in all respects. If a couple of you want to jerk yourselves off to the accomplishment of officially deprecating a source that no competent editor would ever use or defend, I guess I can't stop you, but it's an utterly idiotic waste of the time of everyone. MJL, maybe you can explain to your mentee that they should not edit war and not waste community time and also learn what the hell a personal attack is. Please no one ping me back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw this While Jihad Watch is in no way an acceptable source, we only deprecate sources that are cited enough by editors to be a problem. Compared to Newsmax or Occupy Democrats Jihad Watch is far less prominent. I would not be against blacklisting the source. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate It is currently being used in BLPs such as Hani Ramadan and we should deprecate. There's no need for it to drag this out any longer. Spudlace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate per comments above and last discussion. User:JayBeeEll, instead of disruptively removing the RfC, how about getting it blacklisted if you don't think this RfC is necessary. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller:, I have nothing more to add here. --JBL (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw-- I fail to see who is actually trying to insert "Jihad Watch" into an article? It's currently listed in only about 30 articles, mostly for aboutself reasons. Unless there is widespread abuse, deprecation is clearly not needed since Jihad Watch is already listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw per Alexbrn and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Doesn't allow for context and point to disputes about diffs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate blatant propaganda site. Should be removed from wherever it is used. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC Who really use it? --Shrike (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate -- not a usable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Closure

I have placed a closure request for this RFC. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Are these estimates reliable?

• Source: [30]
• Article: Kurds => infobox
• Content: Infobox => current cited source #2.
• Is it a reliable source? Can we use it? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's quite likely to be a disputed figure, given the tendency of Turkey and other countries to minimise minority statistics, and the fact that it is possible to (somewhat justifiably) divide the Kurds between smaller ethnic units on linguistic or religious grounds. However, it seems to me to be RS in and of itself, I'd look at the minimum number and see if you find RS that give you a lower number, if so include both numbers in the infobox, perhaps with attribution in the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that source itself does not have any specific author to see if it's written by a reliable/expert person or not. It does not cite any other stats, estimates, or reports. It's not clear where those numbers come from. e.g. it claims: "In addition, the Kurdish communities of Khorassan (1.5 million) and Tehran (0.5 million)..." Look at Tehran. It mentioned all ethnic groups with notable population (Persians, Azeris, and Mazanderani) and the related content is sourced. But Kurds are just mentioned as other ethnic groups in that city. How there is zero mention of a considerable number like 500,000 Kurds if that estimate is close to actual number of their population in Tehran? It's not something that a gov can't hide or ignore. Also why only Kurds ignored? That does not make any sense. Kurds of Khorasan does have two reliable sources with estimates about 500,000 to 1,000,000. Both sources (Iranica and Brill) are legit. But again, where does that Khorassan (1.5 million) come from? Per what study/research? Even I looked at this Who are the Kurds? and the lead paragraph (Medes = Kurds) proves that this institutkurde.org does not look like some kind of unbiased and academic organization. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is inferior to an Academic source, if one that contradicts it exists, but the Tehran thing doesn't look out of whack. Tehran's metro area is 16 million, half a million Kurds does not seem unlikely, if we include children of Kurdish immigrants to the city. As for the Medes thing, they actually say "In the 7th century BC, the Medes, the Kurds' equivalent of the Gauls for the French...", that is a reference to geography, ancestry and cultural perception. The French =/= The Gauls. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Daily Kos election predictions

The Daily Kos has only been discussed three times. In 2015, there was consensus that it was unreliable for its election predictions. Despite this, its predictions are currently being used in articles on house races both this election and last election. Is there still consensus that it is unreliable for these? Username6892 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable Daily Kos is both user-generated and aggregated content and doesn't have the reliability background that electoral aggregators like FiveThirtyEight have, so yeah, i'd consider it unreliable still and should be removed from those articles. Silverseren^C 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Silver seren, their election predictions are not user generated. They have staff that handle that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." Predictions are always expressions of opinion and, in the use case examples given, these opinions are credited as being those of Daily Kos. Whether or not Daily Kos' predictions are important enough to include in the articles in question is a separate matter (I'd argue it's not and should be removed), but if it's determined they are then the Daily Kos is a RS for its own predictions. Chetsford (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 19:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't Daily Kos also just be unreliable in general due to it being user-generated content? The only potential exception being staff-written articles, but i'd be wary even on those. I mean, heck, I've written articles on the site before. Silverseren^C 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree, Silver seren, that the Daily Kos is potentially not RS for statements of external fact. However, my position is that Daily Kos is RS for statements of internal fact; that is, to confirm whether or not it wrote something. In this case we're not saying it's a fact that Arizona 1 is "Likely D" in 2018, we're merely saying it's a fact that Daily Kos said that Arizona 1 is "Likely D" in 2018 for some reason or another (the reference link in the article indicates this conclusion was written by staff and represents the blog itself, as opposed to a random contributor; I believe contributor posts are labeled "Community"). Of course, whether or not that's even relevant to include in the article may be a separate question. Chetsford (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• But if the argument is just "it's the opinion of the author", then couldn't that statement be made about literally every site that we do consider unreliable? Especially in this case, the "opinion" nature of it is questionable, since it's reporting on election statistics, which is information about facts. So either it is reliable or unreliable for reporting facts. Silverseren^C 20:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• "But if the argument is just "it's the opinion of the author", then couldn't that statement be made about literally every site that we do consider unreliable?" Yes, per WP:SELFSOURCE, virtually any source is reliable as proof that source wrote something. In other words, even a questionable source can be reliable for claims of internal fact ("The Daily Kos has written that the Earth is flat.") even if it's not reliable for claims of external fact ("The Earth is flat.").

"since it's reporting on election statistics, which is information about facts" In the use case examples given, I don't see that it's reporting on election statistics. It appears to be predicting future human behavior by rating a particular congressional seat as "Lean D" or "Safe R" prior to an actual election occurring. Predictions of future human behavior are almost always opinions and are undefinable as either fact or fiction due to the linear perception of time the humans editing this encyclopedia experience. Whatever means TDK used to form its opinion — polling aggregates, quantitative analysis of historic trends, Delphi technique, Ouiji board, etc. — is not for us to judge. We are simply noting that it is a fact that The Daily Kos rated Arizona 1 as Lean D; we are not saying it is a fact that Arizona 1 is Lean D (a claim that is undefinable as either fact or fiction). That doesn't mean we're justified to include TDK's opinion in the grid or, indeed, anywhere in the article. But the decision to dis-include it is a matter of WP:DUE, in my opinion, not of RS. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Daily Kos has multiple components. User-contributed diaries are only suitable for referencing what the author says as a self-published source (some Democratic politicians have verified accounts that have posted there). Staff content on the mainpage is subject to editorial control, but still generally has a liberal bias and should be avoided for claims of neutral facts. Daily Kos Elections (formerly the Swing State Project) has historically been a separate group from the mainpage and less partisan, but I'm not still sure if that's the case. While I see sources that view their election data as reliable (Cook, 538), I don't see the same regarding their predictions. Without a secondary source discussing the predictions, I would not use them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Is a statement by Governor Cuomo enough to call an incident terrorism at Terrorism in the United States ?

It's this edit[31] that concerns me (I've reverted it twice). Its article, Monsey Hanukkah stabbing also only has Cuomo as a source. In October 2019 we had an RfC at Talk:List of terrorist incidents[32] that determined that list entries should only be included if "The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism"." I guess as Terrorism in the United States albeit being a standalone list is technically not covered by the RfC, the principal still seems sensible. It's also relevant that the perpetrator " had a long history of serious mental illness and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia the year before the attack. He was charged in state court with five counts of attempted murder and one count of first-degree burglary, and in federal court on federal hate crime charges. A federal judge ruled him incompetent to stand trial on the federal charges." He is now in a mental facility. I'm not convinced that any act by such a person can be classified as terrorism, and I'll also note that by calling this terrorism we are calling him a terrorist, which looks to me like a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• No. The Governor's comments are not themselves an RS, if other sources aren't calling it that it doesn't belong on the list. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'll add that I agree it's a BLP violation, which would imply a WP:3RRNO exemption for anyone reverting its addition unless RSes are presented. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• No per Girth Summit, and also - why is the perpetrator's skin colour mentioned in the first sentence? Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No It might be for his claim it is (with attribution), but as he is not the US government nor a federal agency hard to see why its relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No We base the description on weight, that is, how it is unusually described in news or expert sources. Another way of looking at it is that government officials use non-standards definitions of terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes with qualifications to the general question but No in the specific use case. As terrorism is an attack on the corpus of the state, the controlling mind of the state is a RS to qualify whether or not a particular act is terrorism. Cuomo is the head of state and chief of government of New York and is the personification of the state of New York. That said, I agree that linking the term to named individuals - instead of a more general, amorphous incident - would be a BLP violation and should be policed in the manner done in this instance. As well, if it's clear he was using hyperbole, speaking in a personal capacity, or a preponderance of RS dispute the incident as terrorism, it would be inappropriate to describe it as such. Unrelated to this question, I agree with Black Kite, etc., that the race of the alleged perpetrator should not be mentioned in the first sentence (or at all, unless it's directly relevant to the attack). Chetsford (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, largely per others. Statements by politicians, no matter how prominent, are not generally reliable for statements in Wikipedia's voice, particularly in contentious situations. Cuomo is a primary source whose views likely warrant mention, but that's about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, a statement by a politician or leader is absolutely not usable as a source for article-voice statements of fact. If it is covered by secondary sources, we can cover it, with attribution, as their opinion, but stating that something is terrorism in the article voice requires an WP:RS we can use for statements of fact - something with fact-checking and proper editorial controls - calling it terrorism in their article voice, and a quote from a politician doesn't qualify for that. Heads of state are individuals, and random quotes from them are not, themselves, reliable sources for statements of fact, since they don't qualify as "published" for WP:RS purposes; that is to say, nobody is exerting editorial control or fact-checking over Cuomo's statements here. --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Fryderyk Chopin Institute

Is the Fryderyk Chopin Institute reliable for claims about pianists? Its page on Fou Ts'ong refers to an album called The Pianistic Art of Fou Ts'ong – which apparently has quite complimentary things to say about Fou in its liner notes – which I cannot verify the existence of in other reliable sources, at WorldCat, or at Discogs. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable The institute's materials have been cited by RS about both Chopin and other pianists [33], [34], [35]; there has been a minor point of controversy as to whether or not it may have obfuscated one historical perspective on Chopin [36], but even that question seems unresolved and not so expansive as to indicate a possible falsification of information. Rather, it seems to be a framing controversy, which is a routine dispute in historicism. Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Hm, perhaps the key lies with the fact that the album was, according to their profile, a "private issue". Fwiw, it's also referred to in this obit from a major Portuguese newspaper (as A arte pianística …) I'd never heard of a non-public record album before, but you learn new things every day … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Amongst other things, the Institute runs the International Chopin Piano Competition. There was a controversy about the early elimination of Ivo Pogorelich in 1980. The Institute organises The Chopin Review which lists its editorial board, including John Rink, Professor of Music Performance at the University of Cambridge. He is reliable on pianists. Here is a detailed article citing Fou Ts'ong where Rink is mentioned. I haven't looked at the obituaries of Fou Ts'ong. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)