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

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

I'm wondering about the status of RealClear media, IOW RealClearPolitics (RCP) and RealClearInvestigations (a redirect to RCP). My initial impression is that they are aggregators, but also with own, very biased, content. All I find is this thread opened by User:JzG in November 2019:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

Valjean (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this use at our conspiracy theory article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative:

Jeanine Pirro, a long-time friend of Trump, described Mueller, FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee), former FBI Director James Comey and other current/former FBI officials as a "criminal cabal," saying "There is a cleansing needed in our FBI and Department of Justice—it needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in cuffs."

Here we have a combination of types of sources. All content at Wikipedia (other than WP:ABOUTSELF) must come from RS, even to document the most ludicrous pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc. If something is not mentioned in RS, it does not have the due weight to be mentioned here. Period. That makes this use of RCP, if it is deemed unreliable, very dubious. The NYTimes and Salon should be enough. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[1] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). jp×g 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  What's wrong with labeling an opinion piece as "Commentary"? Commentary literally means "expression of opinion". feminist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing, I guess. That piece also clearly introduces the author as "a columnist for RealClearPolitics". For example The Guardian (at least the British one) is considered generally reliable, but some times I have to squint if I want to quickly figure out whether something is labelled as opinion. Random example, this is in "News" section and more specifically in "Business" section, though below the article it is labelled as "Coronavirus / comment". If one wants to know more about the author, they would have to link the author's name to read a profile page where the author is described as "a columnist, author and small business owner". Politrukki (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• If we're going to discuss RC's reliability, it should be done at WP:RSN rather than here unless there have been additional threads on the matter already. -- Calidum 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'll move this there, so feel free to continue there. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [2], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [3]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos (RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason (RSP entry), The Spectator (RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [4], Government Executive [5], Albuquerque Journal [6], CBS News [7], TIME [8], CNN [9] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [10], [11] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
  That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ story you site describes RealClear as "mainstream" and their poll average as "famous." Furthermore, I am unaware of any requirement that an RS refrain from publishing the identity of a whistleblower. For comparison, is the NYT unreliable because they blew a CIA program to catch terrorists via their finances [12]? Obviously that put lives at risk. Meanwhile, the NYT, which routinely advocates for restrictions on oil drilling in the USA, is owned in considerable part by Carlos Slim, who obviously benefits from such restrictions. In sum, you are condemning RealClear for things we appear to accept from other sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable for anything except perhaps its attributed polling averages (which seems to be the only thing it is really well-known for, looking over sources and usage, and which is probably better cited to a WP:SECONDARY source anyway.) Outside of that it is largely noteworthy as an aggregator; and there's no reason we would cite them rather than the sources they aggregate. For the (largely opinion) original stuff they do post, there seems to be little distinction between opinion and fact. More importantly, they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election and surrounding events recently, which is a definite strike against their reliability. Generally speaking I don't think it makes sense to use a handful of passing mentions as an argument for WP:USEBYOTHERS when the NYT just wrote an entire in-depth teardown essentially saying how unreliable it has become. EDIT: I would say that per the NYT source it is particularly unreliable after 2017 because of this: Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off. The shift to the right would be fine on its own, but firing their reporting team isn't. And that led to the other issues the article identifies - inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election, unsubstantiated or false stories, stories that raise ethical concerns, and so on. None of this sounds like the write-up of a source we could use as an WP:RS; it appears they gutted their news team sometime in 2017 and switched to basically pumping out spin, with increasing disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for the reasons explained by John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. They do seem to be known for polling averages more than anything else, which also leads to a WP:DUE concern; how often is a poll average, of which there are many, actually worth writing about? In that case, we'd be turning to secondary sources anyway, as Aquillion suggested. Less-than-stellar publications are sometimes the ones to "break" a story (because it was leaked to them, or because they were listening to the police scanner, or whatever). When more solid reporting confirms the story and mentions where it first appeared, that doesn't necessarily count in favor of the marginal publication's reliability for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly this. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards extramarital affair, but that doesn't mean the Enquirer is suddenly reliable either, all it means is a stopped clock happened to briefly coincide with the time of day. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How true. I subscribe to and follow over 4,000 journalists and media sources of all types, including the use of many Google Alerts, so I see what is written by the most unreliable of sources. For example, The Daily Caller often has "news" details that is cutting edge (IOW on the wrong side of the knife...), but those details are not yet found elsewhere, so I do not use TDC as a source or even mention those details. I wait until RS pick up the story. TDC will usually frame these interesting details in a misleading story that misleads its readers, and we shouldn't send readers to such trash. When the details appear in RS, the setting is more neutral and factual, and we can then use those sources as documentation of those interesting details. They now have the needed due weight and proper sourcing. So be patient and wait for RS to cover such stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable, completely, given their track record of demonstrably false claims, fringe opinion pieces and the like. One cannot even call it "reporting" anymore, given the mass layoffs of actual journalists in 2017. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We have a lot of people declaring "not factually reliable" as an undemonstrated assertion. The standards for RS are the same as our general standards; if RS consider them reliable, they are reliable. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their original reporting is widely, and regularly cited by RS. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their journalists have received some of the most significant awards given by and from the journalistic craft. Unless we have RS widely declaring RC to be unreliable, our individual assessments of RC is irrelevant. So far only one source has been offered which sort-of hints at that; we don't blacklist an entire media outlet because of one false positive - otherwise we'd be non-RS'ing the New York Times over the Caliphate podcast scandal that just broke or Rolling Stone for A Rape on Campus. All other arguments appear to rely on personal analysis. Content analysis is research and personal content analysis is OR. A policy-based argument, supported by sources, has been offered demonstrating reliability. The same has not been offered demonstrating unreliability. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this really the standard? Then the assessment should also take into account reporting from the New York Times, which writes that, during the Trump administration, “Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents,” and that it ran “stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns.” John M Baker (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, we definitely should take that into account. But taking a report about a source into account is different than giving that report veto power. As I said, above, the ability to find one or two instances of RS questioning a source should not be treated as some gotcha! reason to deprecate a source. If that were all it took, we would have no sources left. Here [13], WIRED reports "News organizations, including The New York Times, have reported the story without trying to get to the bottom of it, or even finding out basic information such as where or when the alleged party took place."; here [14] Rolling Stone is found liable for a demonstrably fake story; here [15] The Intercept writes that the Washington Post published a story about hacking that is "demonstrably false" . In each of these cases, we have far more evidence of RS considering the NYT, Rolling Stone, and WaPo reliable than unreliable. Similarly, as demonstrated in my !vote, the same applies to RCP. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But the New York Times article is not comparable to the claims that the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post published individual false stories (not that I think that the linked critiques of the NY Times and the Post are particularly compelling). Rather, the Times has provided an overall assessment of RCP's current reliability, and it has done so in terms that are utterly inconsistent with finding a source to be reliable. That should weigh far more heavily than individual examples where an established reliable source chose to refer to RCP uncritically. Nor do I think that the test of reliability should be the treatment given by reliable sources. If that were the case, we would certainly have to reinstate the Daily Mail, which just in the past few days has been cited by The Independent (Dec. 31, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020, again), The Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 27, 2020), and the Kansas City Star (Dec. 24, 2020), among others (all examples from NewsBank). The test should be whether a source is in fact reliable, based on reported facts, and not on whether media sources sometimes choose to use it without further examination. John M Baker (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
        • When sources considered reliable mention and provide an analysis of less reliable sources it's often useful to WP to support article content rather than using unreliable sources, but it doesn't mean that we should by extension consider those reliable (which is precisely why an independent interpretation of their claims is useful)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally discourage - especially if editors must determine the usable material from the obvious propaganda themselves. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford with the RSOPINION restrictions feminist noted. I think I would consider much of their material analysis but absent a source directly contradicting them I would say it is usable in that capacity. Springee (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• It's aggregation and partisan opinion content, so should be treated accordingly. So if we're talking about their original content then no, of course we shouldn't use it for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. unreliable), but there may be uses for attributed opinions of certain authors in exceptional cases (as usual, RSOPINION does not mean that every/any opinion carries WP:WEIGHT on its own, but it's possible there are uses for them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. There's been far too much of this fad for wholesale banning of sources via deprecation—it has the stench of political bias, smacks of censorship, and suggests editors are no longer able to judge reliability on a case-by-case basis. Deprecation is used to exclude purely factual, documented information. (Example: the NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake, and the only ones linking to the official police report—claims they're not "RS" was used to censor factual information.) These deprecation debates are little more than referenda asking: "Would you personally prefer if the source couldn't be used?" Saying RCP is "unreliable" because it accurately identified a "whistleblower" or linked to Russian articles is absurd. As to the claim that the same company had a "secret Facebook group sharing right-wing memes" is disqualifying, see the professor's quote about WSJ/Fox—then ask if false claims made by Amazon mean Bezos' WaPo should be deprecated. Broadly agree with User:Chetsford on this, especially that RCP has not been shown to publish false information, let alone routinely. Additionally, Lee Smith and others have done some very solid original investigative reporting for RCP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about "something something conservatives are being silenced" aren't a rational argument. "NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake" is pure lying hooey: it was fact-checked by reputable news agencies (such as USA Today [16] and Reuters[17]) that contradicted the lies the Daily Fail and NY Post were putting out. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. RealClearPolitics is described by reliable sources as "one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about (Trump's) political opponents". Specifically, RCP aggressively promoted the "stolen election" falsehood that fueled a failed attempt to overthrow the US government a week or so ago. So that's a hard no from me.

  It appears that the "serious news" staff of RCP was laid off en masse in 2017, and replaced by Republican political operatives ([18]). Separately, of course, RCP has also published defamatory falsehoods (misidentifying the author of a high-profile anonymous op-ed), recycled and laundered Russian propaganda, outed a legally protected whistleblower, and so on—all in service of partisan ends, and all detailed here and elsewhere. Defending this source as reliable, in light of all this evidence to the contrary, is quite a stretch. Arguably, one could list it as "potentially reliable before 2017, unreliable afterwards", based on the staff turnover and shift in tone and focus.

  In any case, using a source known to publish defamatory falsehoods, reckless & unfounded partisan smears, election-related falsehoods, and foreign propaganda—as RCP is documented to do—is fundamentally a behavioral and competence issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Just another partisan source. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without too partisan and opinion based sources. I absolutely don't think those who look at things from one side's perspective tend to have reputation for fact checking. Hence, I don't think it's a WP:RS.Magnus Dominus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Unreliable, and trying for deprecation - the conspiracy theory pushing suggests they've left tawdry conceptions of "factual reality" behind. Unfortunately, "factual reality" is where Wikipedia does its best to live, and so we can't follow RCP to where they're going - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This subject is an opinion aggregator, mostly using reprints of articles which appeared in right-leaning sources. The NYT article linked above by User:MastCell demonstrates that whatever "non-partisan" credibility they tried to hold onto was lost in the "sudden right turn" after Trump's election. These days they are just another source parroting "stolen election" lies. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - We can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as long as they are used in a neutral way or with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable - not a matter of bias one way or the other, it's a matter of uncritically reporting falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - as reliable in their political opinions as left-leaning sources like WaPo. We don't consider a source unreliable because we don't agree with their politics. Biased sources are acceptable. But like all online news sources in today's clickbait environment, we should exercise caution and use common sense. Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now per MastCell et al, but I would probably say that pre-2017 content might be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for now. The source has published a few questionable stories relating to the 2020 elections, but its news offerings are on the whole reliable; it should be treated as a mainstream news source. This may change in the future if its bias gets more extreme and starts causing the facts to get distorted.Jancarcu (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now (since at least 2020, and apparently since 2017), or at least "use caution", in light of their decision to ditch their reporting staff and shift from mere bias (which is OK, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES) into conspiracy-theory inaccuracies about several recent events, which I've seen and which MastCell and Aquillion go over above and which other RS called out, as noted above. -sche (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: China Daily

Link: [19]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk)

MBFC Rating: [20]

02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is not a reliable source and should not be invoked in talk page discussions, it says pretty much nothing of value about the quality of a source. That said I do think a RfC on China Daily is warranted. chinadaily.com.cn   is currently cited in 5,762 articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add the usual options. Which of the following best describes the reliability of China Daily?

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

--Sunrise (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (China Daily)

• Deprecate - My first impression on looking at it is that it's probably in the same category as RT (TV network) aka "Russia Today" which is already deprecated? Being owned by the "Propaganda Department" of the Chinese government and all... IHateAccounts (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be deprecating sources so lightly based on a first impression. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: on detailed further review it is owned, operated controlled, and so forth by the same entity that owns and controls China Global Television Network, which is already deprecated for being a propaganda outlet. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer: this block is getting pushback, and not just from User:IHateAccounts. Unclear where it will end up. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation China Daily being owned by the CCP is no more a stopper for me than NBC being owned by Comcast. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that state-owned media in non-western states is somehow inherently less reliable than state- or corporate-owned media in the west (to clarify, that's a general observation I've made of others - not you, and I don't think you're doing that here). Indeed, Bennett's indexing theory - certainly the most influential theory in the last 30 years in media studies - suggests that media in the west are already more or less state-controlled on matters of importance, even if they're not state-owned, the different perception of independence only due to their need to calibrate reporting to the multiple control levers present in multi-party states. I believe China Daily is generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions where its use should be limited to WP:SELFSOURCE. Though, as with all sources, WP:DUE should be considered in every use. I draw this conclusion as follows:

-Media Bias Fact Check is unambiguously unreliable. For the purposes of RSN, I always assume it simply doesn't exist.

-The consensus of scholarship indicates that media in China can, and is, held judicially liable for defamation (e.g. this study by Benjamin L. Liebman[21], among others) and this includes state-controlled media.

-The China Daily has a gatfekeeping process.

-The China Daily is sourced to RS which is, ultimately, the only standard we - as Wikipedians - can apply. Provided this is met we can't deprecate a source because we're uncomfortable with the governance or ownership structure. In just the last year its original reporting has been sourced (with attribution, but absent frightening caveats about the CCP owning it) by Science Magazine [22], the BBC [23], Barron's [24], Washington Post [25], NPR [26], and others. USA Today even used it as a corroborating source for one of their fact-checks [27]. If we deprecate China Daily while accepting sources that routinely source the China Daily for their content we're saying we know more about the China Daily than any RS. And if we know more than RS, there's no real reason to keep the WP:OR policy.

Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

While I haven’t evaluated this particular source in detail, the above comment contains a number of arguments that are largely invalid or irrelevant. (I will ignore the suggestion that many of our usual RS are effectively state-controlled, as something that shouldn’t require refutation.) Starting with the bullet points, it's true that MBFC is unreliable and should not be considered. However:

• Defamation claims being permitted by a country’s laws is a minimal standard, not an argument in favor of reliability. Furthermore, the article cited is from 2006, before the more recent increases in state control. And even at the time, as acknowledged in the same article, defamation claims were also used as tools of media control.
• Having a gatekeeping process is likewise a minimal requirement. Presumably, one of the concerns in this case includes what type of reporting that gatekeeping process will allow.
• Simply being cited by RS does not make a source reliable. Instead, we want the source to be discussed in RS and to evaluate the contents of those discussions. The Daily Mail is also sometimes cited in RS; this is a common situation in which information from an unreliable source may become usable on Wikipedia because of a better source applying its own editorial processes to the information in question.

Additionally, much of the comment is about Chinese sources in general. While this can certainly inform the evaluation, any such information will be overridden by information about the specific source in question. Checking the WP article shows e.g. China Daily#Editorial control and China Daily#Disinformation allegations, which are issues that would need to be addressed.

It's true that state ownership doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, but it’s still a relevant consideration in countries that use the press for propaganda. (I think that some editors, when they mention state ownership, are using it as a shorthand for this type of argument.) The reason that ownership structure can be overlooked in some cases is not because the owners are unbiased, but because they are more likely to have credible policies about independence in reporting. This is not a “west/east” distinction, or any other system that tries to divide people by nation or culture - it’s a result of applying sourcing guidelines that ignore such things. Furthermore, introducing such distinctions (which are largely arbitrary to begin with) only serves to frame the discussion in terms of geopolitics and makes it harder to evaluate the issue neutrally. Sunrise (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: just FYI Liebman appears to be saying the exact opposite of what you say he says. Also making that argument in this explicit context ignores the fact that the CCP is above regular Chinese law, it literally doesn't apply to them as party is above state unlike in those multiparty systems (your argument appears to conflate state owned and party owned media). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that China Daily should be considered "generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions" leaves very little for it to report on, given the CCP's influence over every aspect of China's economy, culture and society. It should be good only for its births and obituaries. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would say it's generally reliable for non-political stuff (like the manhole story that BBC reported based on a China Daily story) and generally unreliable for everything related to politics, broadly defined (see China_Daily#Controversy). Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation. First, context matters and no context is discussed here, not even one example. Second, being rated as left-biased (or right-biased) by some random organization is irrelevant to deprecation discussions. Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. And finally, as much as ownership structure is now a thing for flagging content on Twitter or Facebook, that's not yet a Wikipedia policy. Ownership is part of what we look at when evaluating sources, but not the only thing at all. --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I’m surprised it hasn’t been deprecated already given their explicit existence as a propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party and long history of disinformation peddling. We have explicit cases of them spreading disinformation which are covered on their page. They have no respect and little credibility within the traditional media, Reporters Without Borders has condemned them etc. I strongly support deprecation. Nothing I’ve seen suggests its usable outside of about self which I will add given the immense nature of the CCP thats actually a lot of contextually appropriate use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation. It's a state-owned / operated / supported news service, in essence no different form the BBC or PBS. Non-political news is the product of professional reporters. Any story displaying overt political bias is stating the government's official party line — which is important to know. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: China Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Party not the Chinese state, it is political party-owned not state-owned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a distinction between the Communist Party and the Chinese state. I'd be surprised if we wouldn't have considered the Communist Party's Pravda a useable source for insight into Soviet thinking during the Cold War. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your point about them being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS which are entirely independent of the political parties in their respective states. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: In China's case, the Party is the government. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, since you now agree "In China's case, the Party is the government", that makes this vastly different from the BBC or PBS, which are independent of political party in their countries. It's much more a propaganda rag with little factual reliability, with the best comparisons indeed being the factually deficient Pravda, or Russia Today, or 112 Ukraine (owned by Russian proxies), or Rodong Sinmun from North Korea. There are also precedents from Wikipedia regarding papers similar in ownership structure, if not political leaning, such as An Phoblacht, Anadolu Agency, The Electronic Intifada, HispanTV, or Press TV. See their entries at WP:RSP.

It might be viewed as a source (as you proposed) for occasional insight into official talking points of the Chinese Communist Party, but I would never trust Pravda, or Rodong Sinmun, or China Global Television Network, or "China Daily" for facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae. Plus, we have literature that indicate the BBC tends to adopt framing in its reporting that mirrors that used by whatever party is in power at the time. (e.g. [28], etc.) We need actual evidence of unreliability, not merely expressions of our personal discomfort with the ownership group. "They're communists" is not a policy-based argument to deprecate a source. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a better argument is conflict of interest in relation to certain topics, meaning it can be determined on a case by case basis... —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your argument about it being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS, if you’re arguing that the entire relationship between party and state is radically different than in a multiparty state like the US or UK then what do you mean by "in essence no different” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 and Oppose Deprecation: the arguments mentioned by Chetsford, MarioGom and Tenebrae are persuasive. Appropriate attribution should be made for statements related to China Daily's area of bias. Also, this RFC hasn’t been set up in our required neutral format. “Deprecate China Daily” isn’t a suitable heading for an RfC and the introduction is supposed to be neutral. Burrobert (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The fact that they are owned by the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party is reason enough. Just as we treat (say) NewsBusters and CNS News together, because both are owned by the Media Research Center, so it should be with China Daily and the deprecated Global Times. For those who don't think that is sufficient reason, please consider China_Daily#Disinformation_allegations. To take one recent example, China Daily promoted tweets saying that the Hong Kong demonstrators were sponsored by Western interests. It also claimed that they were planning terrorist attacks on September 11, 2019.[29][30]. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation, however I would go with option 2 or 3, depending on the topic. Chinese state media is OK to cite as a WP:RS for non-controversial mainland news (such as China opening whatever high-speed train line or something like that), but for controversial topics such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, they should only be used with attribution to get the PRC's official opinion on such subjects. Félix An (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation and treat as we treat other semi-official or official media: somewhere in between options 1 and 2, with good judgement expected from editors as usual. Thanks to Chetsford especially for their careful consideration and comments. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

{u|Darouet} can you give examples of official state media (in particular in single-party non-democratic states) that we place between options 1 and 2? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate and put it in the same category as Global Times and CGTN/CCTV. In my opinion, Xinhua News Agency should also be deprecated. Brady (2015) wrote an excellent review on those so-called "media" as part of Beijing's global propaganda campaign. Despite the subtle and stealthy nature of China's overseas influence operations, there are numerous reports by reliable sources and countries with press freedom regarding Chinese state-controled media including China Daily disseminating false or fabricated information. For example, [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. It is truly unbelievable that some editors could turn a blind eye and still promote the false equivalence of state-controlled propaganda organs and private media with editorial independence and well-established fact-checking processes. Normchou ^💬 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose Deprecation The fact that they have not failed a fact check speaks strongly in their favour, even if it is obviously the state outlet of the PRC. Certainly however, on topics where the PRC feels strongly about however, it should be used only as a last resort, or in order to back up an official position of the PRC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 I think it should be treated similar to CGTN where it should pretty much exclusively be used for statements made by the Chinese government but some other areas unrelated to Chinese interests seem to be okay. Flalf^Talk 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose depreciation for the same reasons already pointed out by others. The discussion below is straying far away from WP:RS. Mottezen (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 It should be treated as we treat other state-controlled media in authoritarian single-party states: reliable (typically with attribution) as a source on government/party statements (e.g. as a source for statements from state public health officials as in the most of the uses by other reliable sources cited by Chetsford above), possibly reliable for non-controversial facts (e.g. numbers of stolen manhole covers, as in another of Chestsford's examples), but generally unreliable for anything controversial in which the Chinese state has an interest. Nobody so far has put forward arguments for why it should be treated less cautiously than other such state-controlled media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per MarioGom. China Daily is reliable for various topics, though of course they won't be neutral on politics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: I don't see any convincing arguments for deprecation above. China Daily is an important source for news from inside China. Deprecating it would worsen the already worrying systemic bias with regards to China, in which we increasingly rely on sources outside China that themselves often have ideological biases and questionable accuracy. A brief tangent to illustrate this:

The Wall Street Journal published a news article about Chinese economic policy last month that severely mistranslated a statement by Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. The original description of his speech is as follows:

会议要求，国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体。国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值。

The WSJ characterized that passage as follows:

'State-owned enterprises,' he said, 'must become the competitive core of the market.'

This has a very different meaning from what Liu He said in Chinese, and in context, it's almost a direct inversion of his meaning. This is how DeepL translates his statement into English:

The meeting called for state-owned enterprises to become core competitive market players. State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value.

The point of the statement is that state-owned enterprises must become more market-oriented - something that has typically been viewed as a pro-market policy. The WSJ's mistranslation reverses that, and turns it into a statement about how state-owned enterprises should dominate the market ("core competitive market players" turns into "the competitive core of the market").

This mistranslation was pointed out by a reporter for Xinhua, Zichen Wang. The WSJ has still not issued a correction. The WSJ is considered a highly reliable source, and in most contexts it is, but like all sources, it has biases. Especially in the increasingly nationalist climate, those biases can impact accuracy in reporting about countries that are viewed as "adversaries" (in whatever country the newspaper is operating out of - the US, in the case of the WSJ). That's how we get the WSJ mistranslating a statement by a Chinese official and then failing to issue a correction.

It's important to continue using a mix of sources to cover China, including sources with a good record of factual accuracy from within China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, which may only represent minority viewpoints within the community. Moreover, "systemic ABC" is usually poorly defined and unfalsifiable (see some elaboration here), and one should not invoke it when talking about specific instances of an issue, such as "the reliability of China Daily". If factual evidence still matters—which the editor above seemed to think so given that they listed an example of a purported mistranslation to illustrate their point—then the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information should actually support Option 4: Deprecate. Normchou ^💬 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "purported" mistranslation - it's a black-and-white example of a mistranslation. Anyone who reads both English and Chinese can compare the original Chinese text with the WSJ's English rendering.

I raised this example because it illustrates an important point. All sources have biases, and those biases can affect accuracy. It's no secret that tensions between the US and China have escalated dramatically over the last few years, and that public opinion towards China in the US and a number of other allied countries has become extremely negative in a very short space of time. To think that this wouldn't affect American newspapers as well would be naive. Above, we have an example of a leading American newspaper, a solid RS, blatantly mistranslating a Chinese official, in a way that completely reverses the meaning of the official's statement. Who pointed out the mistranslation? A reporter for Chinese state media - a reporter who is likely much more familiar with the policy positions of Chinese officials than the typical WSJ reporter is. The WSJ has not yet issued a correction (it's had a month to do so), and indeed, correcting this mistranslation would probably require the WSJ to significantly revise its entire article (because the actual quote in Chinese contradicts the basic thesis of the WSJ article).

overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information: This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement. In most areas, for example, I think it's clear that Xinhua is highly reliable. Like any source, we should be aware of its biases. For the most part, it will not report on issues that reflect negatively on the Chinese government. However, it will also accurately report on many issues within China that American newspapers like the NY Times and WSJ will scarcely ever report on (and if they do, their reporting is often not particularly reliable or leaves out important context). Our articles on China will not become more reliable by systematically excluding all Chinese sources. I think editors are capable enough to understand the biases that Chinese state media have, and to use them appropriately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. False equivalence and bothsidesism neither make one's argument more convincing, nor help with reducing bias. All sources have biases by no means implies that all biases from all sources—not to mention false and fabricated information from only certain sources—should be treated in the same way when it comes to their negative effects on the Wikipedia project. Thus far, Thucydides411, the editor above, has only used a single, isolated, purported case to illustrate their point. Yet they do not bother about it while turning a blind eye and throwing out some random cliche like This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement when overwhelming evidence says otherwise: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. By the way, as a native speaker of several Chinese languages, I disagree with that Chinese state media journalist's view that the WSJ's translation is such a big deal; 国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market—where many other players can also exist—with the additional requirement that such SOEs should have core/major competitive advantages. A basic understanding of economics—a quality that most of the readers of the WSJ should have—tells me that a "market", by definition, has more than one player, so the "core" is really just the "core player", because the qualifier "of the market" is already there. Regarding the specific structure of that market, it could be in the form of perfect competition, imperfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, etc. There is no indication in Liu He's speech that he is referring to a perfectly competitive market. Normchou ^💬 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market: That's not what it means. It's absolutely clear in the Chinese original that "core" refers to "competitiveness". Just from the way the sentence is constructed, "core" cannot possibly refer to "market", and the phrase says nothing about SOEs becoming the "core player of the market". An unambiguous English translation would be, "SOEs must become market players with their own core competitiveness". The basic meaning here is that SOEs should be subject to market forces, rather than relying on subsidies. The very next sentence makes this even more explicit: 国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值 (DeepL gives, "State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value", and I agree with DeepL's translation). The reason why this is more than just an innocuous translation error is that it makes it look like Liu He is supporting nearly the exact opposite policy - state support for SOEs. I gave this as just a recent example of inaccurate reporting on China by an otherwise high-quality RS - inaccurate reporting that came to light because it was pointed out by a reporter for Chinese state media. This case isn't isolated.

their negative effects on the Wikipedia project: I haven't seen examples where use of China Daily has harmed Wikipedia. Deprecation is a sledgehammer, and if we use it too broadly, we actually do run the risk of ending up with an encyclopedia that has strong national biases. What we need, instead, is for editors to have a bit of common sense, to understand policies around bias in sources, to know when to attribute statements, and to evaluate reliability in specific contexts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong. 市场主体 literally means the "market's main body"(most common Chinese definition), so there is no issue with 国有企业要成为...的市场主体 being translated to "SOEs should be the core (player) of the market that ..." if one interprets the phrase this way, given the fact that there can be other "main bodies" in the market. The editor above, Thucydides411, should stop using machine translation to mislead themselves and others in this discussion. The more conducive way would be to first have a good understanding of the Chinese languages and the semantic and syntactic ambiguities specific to them. Normchou ^💬 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your confusion now. You linked to the definition of 主体, which by itself can indeed mean "main body". However, the full phrase 市场主体 is the standard way of referring to any market player, large or small, in Chinese. Even native speakers who are unfamiliar with economics can get this wrong. You can verify that what I'm saying is correct by looking at actual uses of the phrase 市场主体. For example, here's a recent usage:

“前三季度，全国共注吊销市场主体779.7万户，同比下降7.9%。其中，注吊销企业262.6万户，下降10.0%；注吊销个体工商户507.1万户，下降6.9%；注吊销农民专业合作社10.0万户，下降3.3%。”杨红灿说。

The passage refers to 7.797 million 市场主体 being written off in the first three quarters of 2020. There obviously aren't 7.797 million "main bodies" of the market in China - and this is just the number that went under in 2020! And as a second example, here's a Chinese government website with instructions on how to create a 市场主体. They're obviously giving instructions on how to create a market entity, not on how to create the "main body" of the market. For what it's worth, Baidu Baike has a page defining 市场主体, and what it describes is any sort of market player. But really, just search the internet for the exact phrase 市场主体, read what comes up, and you'll very quickly realize that this is standard terminology for any market entity.

Maybe the WSJ made the same mistake, assuming that 市场主体 means the "main body of the market", although that would be surprising, given that you'd expect WSJ to find a translator who's familiar with economics. But whatever the reason, the WSJ did mistranslate this passage and nearly inverted its meaning; the mistranslation came to light because of a Xinhua journalist who noticed it; and the WSJ has yet to issue a correction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm wait, since when have you been fluent in Mandarin? You’ve claimed the opposite in your interactions with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you translate what you mean by "fluent" into HSK or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages? But in all seriousness, my own exact proficiency level is not at issue here. As we've seen above, even native speakers can make mistakes when dealing with unfamiliar technical jargon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you’re trying to say that a native speaker has made a mistaken then yes your exact proficiency level does actually become an issue. Especially when you’ve never disclosed *any* Mandarin proficiency at all... Let alone the level you would need to correct a native speaker on technical jargon. Much the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're venturing into ad hominem here. Do you think that 市场主体 means the market's main body, or do you think that it refers generally to any market entity? There isn't actually any real question about what the correct answer is (it's a technical term that means any sort of "market entity", regardless of size or importance), and personally attacking me does not constitute a convincing linguistic argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I highly dislike being mislead either by media outlets or wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

市场主体 means market entity,[47] though I think it is a term of art and not all native speakers are familiar with it. Possibly the Wall Street Journal's mistranslation is due to the word 主体, which often means "main part", but in this phrase might be better translated as "agent". See also wikt:主體. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate how poor coverage of China is in otherwise reliable sources, and how systematically deprecating Chinese sources will worsen WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. Again, I use the Wall Street Journal, a source that is generally highly reliable, to illustrate my point. In a news (not opinion) article last June about Huawei and its founder Ren Zhengfei, the WSJ wrote,

Just over a month after his daughter's arrest, Mr. Ren visited a Huawei research-and-development center in Hangzhou, commanding employees to learn from the U.S. tech giant Google and 'surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' according to a transcript confirmed by two Huawei executives.

That sounds pretty terrible, until you realize that the phrase Ren Zhengfei used (杀出一条血路) is a standard idiom in Chinese that is commonly used and not perceived as extreme. Imagine literally translating a violent English idiom ("shooting ducks in a barrel", "kill two birds with one stone", "to go in with guns blazing", "to take a stab at it", etc.) into a foreign language, and presenting it as a direct quote. Again, the person who pointed out this misleading translation was Wang Zichen, a journalist who works for Xinhua. The person who actually translated Ren Zhengfei's speech for the WSJ, Eva Dou, said that WSJ editors had not let her review the draft of the article, and that some of the "nuance & context was lost".

The Times (generally reliable, per WP:RSP) then took this translation and ran with it, in an article titled "Huawei’s founder declares 'war' on West":

Huawei's founder urged workers to crush rivals and 'blaze a trail of blood' in the Chinese telecoms giant's battle for supremacy. Ren Zhengfei ordered staff at Huawei's research and development centre in Hangzhou, eastern China, to learn from Google's unrelenting march. 'Surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' he said a month after the arrest of his daughter in Canada in 2018, according to a transcript seen by The Wall Street Journal.

By the way, the transcript was not just "seen by the Wall Street Journal". It's been online from the beginning. Nobody at Huawei apparently realized that English speakers would be disturbed by a literal translation of a common Chinese idiom. Just to sum up: a Chinese CEO uses a common Chinese idiom, the WSJ translates it too literally into English, and The Times then picks it up and presents it as a blood-curdling declaration of war on the West. Neither the WSJ nor The Times has issued a correction. This is the sort of gross misrepresentation that we deprecate sources for. If we get rid of all Chinese sources, we'll be solely relying on sources like WSJ and The Times to report on China, and that's a bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• *Oppose Deprecation and as usual CONTEXT matters. I see no compelling argument and dislike casually dismissing sources entirely. This seems a major WEIGHT source, widely used outside and in WP articles, so it would be difficult to exclude anyway. With what seems solid editorial control and generally factual content, I don’t see any reason to exclude. Context should always be considered for RS, and even in suspect cases such are potentially useable as a WP:BIASED source, just like material from advocacy groups can be used. It’s not grounds for entire deprecation. Would one use Washington Post for Amazon content ? Probably just seek another source — but that doesn’t exclude WaPo from all articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford and Thucydides411. We cannot discount the biasness of the various so-called English-language WP:RS when they describe or criticize Chinese media in the first place. NoNews! 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Thucydides411 and WP:GLOBAL. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: They have been shown to fabricate information (see previous comments and the discussion below), so we should definitely indicate that. Also, clearly state that it is affiliated with a ruling political party, which needs to be taken into account. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation, support Option 2. This source is widely used both onwiki and offwiki, and fills an important niche (see Thucydides411's comment above, and WP:GLOBAL). However, given its status as party-controlled media, it should probably be treated as a WP:SELFSOURCE for content that directly discusses (for example, and off the top of my head) the CCP, geopolitics, or international relations. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation - A blanket deprecation would not be fair. STSC (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It absolutely astounds me that so many editors feel they can trust a "news" outlet that is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. The idea that such an entity has the required editorial independence, fact-checking history, or reputation for accuracy required for WP:NEWSORG is absolutely laughable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 I'm finding it hard to see why we should treat this differently from China Global Television Network. One combats systemic bias by incorporating good information, not by relying upon propaganda. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation unless someone can come up with actual examples of them being cited for garbage claims. Propaganda is, well, fairly ubiquitous in the year 2021. Being operated by a government with a history of execrable acts doesn't seem like a cogent prima facie reason for deprecation: how many articles cite Voice of America? Heck, how many articles cite the BBC? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to cite them for "Communism kicks ass[1]", or "the Xinjiang re-education camps are awesome[6]". However, we also don't cite "Capitalism kicks ass[1]" to the United States government. Propaganda does not mean "every statement made by the organization is the opposite of true"; (RSP entry), for example, is listed in RSP as being "generally reliable for factual reporting". We can use our brains to determine if individual pieces of reporting are trash. jp×g 20:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to compare an owned-and-operated arm of the Chinese government's Propaganda Department to the BBC is so ridiculous, WP:FALSEBALANCE isn't even strong enough to describe it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparing and equating are different things. Jimmy Page and Jimmy Hoffa are different in many respects (one is a British guitarist and one was an American labor activist); a proposal to move the latter's article to "James Hoffa", however, would likely (and validly) result in the comparison being drawn. Pointing out that Jimmy Hoffa didn't know how to play the guitar, in this case, would be beside the point.

By the same token, the mere fact of a press outlet being operated by a government does not prima facie make a case for deprecation, even when the government is quite brutal: Commentarii de Bello Gallico, a long piece of brazen political propaganda written by the Emperor of Rome, detailing a litany of what would now be considered war crimes (he slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians after capturing Avaricum), is to this day the main account from which we know the deeds of Vercingetorix. jp×g 02:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI Commentarii de Bello Gallico is generally believed to have been written and published before Julius Caesar became Dictator. Also Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome, the first Emperor was Augustus. Accuracy matters, which is why given China Daily’s history of publishing disinformation we should deprecate them. We don’t consider media outlets which purposefully publish false information to be reliable regardless of whether or not they’re operated by a government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, technically technically speaking both Julius Caesar and his adoptive son were both imperator in succession, Augustus was the first augustus (hence the name), neither was a monarch, the word "emperor" is an anachronism, and the Roman state remained a republic for a further fifteen centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about imperator (a concept which spans both time periods), we’re talking about the Roman emperor who was the ruler of the Roman Empire which wasn’t founded until 27 BC after the death of Julius Caesar. You are mistaken, the Roman Republic ended in 27 BC although the Empire would maintain the political trappings of the republic. If you would like to radically alter how wikipedia approaches Roman history be my guest, might I suggest starting with the opening sentence of Augustus? "Caesar Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14) was the first Roman emperor, reigning from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.” seems to be clear enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Wikipedia is not the place for such nuance, anchored as it is in the morass of popular historiographical tradition. Nothing changed in the Roman state's constitution in 27 BC; the heads of state remained the consuls, and Octavian was awarded the title of augustus. The Roman republic was referred to as such, including by the emperors themselves, well into the 15th century. "Emperor", as I have said, is just an anachronistic convention, as is "reign", at least for emperors like Augustus. The emperor Julian counted his distant relative Julius Caesar as an emperor, although he also listed Alexander the Great ... Nevertheless, Wikipedia bows to convention. GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously using a discussion about the reliability of China Daily as a venue to push pet theories about the continuity of political structures within the Roman state which aren’t supported by modern historians? Please review WP:FORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I can tell already I know more about what modern historians support on this subject than you do. GPinkerton (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 While I'm not very familiar with China Daily specifically, I am familiar with the general issues with any mainland PRC-based news media. In short, the PRC does not have press freedom or press independence, so comparisons to Western state-owned outlets like the BBC are specious. There are situations where the political/propaganda needs of the Chinese government will cause false or misleading stories to be run. For instance this [48] China Daily story falsely claims that "people's freedom of religious belief in Xinjiang is fully protected" (which is hard to believe with the reporting on Xinjiang re-education camps) and makes claims denying mosque destruction that are directly contradicted by this [49] more convincingly sourced New York Times report. Other examples should not be hard to find by searching for material on other sensitive issues, such as Xinjiang, Tibet Taiwan, or Hong Kong. At a minimum China Daily's WP:RSP entry should have the same kind of warnings attached to it as Xinhua:

“ Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua. ”

- GretLomborg (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 for any content related to Chinese politics or any issue where the party control creates a conflict of interest, enough examples of lying have been presented to prove that. It is not possible to achieve NPOV by "balancing" state disinformation with independent journalism or scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. China Daily is to the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party what Ibis is to Accor, or what Hampton Inn brand is to the Hilton Hotels & Resorts, or what Candlewood Suites are to InterContinental Hotels Group. It's their budget brand for the international market. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. As many editors have stated before, the paper is censored when it deals with Chinese politics, and there have been plenty of examples of claim fabrication listed above to support that. This should be treated the same as Xinhua News Agency, as it cannot be trusted to cover subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder both accurately and dispassionately. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To update this, I think that it might be reliable enough to depict the official views or statements of the Chinese Communist Party, and we probably should avoid deprecation as a result of this function. I'm still under the belief that this is a generally unreliable source that engages in the fabrication of claims, and it thus should be generally avoided as a source except for the very specific case I have mentioned before. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4. It is indeed unreliable for identifying anything as a fact. This does not mean it is always wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (mundane articles) / Option 3 (controversial, nationalistic, etc. articles) The paper is owned by the Chinese government that is the most important thing to remember when using this source. The Chinese government has no problem making up facts to fit its desired narrative. Therefore, it is unreliable for anything controversial such as internal or external dissent, nationalism, etc. However the newspaper does have mundane content (e.g. culture, sports, technology, travel, etc articles), which is useful for covering this country of 1.4 billion people, for which there are only a limited number of English-language sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record at this point but China Daily is owned by a political party within China not the Chinese state. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford. Couldn't word it better myself. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Deprecate. Admittedly, I've only stumbled upon a few articles but that was enough to know the political bias and/or nationalist bias of the paper. User:Normchou detailed "why" the best. I don't think these kind of very political sources should have any place in the Wikipedia.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Option 2 The trend towards deprecating Chinese media sources makes it hard to source mundane topics that are not picked up by international news. I think it is generally understood by editors that they have some biases towards political topics, and we should assume that editors will be cautious when using these sources for such topics. We have processes to handle editors who are abusing sources to push a certain view. If consensus does move towards deprecation, I suggest that the deprecations be scoped to only non-mundane political issues (an article talking about the new mayor of Shenzhen would be OK, but an article talking about Hong Kong protests would be not) Jumpytoo Talk 06:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4- Its owned by the Chinese Communist Party, one of the world leaders in propaganda and misinformation.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 based on the evidence presented. Being owned by a political party of a country that is not majority white is not a reason to deprecate, nor is using the unreliable MBFC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Why do people always have to bring race into a discussion that has nothing to do with race? It's a shameful tactic. My opposition to this souce is not that its owned by Chinese people, but it is owned by the Chinese Communist Party. I thought pointing out this simple fact would be enough, but I guess some people like you don't know anything about the CCP. Read this BBC story about how the CCP uses China Daily to produce propganda videos for them. Here's the video, according to them the BBC is "fake news". Here's another article from the New York Times. Educate yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I do know about the CCP. Evidence of them exerting their influence on China Daily to promote "fake news" is need to propose deprecation, not merely establishing connection via ownership. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re mistaken, its China Daily which says the BBC is Fake News not the other way around per the linked report "BBC in Xinjiang: Facts Don't Matter | China Daily visual investigation” Thats pretty clearly pushing disinformation, its irrelevant whether or not the CCP told them to do so. If they had completely independent ownership they would still be deprecatable, the lack of editorial independence is the cherry on top not the sunday. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me provide a transcript of the first 30 seconds of that hard hitting piece of investigative journalism: Reporter 1 “Fake News. The BBC is twisting the facts.” Reporter 2 “What? Did you say BBC is making things up?” Reporter 1 “Yeah, check out this video report on Xinjiang. They obviously didn’t do a complete investigation. I guess the media forums are correct: BBC stands for biased broadcasting corporation. They only report on China where they can make up some controversy especially when it comes to Xinjiang” Still standing by that Option 1?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Agreed with the other editors, being government-owned is not grounds for deprecation. China Daily does factual reporting, and it's entirely relevant for it to report on Chinese government positions. As a rule, sources can be biased, but that does not make them unreliable. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 for every kind of reporting except "politics and controversial events", Option 3 for "politics and controversial events" In some events, the source is known with its fact-checking, however, remembering that it's currently under the control of CCP is important.Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'd ask you to reconsider. The fact it is under control of the CCP cancels out any claim of fact-checking because the facts are whatever the CCP says they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: As far as I see, not always. Yes, there's a censoring~and misrepresentation of information by CCP on some news, however, it's impossible to say "It always generates fabrication for all types of news" for all ordinary news (as opposed to Daily Mail).Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 (for non political news about China), Option 3 (for news about other nations, political news about China) - China daily is essentially state media. For political articles, we can assume there would be a bias towards the Chinese Communist Part's POV which owns it. I would oppose using it for citing any political/non-China related fact in Wikipedia voice. Any citation must explicitly note that it is the view of the Chinese communist party. However, China Daily is generally useful for citing non-controversial facts about China such as geography, transport and administration, so I won't go so far as to deprecate it.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: The issue here is they do not stand to any editorial scrutiny, censorship is widespread, there is no de facto opposition media allowed, and the news that does come out is filtered or altered by the government with no independent checks and balances. Their aim is not be a reliable media outlet either, they are basically a press agency for the government. If we compare to lets say US or UK depreciated sources, at least we have a whole array of other media outlets to compare to and that are willing to call out misinformation or controversies regarding their competitors; furthermore in the US or the UK you can always try your case through the courts; I would argue that this is worse as no such thing happens nor is it possible. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate. Apart from all the other examples given at length above, we have a worked example in the discussion: where a sincere Chinese reader, based on what they've read in China Daily, tries to explain to us that the Xinjiang internment camps don't exist. If China Daily leads to beliefs about the world like that, then we absolutely can't risk it being used as a source in Wikipedia, and it needs deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: - it's state-controlled media (China Daily, established in 1981 as the national English-language newspaper) and because of the propaganda and governmental control in a country where they arrest whistleblowers, including journalists, I'd be skeptical about the validity of anything they publish. Sensationalism is one thing, reporting about a fire or weather event is something else, but it's highly unreliable for fact-based material about much else. I suppose we could use it from time to time by prepending any inline attribution with something along the line of "state-controlled China Daily published yada yada"...or something along those lines - if there is no other source to cite. Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or lower. I can echo what User:Alaexis said. In areas that are not of interest to the Chinese Communist Party, the state media can be reliable. In others, don't touch them with a ten-foot pole, since it's plain propaganda. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 The problem of media inside China is, almost all are owned by CCP. While Sina, Baidu , etc. usually act as a host platform for blogger only. The non-political coverage (or issue that clearly have COI, such as government = CCP , any coverage on handling COVID are in doubt) generally "reliable" as no other source to rebut them as not reliable (unless you want to have no RS to WP:V ANY Mainland China content. Also note that there is not much foreign correspondents left in Mainland China and SCMP is now owned by Alibaba). China Daily is not Global Times which the latter is clearly a tabloid . Matthew hk (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 I am concerned that almost all media from China is being depreciated. I think this is going to to substantially impact the POV of articles dealing with China. This is not to say that any of the Chinese sources are more reliable, but they do perform reporting. In general, I am coming to the perspective that depreciation is a bad idea and instead in case where there are concerns about the source, we should clearly state the source for particular claims and trust Wiki readers to make their own judgments. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a natural impact of China’s repressive media environment, remember that according to the Press Freedom Index[50] they are the fourth worst country in the world when it comes to press freedom (only Eritrea, Turkmenistan, and North Korea are ranked lower) so I would question your statement that journalists in China can actually perform reporting. That the Chinese government has chosen to silence (often violently) independent and reliable voices both within China and around the world as well as use their media organizations to spread both targeted and general disinformation is regrettable but its not something that Wikipedia can change, we can only apply our existing standards to the situation. We can’t just make a “China exception” when it comes to how we determine reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If the concern is the reporting environment than why wouldn't we have similar concerns about other reporting from China not just those from Chinese sources? Dhawk790 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you not followed the mass exodus of journalists and editors from China in the last few years? They’ve almost all either been kicked out or fled in fear of being used for hostage diplomacy [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

My point isn't about whether there is a concern about the reporting environment, my point is that if there is than shouldn't that concern apply to all sources not just Chinese ones. You doubted whether China Daily does any actual reporting, which may be fair, but it seems unlikely that China Daily would be unable to do reporting in China and the NY Times, for example, would be able to. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I share your concern, but this section is about China Daily. If you wanted to make a section for media in China in general I’d participate in the discussion and share relevant sources. Some of the sources above raise this issue but remember that outside of this recent panic concerns over hostage diplomacy, non-free reporting environments, and the safety of local sources and staff have *always* been an issue with reporting in totalitarian states, China isn’t unique in this regard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation and depreciation are two different things. Perhaps the fact that some many people get them mixed up shows how bad this deprecation system is.

• Option 2: The site did on occasion feature dubious claims (mostly about Chinese politics from what I can tell), though in the end, the majority of its articles have in my experience been very factual. It is true that you will not find articles criticising the Chinese government there, but for that there are plenty of other news outlets one can use; the debate is not whether China Daily should be the only source being used on Wikipedia and therefore it is pretty irrelevant what it does not cover. As the site provides reliable reporting on most non-Chinese topics it does cover, I see no reason for deprecation. As an example, look through its section about European news and whether it features factual information or not – as a German comparing it to the reporting in our media, it is. Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or lower: Piotrus got what I want to say - reliable when not of CCP interest, but outright Option 4 on things that clash with CCP interest (or benefits CCP in some case).--1233 ( T / C） 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (China Daily)

I just want to highlight some content from China Daily:

Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11.[61][62]

[63]

A protester fires a US-made M320 grenade launcher at an illegal assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui amid escalating violence in Hong Kong on Sunday night. [64][65]

In both cases, we have outrageous lies pushed by China Daily. There are more at China Daily. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

These are both Facebook posts, not articles published in the China Daily. I don't think we consider any newspaper's social media accounts to be reliable sources. At least, I've never seen someone try to cite the NY Times' Twitter account on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And just today, we have this:

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report.[66]

Missing in China Daily's discussion of the "autonomy" of Uighur women is any mention of the Xinjiang re-education camps. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)7

The last of these articles gained notoriety in the past day after an excerpt from the article was shared on Twitter by the Chinese Embassy in the United States. The excerpt is reproduced below:

Chinese Embassy in US Twitter @ChineseEmbinUS

Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent.

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report

January 7, 2021

References

This tweet (and accompanying China Daily article) appears to be a defense of certain elements of the Uyghur genocide, and has received coverage in Ars Technica (RSP entry) and an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Added archive link. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As morally unacceptable as that is, "moral unacceptability" is not part of WP:RS, so I think we should judge based on factual accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at factual accuracy. From the China Daily article:

The research center's report said safe, effective and appropriate contraceptive measures are now available to couples of childbearing age in Xinjiang, and their personal decisions on whether to use those measures — which include tubal ligation and the insertion of intrauterine devices — are fully respected.

Contrast this with reports from actual WP:RS of forced sterilization of Uyghur women [67][68]. Is forcing sterilization on someone consistent with respecting their decision on whether or not to use contraception? And the nail in the coffin -- one might argue that China Daily was simply reporting what the "research center" said and was therefore accurate. But in that case, shouldn't they have characterized both the "report" and the "research center" differently? Because neither "research" nor "report" are accurate characterizations of the document in question, are they? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just focussing on factual accuracy almost all of it is false. This is not a study that an independent source or one with basic fact checking abilities would have used. Its almost laughable, lets for instance contrast this statement with the well known second class political status of women in modern China "In the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no long baby-making machines, it said. Women have since been striving to become healthy, confident and independent.” The CCP doesn't promote female emancipation and gender equality even for Han women... Are we really expected to believe they do it for the women of a minority which by all reports they are repressing? I’ve certainly never seen a WP:RS give these sort of bullshit propaganda reports the time of day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this conversation should stick to source analysis, but just as a matter of historical interest, one of the major societal reforms that the Communist Party tried to carry out after coming to power in 1949 was to change the status of women in society (e.g., legalizing divorce, trying to stop forced/arranged marriages). The New Marriage Law was one of the first laws the PRC passed, and it was accompanied by massive propaganda campaigns to get people to accept it. The status of women, more generally, was one of the major issues of contention between the Communists and Nationalists (the latter taking a much more traditional view of women's roles in society). That is to say, while you say it's ridiculous to think that the CPC would ever promote female emancipation, it wouldn't actually be out of line with their history or ideology. This isn't a comment on the specific report that China Daily reported on - I haven't looked into it carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that post-Mao the status of women within the Party and in society in general plummeted, today there are no significant female party leaders and both within and outside the party women have second class status. If you want a better understanding of the modern history may I suggest Judd’s The Chinese Women's Movement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there you have it: government-run press outlets aren't particularly reliable on the subject of whether the government in question is perpretrating something horrific. Everyone knows that. We shouldn't be using those statements to reference statements about that issue. This would be true for any source in any country. For example, the 2021 election in Chad is almost certainly going to be rigged; the article manages to cite statements from the current president about what he said, while also citing statements from RS about whether it's true. What's this got to do with wholesale deprecation? jp×g 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: According to The Guardian (RSP entry), Twitter took down this tweet, having concluded that it breaks its rules. The Guardian highlights the discrepancies between the claims in the China Daily article and the results of the investigation by the Associated Press (RSP entry). Additionally, The Guardian confirms that the Xinjiang Development Research Center study is "unpublished", which makes China Daily the original published source of the claims. — Newslinger talk 11:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily attributes the claims to the report. Unless you're claiming that China Daily fabricated the existence of this report, what is the RS problem here? Are we going to deprecate newspapers that describe the contents of Chinese government reports that editors find objectionable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that they described it as a "research report", and not as "propaganda" or the like. When one invents lies and publishes them, that's not research. For an example of an appropriate way to cover nonsensical claims, see The Atlantic here.[69]. At no point do they ever refer to any of the nonsensical claims they cover as "research".Adoring nanny (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily is reporting the claims of a report written by a governmental group. China Daily repeatedly attributes those claims to the report, just as it should do. You're saying that China Daily is not reliable because it does not inject the types of editorial comments you would like it to make. Of course China Daily is going to write about reports created by the Chinese government, but as long as it properly attributes the claims, it's usable. On the other hand, a lot of the claims being made about Xinjiang come from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was created by the US government, and which could just as easily be viewed as a propaganda organization. That doesn't mean that the claims are wrong, but this connection is rarely explained in news articles (including by the AP) about Xinjiang that rely on claims that come from this organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point you’re missing is that a WP:RS would never have taken that report at face value as China Daily does, the claims made in it are absurd (as are most claims China makes about human rights issues within China, remember that according to themselves the Chinese government respects human rights more than literally any other government on earth). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing here that China Daily's article is inaccurate? All I can see is that you're arguing that they do not make an editorial comment that you would like them to make. If one were to note (with attribution, of course) the views of the Chinese government on this issue, then this China Daily article would be a good source, because it explains what the Chinese government report states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the word "research" is inaccurate. The phrase "study shows" is also false. And phrases like these frame the reader's understanding of the entire piece. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The China Daily article does not use the phrase, "study shows". The article also describes the "research report" written by Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (established by the US government). The China Daily article doesn't say that Zenz' claims are wrong, and it doesn't say that the Chinese government's claims are wrong. You're essentially demanding that the article take an editorial stand, but if we want a source that simply describes the claims made by the Chinese government report, I don't see why that's necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "Study shows" is from the tweet describing the article, not from the article itself. But the underlying problem here is that the article frames the report as "research", which it is not. If we were to allow it as WP:RS, a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows that Uighur women's decisions about contraception are respected", which is obviously nonsense. Additionally, as User:Newslinger pointed out, the document they describe as the "research center's report" itself is unpublished. So China Daily is effectively the original publisher of this "information". Under the standard you are proposing, anybody could type up a document, call themselves a "research center", and then any source could decribe the document as a "research center's report", regardless of its contents. For example, "research institute says that the Theory of Evolution has been refuted."[70]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The tweet comes from the Chinese Embassy in the US, not from China Daily, and we're not discussing whether tweets are reliable sources, anyways (we typically wouldn't cite tweets from any news outlet). There is an actual report by a Chinese government agency. China Daily has seen the report and is reporting on its contents. Other news outlets have also reported on the contents of the report, and even interviewed the author. a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows [...]". That would be user error. A better paraphrase would be, "A report written by a Chinese government agency stated, ...". Note the attribution, which makes it clear to readers that we are reporting the views of a third party. Inclusion would be subject to the usual considerations of weight, NPOV, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Firestar464: Could you please revise the RfC statement (the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp) to meet WP:RFCBRIEF, which requires the RfC statement to be "neutral and brief"? Specifically, "Media Bias Fact Check classifies it ... 'state propaganda.'" cannot be in the RfC statement since it advocates for a position, but you can move it into either the survey or discussion section. The link to MBFC's rating of China Daily should also be moved or removed from the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firestar464 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment regarding the above: Xinjiang and Tibet (along with HK, Taiwan, the South China Sea) are two controversial areas that we should probably refrain from using Chinese state media in, but for most non-controversial mainland news, it should be WP:RS. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we can't know in advance what they are going to start lying about. In general, a rule like this would require readers to keep up with a lengthy and continually changing list of areas of concern. For example, prior to December, 2019, there was no reason to suspect their information about coronaviruses. See also Censorship in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems that out of thousands of articles in hundreds of topic areas there are some CCP-sensitive pieces of concern or POV differences. But this is not showing an issue re RS attributes with all content, most content, or even a common occurrence. Got any problem with their topics today of Covid, or Plastics, or Smartphones ? Or is it just China political content ? If there was bad info on in 2019, is that not the same info all papers had at the time and a matter outside them? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government and their media entities spreading covid related disinformation has actually been an acute problem, are you unaware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the unfounded Association fallacy accusation. We are specifically talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. NoNews! 02:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren't talking about separated entities here, such as the Washington Post being owned by the same person that owns Amazon. We're talking about multiple arms of the same cephalopod; China Daily is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it was a wrong use of the term association fallacy. This is not about "ownership" in its usual sense of being a shareholder (which is essentially the residual claimant), but about the direct command and control from the Chinese Communist Party and the lack of editorial independence by design for all Chinese state media. Normchou ^💬 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note, there are a lot of editors writing "oppose deprecation," though not everyone is actually saying what option they are in favor of. Options 1, 2, and 3 each do not involve deprecation, so I am not sure where consensus currently is pointing. It looks like the majority of editors have concerns regarding the paper's ability to cover China, so is this something we wind up breaking into multiple categories (such as we do for FOX News and Huffington Post)? Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose Option 2 is a good summary – many editors have raised concerns about political topics, but many have pointed out that China Daily is generally reliable for ordinary news. If we wanted to go the "Fox News" route, maybe Option 1 for most news about China, Option 3 for internationally controversial political issues. As User:Jumpytoo pointed out above, China Daily is generally reliable for mundane (uncontroversial) political news. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of out currently deprecated sources, for instance RT, would be generally reliable for mundane (uncontroversial) political news. That isn't the standard we use, the whole MO of a modern state media source with a penchant for disinformation is to have the disinformation make up only a small fraction of your reporting. Thats why we focus on the small amount of reporting (normally 1-5%) which is problematic and not the 95-99% that isn't. The other big flaw in that argument is that without inside access to the CCP we don’t know what they consider to be controversial or political which renders it at best an entirely unachievable standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello,everyone!I am a Wikimedian from Jiangsu China.My English is terrible,so I use Chinese to talk.首先，中国的新闻还算自由（至少和朝鲜民主主义人民共和国相比好多了），第二，由于某些文化差异与政治上的意识形态差异，所以请不要使用西方的思维来思考中国发生的事情。维吾尔人大多生育一人以上的子女，而中国大陆在2015年之前法律规定都倡导生育一个，而大部分维吾尔族人士有“超生”现象，所以绝育是无稽之谈。关于禁止说维语：中国的通用语言是普通话，维吾尔语是少数民族语言，有一说一，目前来看，维语的保护形势比方言好多了，所以某些西方媒体还是关注一下中国的方言吧！此外，新疆的确有宗教极端分子。别一天到晚说那些稍微了解一些中国状况的人都觉得毁三观的“新闻”！关于香港：香港自秦朝以来就属于中国领土的一部分，秦朝时归属南海郡，清朝时归属广东省。我看过VOA关于香港抗议的视频，掐头去尾，只留下容易对港警行为产生歧义的片段。总体上来说，中国日报对于香港的报道比苹果日报以及VOA为首的某些西方媒体好多了。每个人都喜欢另类的东西，比起真正的中国，大部分人更喜欢不一样的中国，所以某些媒体就想方设法的抹黑中国。而且由于中国的意识形态与西方国家存在差异，所以说这种污名化会更加受到欢迎。希望会中文的人士帮我把我的言论翻译一下！谢谢！Jerry (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

有一点忘记说了，补上，省的给我扣帽子：所谓再教育营存在吗？不存在，澳大利亚智库以及BBC的报道中所谓的“再教育营”中，有工厂，刑事羁押机构甚至是学校，我想问一下，各位所在的国家有学校吗？学校里面装监控吗？有刑事羁押机构吗？进去蹲牢的标准是什么？有工厂吗？工厂有监控有围栏吗？我敢说，按照BBC的标准，世界各地都有（包括英国）Jerry (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

[Translation of the above statement] First of all, China has some sort of news freedom (at least, much better than North Korea). Secondly, due to some cutural and ideology differences, please REFRAIN from using western minds to interpret things going on in China. Most Uyghurs raise more than one child. Mainland China advocates that each family should raise only one child by law until 2015. Most Uyghurs fail to meet this requirement (that they should only have one child), therefore, it is TOTAL NONSENSE to say "sterilization". Regarding the ban of the use of the Uyghur language: The general language of China is Putonghua/mandarin Chinese. Frankly speaking, currently, the preservation status of the Uyghur language is much, much better than Chinese dialects. Thus, "some certain western media" (in China environment, the use of "some certain" usually contains sarcasm), focus more on Chinse dialects! There ARE regious extremisms in Xinjiang. DO NEVER report those "news" that even someone with only bare knowledge of China would find them breaking their worldview, philosophy and value! About Hong Kong: IT IS A PART OF CHINA SINCE QIN DYNASTY. During Qin Dynasty, it belongs to "South-sea county"; during Qing Dynasty, it belongs to Guangdong Province. I have seen the VOA video about HK protest. Much shorter, no [video] beginnings or endings, with only the clips that make people easy to misundstand the behaviors of HK police. In a nutshell, China Daily is MUCH BETTER than "those some certain western media led by VOA and Apple Daily". Everyone likes alternate things. Compared to the true China, most people want a different China. Therefore, "some certain media" defame China USING ANY WAY THEY CAN. In addition, because the ideology of China is different from that of western countries, those smears are more welcome. I hope someone [whose native language is English] who know Chinese could translate my statements, thank you! (Yeah, I have done your favor, although I am a Chinese native speaker who know English) [Original statement posted by User:城市酸儒文人挖坑, translated by Milky·Defer 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)]

[Translation of the above statement] I forgot something, and I add it here, so that nobody could accuse me that I am poisoning the well (correction: poison my well). Those so-claimed reeducation camps, do they exist? NO, NEVER! The "reeducation camps" from Australian think tank and BBC reports, contains factories, detention centers, even schools. I may ask, don't you have schools in your country? Don't schools have surveillance cameras? Don't you have detention centers? What's the criteria that make people go into jail? Don't you have factories? Don't them have surveillance cameras and fences? I dare to say, based on the BBC standard, everywhere in the world, including Britain, does (have "reeducation camps"). [Original statement posted by User:城市酸儒文人挖坑, translated by Milky·Defer 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)]

We are talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. --BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The above statement by Jerry, arguing with apparent sincerity that the Xinjiang internment camps do not exist, is an excellent, if inadvertent, illustration of why CCP-led media, including China Daily, need to be deprecated. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

jfc. Yes, if China Daily leads to beliefs about the world like that, it needs deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 由于某些文化差异与政治上的意识形态差异，所以请不要使用西方的思维来思考中国发生的事情 is the exact type of platitude which has been indoctrinated into the Chinese people when it comes to criticisms of the CCP, and which is intended for those in the West who are susceptible to "orientalist" sympathies towards the "other people in the East" to believe. But no, this has little to do with "culture" or "diversity". It is precisely political in nature. Normchou ^💬 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

我声明一点：我弗曾畀洗脑过，如果侬箇佬讲个话，我可弗可以视为箇是弗尊重事实？是对我人格个侮辱？言论自由没有错，但请侬注意一注意侬自由个度！Jerry (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

[Translation of the above statement] Let me make it clear: I have NEVER been brainwashed. If you insist that, may I see it as not respecting reality? May I see it as an insult to my personality? There is nothing wrong with freedom of speech, but DO MIND ITS BOUNDRY! [Original statement in Wu Chinese posted by User:城市酸儒文人挖坑 aka Jerry, translated by Milky·Defer 08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)]

楼高头额宁首先请提高自噶额阅读理解能力，弗要动弗动就对号入座。欸有，此地是英文维基百科RSN，来发言额宁是弗是要有一定程度额英文水平，帮理解同自噶弗一样文化额知识储备帮视野？尤其是当一个宁指责别宁使用西方的思维额辰光，侬晓得侬勒嗨港撒伐？吾实则上都弗想回复箇种低信息量额发言，但还是忍弗住补充一句: Indoctrination can exist both explicitly and subliminally, and with varying degrees of sophistication. There are many "buttons" in the collective (sub)consciousness of the Chinese people that are the direct result of this process (e.g., their response to the mere statement "Taiwan is a different country from China"). I will not digress any further, and anyone who knows enough about contemporary China issues understands precisely what I am talking about. Once again, I am strongly for the deprecation of all CCP-controlled media outlets, and the above thread shows an excellent example of why this needs to be done. Normchou ^💬 17:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe,you need to read this:wuu:Wikipedia:用词指南8.210.36.128 (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, Please write in English, it makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation. --BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. It was a conversation with little information anyway. All meaningful arguments of mine have been made in English above. Pardon me for getting into this disruptive altercation with the other user. Normchou ^💬 14:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Asian News International (ANI)

Asian News International (ANI) is a news agency used as a news feed by several publication in India and is directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . There is a dispute regarding its reliability on Talk:2021 Farmers' Republic day parade § ANI is not reliable source.

Which option best describes the reliability of Asian News International (ANI)?

• 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.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Asian News International)

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. ANI has been documented by multiple sources including the non-governmental organisation EU DisinfoLab among others that found ANI peddling fake news and disinformation, to help the ruling party BJP in India. --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: Has functioned as major conduit for fake news via Indian Chronicles disinformation campaign. Acousmana (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 based on their track record and reputation. In the specific context given I don’t think theres any possible debate about them being a reliable source, if they are reliable for anything it won’t be Indian politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Considering the extraordinary number of citations from ANI by other media organization. And also the reliability issue of the sources quoted above. ANI can be considered generally reilable. DavidWood11 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:USEBYOTHERS because it is regularly used as a source by high-quality reliable news platforms such as The Daily Guardian, BBC News, Scroll.in, Times Now, Hindustan Times and many more so their reliability should be gauged by who reuse on their data. GSS ^💬 04:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  GSS, this is largely inaccurate. The Daily Guardian doesn't use it, BBC News does not use it as an agency feed and quotes it with in-text attribution within articles (For context, BBC quotes Chinese state media in a similar manner), Scroll.in uses it in the same manner as well. Times Now is also not a high quality reliable sources, being a publisher of conspiracy theories itself.

  It's also not used as an agency feed by Indian newspaper which are considered to be generally reliable such as The Indian Express (RSP entry) or The Hindu (RSP entry); see [71] and [72]. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: In that case we have The Siasat Daily [73], Lokmat [74], Telangana Today [75] and The New Indian Express [76] (maybe more) they all use ANI as an agency feed. GSS ^💬 06:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  GSS, you can probably find more, simply because there isn't a lack of news outlets in India. In this particular case these are all mostly regional newspapers, some of which are problematic in their own right. Being a large news agency, ANI is used by a number of newspapers but that doesn't translate to use by high quality sources. Many newspapers also tend to subscribe to all four news agencies with a national reach; Press Trust of India, Indo-Asian News Service and United News of India being the others, not because of any consideration for either of their reliability which WP:UBO presumes.

  For instance, The New Indian Express possibly has issues with undisclosed advertisments and paid news, while Telangana Today is owned by the K. Chandrashekar Rao and is criticised for partisan coverage and censorship in Telangana. I don't think these would have high standards for fact checking. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. There are extensive and documented instances of active misinformation by ANI. It should not be relied on, particularly as it has the practice of simply deleting stories subsequently, and not formally withdrawing/apologizing for false claims. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Given its track record on publishing misinformation [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] and its habit of publishing pro-government propaganda [87][88][89], it must be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE for factual reporting. SUN EYE 1 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: per WP:USEBYOTHERS tied to BBC et al, and extent of WP acceptance directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. That altnews.in sometimes disagrees shown above seems a minor item. I would suggest that any use should, as always follow CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to describe ANI withdrawing stories after an IFCN accredited fact-checker like Altnews (or for that matter Boomlive) point out that those stories contain falsities or disinformation, as a "sometimes disagree" situation. I've listed some examples in the discussion section. Based on the multiple criticism of ANI for recorded and documented misinformation, reducing it to ANI vs another website is in itself misleading. - Naushervan (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that was a reflection of WP:USEBYOTHERS "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." The variety and standing of multiple media venues (BBC, Reuters, et al) having accepted and used ANI demonstrates general respect; so does the many WP usages. The reputation, WEIGHT, and substance seems clear. I'm thinking it it vastly outweighs where above Altnews had criticisms of inaccuracy in some tweets. Not that altnews is without credit, though it also has detractors, but those cites just don't seem substantive enough for RS criticisms and tweets do not reflect all venues of ANI reporting. Option 2 -- it seems obviously reputable in the industry but as always consider in context of the specific piece and usage for the cite. I would always caution on opinion pieces or first-tweets and caution for ANI over BJP or pieces -- just as I would caution using Altnews.in and their criticisms or ideological differences with ANI. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Markbassett, can I ask you how did you come to the conclusion that it is used by the sources you are referring to here; "BBC, Reuter, et al"?

For instance, of the thousands of articles that can be found on the BBC News website, there are four reports which mention Asian News International, none of which are based on ANI's reporting itself and its most prominent appearance is in a reports on ANI's role in the disinformation campaign. That is neither use, let alone widespread and in addition constitutes negative coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate The USEBYOTHERS criteria for RS was pointed to by GSS, and I note their link to Reuters prominent is in their article and mentioned online and the BBC mention of them as India's largest wire service. I did see BBC usage attribute parts of stories to ANI at a couple [90], e.g. here, and here although usually BBC has its own reporters and uses Getty images. You can also google other newspaper online sites make what seems similar usage at NY Times, Washington Post The Sun, The London Times, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Australian, USA Today, and so forth as one might expect from a wire service covering India. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I would like to point out a few things though. Reuters itself provides a disclaimer that it has no involvement in ANI's editorial operation. BBC has a fairly large coverage and audience in India, and does use local news services, it has hundreds of reports which make use of Press Trust of India, as opposed to around 3 reports with barebones use of ANI within them. The overall usage in the rest of the sources is also similar "once in a blue moon", that too seems to be mostly for quoting officials.

WP:UBO states that "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Here we do have doubts on its reliability which are published in the very same sources and are its most prominent appearances in those sources. But if you still think that it fulfills UBO, then I wouldn't argue further and leave it at this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: ANI articles are often quoted/republished by other reliable sources. It is sometimes a bit biased but nevertheless it can be used for facts.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: ANI is one of the largest news agencies in Asia, and a reputed one at that with scores of subscribers both within the country (India) and outside thereof. So much so that the very thought of certifying it as otherwise is beyond me and totally uncalled for. One or two instances, if any, of erroneous reporting prove nothing. One could find the same for even the renowned New York Times, but that wouldn't make it unreliable. Like the below section would show and as I said on the talk page of the article in question too, the very portals being used to disparage and descredit this reputed agency (the likes of wire, quint et alia) have a poor standing, and have often been deemed ideologically biased and unreliable on RSN itself in the past.[91] Regards, MBlaze Lightning 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  MBlaze Lightning, there have been no significant discussions on the reliability of The Wire or The Quint on this noticeboard nor have their reporting been used to make claim about the reliability of Asian News International. The link you provided constitutes a singular opinion on The Wire and The Quint where an editor claims that they are reliable but biased. The Quint article cited to here refers to a report of EU DisinfoLab, which is the same as the one referred to in the BBC News article.

  On a side note, Webqoof, the fact checking division of The Quint is affiliated to the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) for which there is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact checking organisations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Entirely reliable source. Very few instances highlighted by newly born rivaling media outlets are irrelevant. Meanwhile, the long established worldwide media outlets treat ANI as a very reliable source. You can find petty criticism about just any media. NavjotSR (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I repeat WalrusJi. BBC and Caravan are not newly born. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, leaning towards the latter. Fact checking organisations have already documented frequent instances of fabricated stories, its independence is compromised due to its close association with the Indian government in a country where freedom of press is at a critical situation (it ranks #142, below Myanmar and not far from Russia) and add to it the EU DisinfoLab report's implication that it is a conduit for amplifying disinformation from fake news outlets of the Srivastava Group. There are instances where it has gone as far as to re-published op-eds from outlets that don't exist, attributed to people who deny having written them.

Frankly, having observed the various arguments till now, I couldn't see anything convincing that suggests it is reliable other than what I presume to be attempts at disregarding its coverage in reliable sources? They are apparently very reputed internationally, yet search results tied to major international news publication don't yield much. One of the predominant results is in fact, coverage of the EU DisinfoLab findings framed as revelations by said international news publications, which refer to "its content [being] reproduced on more than 500 fake media websites across 95 countries". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 1 per above and WP:USEBYOTHERS. A very credible news agency in India whose articles are being used by reliable newspapers as pointed out by some users above. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 The evidence presented above such as the BBC article means that it is clearly not a reliable source on anything to do with Pakistan. Arguments presented in favour of its reliability are not convincing, and rely on appeals to authority. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. (a) I am not swayed by the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. The other venues that are "using" ANI don't know any better. ANI is a newsfeed that the lesser papers without their own repoters are compelled to use so that they can fill pages and keep up with their competition. These lesser papers are not high-quality sources for us anyway. And, there is no dearth of high-quality sources in India, like The Hindu, The Statesman etc. There is no harm in forcing the editors to go out and look for them instead of picking the first thing that pops up on a Google search. (b) The biggest problem with the Indian news media right now is the huge government propaganda machinery, coupled with threats, intimidation, arm-twisting, imprisonment, lawsuits etc. etc. In this context, a source that has a proven track record of peddling government point of view should be avoided at all costs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I haven't seen any argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS so far. It is clearly much more credible and reliable than the petty critics cited here. "BBC" is certainly criticized so much in the last 30 years that ANI does not even come close to that criticism. It will require broad agreement within WP:RS that the source isn't reliable if we are going to select any other option than resorting to cherrypicking from partisan sources. Azuredivay (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS is that it isn’t. WP:RS simply don’t seem to use them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 - according to the BBC, a network unrelated to ANI was set up as an information operation. The BBC continues, "There is no evidence the network is linked to India's government, but it relies heavily on amplifying content produced on fake media outlets with the help of Asian News International (ANI) - India's largest wire service and a key focus of the investigation." ANI is an aggregator, and its services may be misused, but the problem is not with ANI itself, and instead with materials that were posted to it. You can't take down the largest news aggregator from a country of a billion people because articles that ended up being posted there were part of an information operation. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, I am swayed by the argument of Walrus Ji, it is clear to me that this source deliberately publishes false information, and functions more as a propaganda sheet that an actual news source, and as such it should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 It's certainly one of the largest news agencies in Asia as MBlaze said, and no plausible argument, having a basis in policy, has been put forward against WP:USEBYOTHERS for consideration. ANI's reach isn't limited to India or for that matter Asia, it "provides footage and editorial content to foreign news channels and agencies,...and is often the only source of footage and news from India's neighbours... Indian channels also rely on ANI feeds for the domestic stories that they are unable to cover, thereby making it the single largest source of news footage for an Indian channel. In fact, a major proportion of subcontinental footage telecast on foreign news channels such as the BBC, CNN, CNBC, NHK, etc. is provided by ANI, which also provides complete daily news bulletins and current affairs programmes to various ethnic channels operating in Europe, the US and other countries where the South Asian diaspora is present".[92] Such a high quality agency simply cannot be deemed unreliable by any stretch of the imagination under WP:RS. Also, what Darouet said. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Asian News International)

ANI has been documented by multiple international sources peddling fake news . Searching for ANI in RSN search box gives tonnes of results with links of Administrator Noticeboard Incidents, and those results are useless.--Walrus Ji (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• A number of the sources listed here are themselves questionable with respect to reliability. Are there reputable international news sources that discuss ANI? Acousmana (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have added BBC to the list above. You can also refer to these links [93] and the thread of RS links [94] --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• EU Disinfo has a fairly detailed report on ANI's role in targeting international institutions with disinformation. Within the Indian context, Caravan has a detailed report on indications of pro-government bias by ANI. IFCN accredited fact checkers like AltNews and Boomlive have extensive instances of ANI circulating fake news in the Indian context: see. e.g, fake news about the Balakot airstrike, misinformation on Covid-19 protocols that was refuted publicly by the Noida Police, fake news about a train accident, used to target political opposition, and a Livemint report on ANI's repeated fake news regarding Indian military operations, resulting in veterans' associations publicly denouncing ANI, ANI using its own employees for staged interviews on demonetisation. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• The list above seems not really serious RS criticisms, and mostly repeats of just two incidents. That (1) is about a first-report tweet quoted an eyewitness and later had to correct that it was a spokesperson... is demonstrating responsible journalism. The (2) is about India Chronicles - not ANI - but says ANI was pro-Indian (no surprise) and repeated the unstated material - and (3), (5), and (7) are same story ? Then Tablighi Jamaat (4) that someone complained ANI first tweet had misquoted them so ANI removed the tweet and corrected it, again seems decent response - and (6) that twitter then roasted them over it is no surprise; and (8) notes that retraction occurrred. That out of thousands of stories so few and minor are the issues held up as wrong speaks favorably of ANI. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Based on the exhaustive discussion above and taking into account of few instances of accusations of various sources whose own reliability comes under questioning at various occasions, as few instances highlighted by newly born rivalling media outlets are irrelevant.. And also considering high number of citations of ANI by other media houses against WP:USEBYOTHERS. ANI is generally reliable to use as [WP:RS]] DavidWood11 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC : The American Conservative

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The American Conservative?

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

John Cummings (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (The American Conservative)

• Option 4: The American Conservative has published several articles which include largely fabricated or false information on trans people. Articles include; Trans conspiracy theories: The Insanity Of Transgenderism,When They Come For Your Kid, Not Just A Tattoo: Transgenderism Attacks Our Fundamental Humanity, Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children, A Pro-Trans, Anti-Parent Conspiracy, The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims, Leaving The Trans Cult. These articles also appear to fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. Jewish conspiracy theories Does George Soros Want Revolution In Europe?, Beware Of George Soros’ Trojan Horse Prosecutors. Climate change conspiracy theories: On Wildfires And Climate Change, ‘The Science’ Got In The Way Of The Science John Cummings (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I fail to see what's anti-Semitic about either of those Soros articles. Just mentioning his name? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• We've already had an RfC on this last September, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RfC:_The_American_Conservative which was well attended and never closed. Please check the archives before opening RfC's. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, I did check the archives and somehow missed it. What is the process for this since it was closed with no decision being made? Does that mean I can continue the discussion here? Should I transclude the previous discussion into this one? John Cummings (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I think the best thing to do is close this RfC and place a closure request for the previous RfC at WP:RFCLOSE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, do you think there is enough discussion there to make a decision? I would be very happy to spend time encouraging people to take part in the discussion however its archived and cannot be edited. Is it alllowed in the rules that additional discussion take place here and the two be considered together? This one as a continuation of the other. John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note that TAC is already listed at WP:RSP (the perennial sources list)... it is deemed OK to cite for attributed statements of opinion, but not OK for unattributed statements of fact. We can discuss CHANGING that designation if you want, but you might run into NOTCENSORED resistance. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Looking at your last example [95] - could you explain which statements in that article you regard as "Climate change conspiracy theories", and why? Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Regarding Jewish conspiracy theories, how does a criticism of Soros automatically become a conspiracy theory? Alaexis_¿question? 14:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is George Soros undermining European national sovereignty and "Activists like Soros—whose organizations share part of the blame for encouraging migrants to come to Europe and lobby Europeans to regard borders and sovereignty as things of the past—are trying to rip off our birth right to sovereignty and stigmatize people by accusing them of upholding an outmoded Christian identity." are almost word-for-word the conspiracy theories described [here] - the idea that he is somehow funding and causing immigration in an effort to undermine white western Christendom. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. The TAC article doesn't mention Soros's ethnicity and criticises his support of migration. Soros himself said that "[his foundation's] plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle" ([96]), so what exactly is inaccurate there? Alaexis_¿question? 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Secret option 5 Why would you use it? It has a strong self-declared political bias and consists of opinion and news-pinion. The news-pinion will be covered with an attempt at neutrality elsewhere, so AC should not be used for that. Its opinion pieces might be ok for the opinion of the writer, but the writers are not particularly notable, so probably not useful. If Henry Kissinger writes a piece for them entitled "Why I love my Throne of Skulls" it could possibly have a place on the throne of skulls or Henry Kissinger articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. We already limit the use of TAC to situations where we are discussing a contributor’s opinion, and there are limited situations where discussing a contributor’s opinion would be appropriate. However, IN those rare situations, it is absolutely ok to cite TAC to support a statement as to what those opinions actually are. We would be using TAC as a primary source for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. I would also say that (IMO) we should not consider being published in TAC as rendering an opinion notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. The writer should be already notable for some other reason. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 4 or 5 per John Cummings and Boynamedsue. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source, WP:NOTCENSORED. Whether they're due is none of the business of this noticeboard since WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV and since every article has a talk page where editors may discuss in context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are two steps here, but it does publish news articles from a conservative perspective like this one. Therefore the RfC is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am curious... Why do you classify that as a news article and not an opinion piece? It reads like an opinion piece to me. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source. This is completely untrue and I'm baffled that editors keep thinking it is - review WP:RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Citing an opinion to, for example, a Reddit thread or a Twitter post by someone who is not a verified subject-matter expert would generally be unacceptable; beyond that, the wording of RSOPINION makes it clear that opinion reliability is a separate standard of reliability that has its own requirements, not a universal license to use any opinion from anywhere. Anything cited via RSOPINION must still meet the basic WP:RS requirements for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial controls; the requirements are looser in that case, not nonexistent. WP:SELFPUB stuff is not normally usable even via RSOPINION - some degree of fact-checking, accuracy, and reputation is still required. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ted Koppel explains it well...there's a big question mark about objectivity in journalism today. Atsme 💬 📧 23:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote is correct. It is required by the policy I cited, it is not refuted by the guideline that Aquillion points at, it is extremely common to cite blogs tweets etc. without pretence that they must be reliable for facts when they're not stating facts. Of course there is no universal licence to use any opinion from anywhere, nor did anyone say so, because any edit must meet other guidelines and policies, but desire to suppress a publication is not a guideline or policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Because due weight depends on reliability, it is still necessary to assess the reliability of sources when evaluating due weight. This noticeboard is the appropriate venue for assessing reliability. WP:NOTCENSORED states, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies", and both WP:V and WP:DUE are policies that enforce reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you missed that WP:RS is not a policy so it can't trump policy (nor can essay-class pages), and maybe you didn't click the link in what you referred to which says the appropriateness of any source depends on the context and "Other reliable sources include: ... magazines", maybe you can't understand that when we say Sam-said-X we're not saying X is fact, and maybe you've forgotten how you repeatedly insisted that Daily Mail opinions were unacceptable, until a closer of the relevant RfC shot that down. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability, due weight, and consensus are all policies. Invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is not going to justify the inclusion of material that is unverifiable, undue, or against consensus. No idea what the Daily Mail (RSP entry) has to do with this. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 / Option 1 with the reminder that we can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the above; publishes false or fabricated information intended to advance conspiracy theories. Not usable under RSOPINION (outside of the standard WP:SELFPUB exceptions that would allow someone to be cited anywhere, eg. treat it like a Reddit post) since its efforts to push fact-free conspiracy theories show a lack of editorial control even there and fail the standard that RSOPINION requires. Opinions from it should be cited only via a secondary source and never solely by a cite to it directly. Fact-free conspiratorial red-meat websites aren't usable as sources in any context - as others have said, how is this different than eg. Occupy Democrats? How does the fact that the American Ideas Institute created a magazine and website to pour their opinions into automatically make them more noteworthy than if they were posting them on Facebook or in the comments section of YouTube videos? As WP:RS says, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert; there's plenty of reason above to consider them useless as a source, and I'm not seeing any reason they'd be usable beyond "they call themselves a magazine". --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Option 2, it is obviously a conservative source, the articles you linked are opinionated giving an argument. See what NewsGuardTech browser extension says. Aasim (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

---

This RfC was closed because the previous RfC was not, which seems like an odd reason. There are contributions in the previous RfC which might justly be copied here, or the authors pinged, but there is also new information linked above. It seems to me to be prudent to finisah this RfC so we have a definitive result. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Option 4. In general I would go with "option 3" for opinion-only sources, but in this case TAC is beyond just opinion-only. This isn't about a "crony capitalism" section that studiously avoids criticising any Republican until they speak out against Donald Trump, it's about systematic factual and intellectual dishonesty. There are dozens of stories peddling the Big Lie ([97]). Last time TAC was discussed we did not have such a convenient litmus test for politically motivated dishonesty - now we do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'm amazed how deprecation is slowly but surely turning from a sensible policy of excluding a few sources peddling lies intentionally to silencing everyone who deviates from the current mainstream - whether to the left or to the right. Surely, a lot of sources are flawed, but what about relying on editors to make decisions for a given source in a given context?

Speaking of TAC, the current consensus at WP:RSP is to use it for attributed opinions. No examples of problems caused by this policy have been provided, so it's not clear why policy change is needed. Having different opinions about Soros or trans people is not a sufficient reason. Alaexis_¿question? 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Agree with Blueboar, Springee, Emir of Wikipedia etc from the previous discussion. It is a useful source. Common sense should be used to decide what use to make of it on a case by case basis. Burrobert (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 known for conspiracy theories, as I stated earlier. When it is pushing the baseless election fraud claims it should be clear that the outlet isn't interested in coverage consistent with facts or reality. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 given the points raised by the nominator, Aquillion and Guy. Yes, we're probably having to deprecate more than we thought we would years ago, but that's just a consequence of the modern media landscape. What matters is whether deprecation makes sense on a case-by-case basis, and it does here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - conspiracy theories and fabrication. If people feel too many deprecations are happening, the cure is for people to use less sewer-quality sources in Wikipedia; until then, we have to actually say "no, you can't use sewer-quality sources" - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - this is not a proper RfC as it was not setup correctly. Additionally, what has changed since the last time this topic was discussed? Has something new happened that makes the previous RfC (something like 6 months back?) invalid? If not, why haven't previous participants been notified? Springee (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Clearly usable with attribution per WP:RSOPINION. This is just the latest attempt by certain editors to ban sources that express opinions that either make them feel uncomfortable or they just don't like. It is more than okay to present an alternative viewpoint on "climate change". I'm sick of people here making the argument that you can't say that because there is a "consensus", so if you go against consensus then you spreading misinformation or a conspiracy theory. Anyone who says that doesn't understand what a consensus is, consensus is not unanimous or even near unanimous agreement. Here's an interesting "fact check" on climate change consensus [98] And labeling criticism of George Soros as "Jewish conspiracy theories" just because he happens to be Jewish is disingenuous. And I'm not even going to weigh in on the transgender issues debate, other than to say its very controversial.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  As per WP:RSP unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. The article is written by Earl J. Ritchie whose bio appears at the end of the article. He is more than qualified to speak on the subject both due to his job experience and the fact that he teaches at the third largest university in Texas.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rusf10, "Earl J. Ritchie, Lecturer, Department of Construction Management".

  So, not a subject matter expert. And no, it is not OK to present as fact an alternative to the scientific consensus view on climate change. The "two sides" are not science and the politically motivated anti-science bullshit of climate change dneialism. The scientific consensus, by definition, encompasses all legitimate evidence-based perspectives, and any "balance" to that is WP:FALSEBALANCE, as I am sure you understand. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

He is also a geophysicist, but you conveniently left that out. You seem to have no concept of what a "consensus" is. I not going to debate someone as close-minded as yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Looks like a source that is largely analysis and opinion. That means most of the time it probably won't get cited or would have to be attributed. Option 2 doesn't establish that the source would have weight one way or the other on any topic. Running contrarian opinion articles doesn't mean the source should be excluded from use. We really need to spend less time looking at the source in general and more time asking if a particular article is appropriate for supporting a particular claim/statement in a wikipedia article. We should do less of this generalization stuff.

Springee (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Options 3-4 Confirmed to have pushed baseless conspiracy theories that were already debunked by mainstream media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I don't even think this one needs explaining. Even the internal wiki article The_American_Conservative gives the sole needed reason for why this should be deprecated. In an ideal world, at least 95% of the opinions should lean towards option 4 here.Magnus Dominus (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Option 3 (actually none of the options, this is an opinion magazine) The RFC doesn't apply here. The American Conservative is very clearly an opinion magazine publishing the views of contributors. It does not claim to be a news source. There are many such opinion magazines (Jacobin for example, or the Forbes contributors) and we never use them to cite facts. It can be useful if we want to cite the opinion of a particular author and attribute it to them, so I would oppose deprecating it. However, it should never be used as a news source.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3+. This is used as a source nearly 400 times on Wikipedia.[99] As an opinion publication, it should only be used for opinions where they are due. As a fringe publication, it would rarely be considered due. As a source for facts, it should be actively discouraged as it has a track record of conspiracy theories and denialist positions. Because it has a few notable contributors whose opinions might occassionally be due, I would not vote for deprecation, although I am almost tempted to because it is used too many times on Wikipedia as a source for facts (on topics as varied as Anabaptism, John Rawls and ) Calvin and Hobbes) because of the superficial sheen of respectability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The American Conservative doesn't attempt to hide its political bias, but that doesn't mean that we should deprecate it. It looks reliable enough to include in articles (as attributed opinions), and I don't see any sort of allegations that the magazine is fabricating what it attempts to present as objective news. The articles that John Cummings present are clearly opinion pieces, and I don't think any of us would reason that their having a belief that transgender medical interventions in children is suboptimal is a reason for us to deprecate the source as we have done to the Daily Mail. We certainly should not use this source as if it are presenting objective, disinterested coverage of topics, and this source should not be used for sourcing extraordinary claims, but I don't see anything wrong with using this for attributed per WP:RSOPINION given that the magazine really isn't fabricating facts and it doesn't appear to teeter on the edge of doing that. Claiming that a particular set of mechanisms for supporting transgender children is bad on moral/philosophical grounds (especially in the case of Rod Dreher) can't be considered a "fabrication" or the production of "false information" unless we are going to extend our notions thereof to moral claims altogether, which is something we generally avoid doing on wikipedia due to WP:NPOV.

I believe a brief description of the contents of a few of the articles listed by John Cummings might help to shed a little more light on this. The first article, The Insanity Of Transgenderism, is an opinion piece by Rod Dreher that basically breaks down to a criticism of political correctness in a particular pro-LGBT group's report (Dreher writes, "So, 'human rights' now entails referring to a woman’s genitalia as a 'front hole.' The 'vagina' is the result of having your penis amputated".) The second article, When They Come For Your Kid, is a piece by Dreher that expresses discontent with the widespread acceptance of the use of puberty blockers in children. In the third article, The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims, is a piece by another author that argues that too many young girls are receiving puberty blockers and that this is being facilitated by public policy (particularly education policies in California) and social media. In the fourth piece, Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children, Dreher (gushingly) profiles the work and beliefs of the Kelsey Coalition and states his belief that gender transition discussions have become a sort of "third rail" in American policits. In the fifth article, Dreher (starting to notice a pattern here) highlights a particular school district's policies that make it very difficult for parents to find out that their children are considering a transition or report symptoms gender dysphoria to the school. (Dreher does allege conspiracy, though it's literally because he's alleging that the school district is setting up a system to obscure information from parents, and it appears to actually have some factual basis). I could go through more, but it would take a lot of time. The headlines are edgy, but the content of these sorts of articles doesn't actually reflect any sort of effort to fabricate false information and publish it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: "trans totalitarianism" is particularly crazy, and the Soros stuff is noxious as well. Clearly pushes unbalanced conspiracy theories. Noteduck (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: On the rare occassion that I read something on that site, it's nearly always by Jim Bovard and it's quite good: [100] [101]. The Shooting of Duncan Lemp page would be much better off with his articles. I can't speak for the other stuff. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 An opinion magazine, so generally unreliable for factual reporting. I don't agree with John Cummings that this site produces material that could be called a 'hate crime' as there aren't Hostile or violent incidents because of [one's] transgender identity [that] are known as transphobic hate incidents. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Should generally only be used for opinions per WP:RSOPINION. The examples given by John Cummings are not examples of incorrect factual statements but rather opinions that John Cummings disagrees with, so they cannot be called fabrications. The bias of the source does not make it universally unreliable per WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Jancarcu (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It seems like most people are voting to depreciate over some clickbait headlines. Has anyone provided examples where RSs have debunked or discredited TAC? Surely, if they have a history of promoting conspiracy theories or falsehoods, then we would at least have one fact-check from Snopes, PolitiFact, The Washington Post, Factcheck.org, or any other big name fact-checker. As of now, I would treat them the same as The National Review--so basically WP:RSOPINION applies. Also, I would show extreme caution for using TAC to support contentious claims to a BLP (even with attribution). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The American Conservative)

• See for example Voter Fraud Happened, But This Fight Is Over, published Jan 6. "Evidence abounds that the game was rigged, and the courts clearly failed us". That is wilfully dishonest, as anyone who has read the court filings will be aware. "The woke media—a media too corrupt to print, during the presidential campaign, stories of the Biden family’s years of corruption—was oh, so uninterested in the statistical disparities in voting that clearly indicated election fraud". See also Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. The "statistical disparities" which "clearly indicated voter fraud" have been analysed in detail and are down to obvious errors like assuming that each incoming set of ballot declarations will be statistically identical, when we knew months in advance that in-person and absentee ballots would represent very different demographics. Put simply, supporting the Big Lie is prima facie evidence of disqualifying bias-based unreliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• See also The Battle for France and Denmark’s Intifada, two article by Paul Belien supporting the Eurabia conspiracy-theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we ALREADY say that TAC is not reliable for fact, how do these examples change anything? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• To give an example of content from TAC that might be useful for Wikipedia: [102]. Its author (Roger Scruton) is notable and his opinion provides a valuable perspective. I don't see why it should not be used in Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 10:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In what article might you use it? Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Skyline or Roof pitch probably. Alaexis_¿question? 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, not really, no. He wasn't an architect, so his opinions on architecture and urban planning would only be valid if he was noted as a commentator on those (as was, for example, John Betjemen, founding author of Private Eye's "Nooks And Corners"). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

He's sufficiently notable as a commentator of urban planning to be written about by The National Review [103], Spectator [104] and criticised by The Guardian [105]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Volunteer (book)

The Volunteer (book) was written by British journalist Jack Fairweather and published by a popular (not academic) press, WH Allen. Is it a reliable source?

I know of only one scholarly review of the book, in which Michael Fleming states:

the dominant narrative about Pilecki in Poland is a myth. The legend includes the claims that Pilecki “volunteered” to be imprisoned at Auschwitz, that he was particularly concerned with reporting on the fate of Jews at the camp, and that it was the Polish Communist authorities alone who were responsible for suppressing his story. In The Volunteer, journalist Jack Fairweather presents some, but not all, of the features of the Pilecki myth to English-speaking readers.

Partly mythical is just not good enough for basic WP:RS expectations, let alone antisemitism in Poland topic area. Fleming also states:

Fairweather’s problematic title signals the main weakness of the book, as does its first sentence, which endorses the dominant narrative of the Pilecki myth: “Witold Pilecki volunteered to be imprisoned in Auschwitz.”... [Fairweather] does not address the tension between the myth of the sincere volunteer and the evidence that pressure and manipulation were at play. It should also be noted that those arrested could not choose their place of imprisonment. The most one can say is that Pilecki was pressured to allow himself to be arrested in the hope of being sent to a camp.

I also found a scholarly article about Pilecki in the peer reviewed journal Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały, written a few years before the book was published. Historian Ewa Cuber-Strutyńska states:

As a consequence, in the case of the “volunteer to Auschwitz”, the commonly used expression only partially corresponds with the facts.As already noted, one cannot fully recognise Pilecki as the promoter of the idea to enter Auschwitz and start underground activities there on the basis of source materials. Furthermore, it appears from the materials that the form and circumstances in which Pilecki was assigned the task did not give him many possibilities of refusal. In no way does it diminish his heroism and achievements but only shows that the term “volunteer” in the context of those events is used inaccurately. Using the expression “volunteer to Auschwitz”, one must bear in mind that Pilecki could not be certain that he would be sent precisely to Auschwitz after the September manhunt.

Nevertheless, my edits are reverted by Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella and our Wikipedia article still incorrectly identifies Pilecki as a "volunteer". (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's worth discussing whether the book The Volunteer (book) is reliable or not (though the answer to that seems obvious - it is) but I'm not sure why this particular issue is being brought to WP:RSN since the disagreement has nothing to do with the reliability of sources but rather it's question of straight up WP:UNDUE. Fleming is reliable, but presenting a couple quotes completely devoid of context and plumped willy nilly into a section that has nothing to do with them is at best bad practice stylistically and likely to confuse a reader who is not already familiar with the subject. There is an academic disagreement here over whether Pilecki "volunteered" or whether he "received an order and as a soldier obeyed it" but the the way the quote is presented insinuates that the entire story of Pilecki getting himself captured in order to get sent to Auschwitz is "a myth" (obviously it's not and no source questions that). Volunteer Marek 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  If it's an academic disagreement, you should be able to cite academic sources that have a different perspective. Are there any? Fairweather is not an academic source and does not meet the minimum requirements to be cited in this topic area. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not sources but WP:UNDUE and a misleading presentation of selected quotes. Volunteer Marek 20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And Fairweather does meet the criteria. Are you saying that he or his publishers are not “reputable”? Volunteer Marek 20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The requirement is to be "academically focused books by reputable publishers". I've seen no evidence that the book is academically focused, or that the publisher has a reputation for publishing accurate books about Polish history. (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Fleming states that "Fairweather reduces the “cast of characters,” oversimplifying in order to advance the narrative in a manner sufficiently compelling for a mass-market book." So no, not academic. (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not you realize how strange it sounds? There is a mainstream well known book about someone, but we can not use that book on a page about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing restriction would have been unnecessary if popular (indeed "mainstream"... as in "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional") perceptions were reasonably in line with facts and academic consensus in this topic area. That is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If so, nothing prevents from saying on the page that "according to popular perceptions ... [refs], but a historical research revealed that ... [refs]". This is a common situation in all subject areas. The sourcing restrictions are not necessary (this is an RS, not self-published materials). Also, in this case the difference between the popular/mainstream perceptions and the source you are using seem be only in details, i.e. in the motivation of a person to do something: he is not a "hero", he just did his duty as a hero. No one disputes what he actually did. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The publisher seems to be "reputable", and it does not have to be academic. The book received an award. Is the book itself "academically oriented"? I did not read the book, but it was described as "compelling study" in reviews [106]. So I think it does qualify as research. Yes, the author does not work for a University, but this does not automatically disqualify his research. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  News articles are not counted as reliable sources in this topic area, so any article published in news cannot be used to justify the reliability of the source. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the publications in The Guardian are RS per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I am not saying the book is infallible... I am only saying it was described in RS as a "study", and it apparently was a study. That should be enough to describe it as a "study" on the page about such book, and the book (not the article in The Guardian) can be arguably seen as appropriate for this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not the best source. It is much better than some of the trash pushed further up on this page, but it is a mass market book that is a heroic biography. Witold Pilecki is at the centre of modern myth making in Poland. After the communist regime was toppled down, he was promoted as an anti-communist hero, the arch typical "cursed soldier". An heroic biography by a non-academic may mix the mythical and non-mythical here. If academic sources disagree with this source on details, then the academic sources should be used.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• While scholarly sources (written by academics and published by academic press) are most desirable, books written by respected journalists and published by likewise reputable publishers unquestionably meet the requirements of WP:RS. The issue of whether a description of him as a "volunteer" is correct or undue does not belong on this noticeboard. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Arbcom remedy set higher expectations than traditional WP:RS for Poland in WW2, including the Holocaust; pls see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

and the books clearly meets it, since it is focused on history ("academically focused", having received at least one review in academic journal - Fleming, already mentioned here) and published by a reputable publishers - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a case to be discussed here. Fairweather is a reputable journalist, his book published by a reputable house. Whether Pilecki volunteered, not really volunteered, or was ordered & coerced to be caught is an interesting topic that should be discussed & elaborated in the article, not at RSN.--Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• So-so. It looks like a fine book, but without peer-review it's a problem to use it, especially in this TA. If the question is about the use of the term "volunteer", then the book is superseded by the journal article. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• The book does not meet the Arbcom remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations, which states:

5) The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. (...)

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary it's a "high quality source", a "academically focused book by a reputable publisher". Volunteer Marek 21:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How is the book "academically focused"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's based on archival sources, thoroughly researched, has been compared to scholarly works and "extensively documented" and is a result of several years worth of research. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It lacks in-line citations and it's unclear if it was peer-reviewed. François Robere (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you quit it with your perennial practice of inserting yourself into conversations that do not involve you. It's extremely rude. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And "lacks in-line citations"? Seriously? What is it suppose to be a Wikipedia article (cuz yeah, those are "scholarly" /sarcasm)? There are plenty of scholarly works which don't utilize inline citations. You're grasping at straws. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In re: It's extremely rude -- this discussion is taking place on a noticeboard, is it not? Editors do not get to control who responds to whom, here or on Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's taking place on a noticeboard does not cancel the requirement for courtesy and WP:EQ. Especially from a user with a history of warnings and blocks for harassing behavior and following others around. Volunteer Marek 19:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In-line or footnote citations are a feature of all academic style guides that I'm aware of; their absence suggests this is not an "academically focused" work like you claim. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. It was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories [107]. According to the author he adopted a technique he called "literary forensics," or re-creating "the scene of the crime" [108] (???). Clearly, it's not an academically focused source.--JBchrch (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you actually citing a "alternative weekly newspaper" from Vermont, to argue that this source is unreliable? How hard did you have to scour the internet to find that "source"? And the Harper Collins quote? It says "thought provoking nonfiction" right there, so what's the problem?

And yes, Fairweather is a journalist. A distinguished investigative journalists who:

Fairweather was a war correspondent embedded with British troops during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was bureau chief for The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad, where he met his wife, New York Times journalist Christina Asquith.[2] Fairweather survived an attempted kidnapping and an attempted suicide bombing.[2] He later covered the war in Afghanistan for The Washington Post.[2] His war coverage has won a British Press Award and an Overseas Press Club award citation.[3][4] His book The Volunteer, a biography about Witold Pilecki, a Polish resistance fighter who infiltrated Auschwitz, won the 2019 Costa Book Award.

The book has also received numerous favorable reviews from both academics and other "academically focused" outlets. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I doubt neither your good faith nor that the book is well-researched and interesting. The article I cited features an interview by the author, and it's the main source for the Jack Fairweather (writer) article, which is how I found it. I am not an academic snob and I often read non-fiction books by non-academics. I have no reason to think that Fairweather did a sloppy job here. But the point is that ArbCom said "academically-focused" and no matter how hard I try, I don't see how this book can fit in this criterion—sorry. Also I don't know how one would go at challenging this remedy or asking for an exception.--JBchrch (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@VM: none of the proffered reasons suggests that the book is "academically focused". --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

" based on archival sources, thoroughly researched, has been compared to scholarly works and "extensively documented" and is a result of several years worth of research" <-- Not academically focused? I don't know what your arbitrary standard for "academically focused" is, but that sounds to me like it's what it should be. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Academically focused": written by a scholar of a particular discipline, published by an academic press, and / or peer reviewed. In addition, lack of inline citations is a strong indicator that the book is not scholarly, as it's impossible to verify information against sources the author used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting WP:APLRS

• Defer to academic sources where they disagree with this book. I'm not going to say that it's flat-out unreliable, but I don't believe it meets a reasonable definition of 'academically focussed', which I would interpret as meaning 'intended for an academic audience'. My partner is an academic historian - she has written monographs about her academic research, for which the intended audience is other researchers and academics; she also has written text books, for which the intended audience is A-level students and history undergraduates. All of these are peer-reviewed, intended for an academic audience, and thus could be defined as 'academically focussed' sources. She has also been approached by publishers about writing books "for trade", which is jargon for a larger, more general readership - interested amateurs. Although she is an academic, these would not be academically focussed, no matter how well-researched they were, because they are written in a different way for a different audience. The Volunteer is clearly such a "for trade" book; that doesn't make it generally unreliable of course, but where it disagrees with academic sources we should defer to those. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Amended - see comment below. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, I think your conclusion sidesteps the point. Same with editors here invoking WP:RSP — not relevant. This is about living up to the spirit of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations, period. Michael Fleming (historian) qualifies. Jack Fairweather (writer) does not. It really isn't much more complicated than that. And Volunteer Marek, until François Robere, himself, is otherwise restricted, expect him to participate in matters pertaining to this topic area. He does not need to follow you necessarily in order to arrive here, at WP:RSN. Not sure why it would be a priority for him to target you in particular, again, here at RSN, rather than him just wanting to engage a topic, which, like for you, is clearly dear to his heart. I'm not saying he is without blemish. On the contrary. But, when he says: It lacks in-line citations and it's unclear if it was peer-reviewed, he is entitled to advance that view without you responding with: I would appreciate it if you quit it with your perennial practice of inserting yourself into conversations that do not involve you. It's extremely rude. I'm sorry, but that response is, in fact, what is rude. You well know how sympathetic I am (and consistently have been) to your devastating Icewhiz plight, but, I'm letting you know that using his specter as a blunt instrument, that's a problem. It's a problem when it distracts from a matter-of-fact discussion about content and it's a problem whenever it injects further hostility into the APL mix, for naught. El_C 07:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks El C, I confess I didn't read that - I was just considering the question of whether or not this could fairly be described as an academically focussed book. Since I conclude that it cannot be so described, it clearly not meet the requirements of the sourcing expectations set out in the link you have provided, and thus should not be used as a source on any article on the topic of Polish history during World War II. I'll amend my comment above. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Just setting the record straight here: in the nine years I've been editing on Wikipedia (three of which seriously in the Polish TA) I've only been blocked twice. I've never been T-banned, and I have a faultless, bilateral I-ban with one editor. That's about as "blemish-free" as you get in this TA, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't reinforce VM's false accusations at all. François Robere (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• François Robere, I wasn't just remarking on whatever formal sanctions that have been levied, but rather, my impression of everything, overall. That said, fair point. Stricken to soften. Hoping for de-escalation for APL disputes, in general, so, happy to set an example (dang, that sounded pompous!). El_C 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: I laud your optimism and good intent, but seeing as your third warning to VM had little impact,[109][110] I doubt we're not headed to some form of WP:DR. As an aside, VM has been making PAs for longer than I've been in the TA and against more people than I'd care to count, so tying this behavior to him being harassed by Icewhiz's is wrong. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• • FR, El C just said he hoped for a de-escalation of disputes in this area. But instead here you pop up with personal attacks and false accusations against me. What exactly is suppose to be wrong with this comment? You DID violate your interaction ban with GizzyCatBella, by reverting one of their older edits. Then you tried to make an excuse that this was ok because "it was an old edit". Doesn't matter, as you well know. Your revert was made AFTER you got the IBAN. And no, the IBAN you got was not "faultless". It was the result of your participation in a spurious AE report as well as a history of WP:HOUNDING GCB and other users here. Note some of the comments by admins:

• "If you can't come up with a convincing explanation of those edits made within a minute of each other, or a full apology and assurance that this sort of thing won't happen again, I'm going to block you indefinitely for WP:HOUNDING" (by User:RexxS)
• "I'm getting the impression that you think "fixing unambiguous errors... or correcting related problems on multiple articles" is some kind of get-out-of-jail card that absolves you of hounding another editor. It doesn't. The best resolution so far still looks like an indef for you"
• " I do think that following an editor to articles you've never before edited and attempting to amend their contributions while pinging them in an edit summary is very likely to be stressful to them. Steps will have to be taken to ensure there's no repetition of that"
• "No matter what you think your intentions are, that behaviour is indistinguishable from wiki-hounding: "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing ... for no overridingly constructive reason." "'
• "So, last chance, what assurances will you give that I won't find you creating the same pattern of contribution-following an editor you're in conflict with in the future?" (<---- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
• "Please don't test my patience. I'm quite capable of changing my mind if I see further BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Drop the stick while you have the chance. " (just like in this instance, there you were also completely unable to drop the stick and persisted in your behavior long after others have moved on)

Here are admin comments from the AE report that led to your "faultless" (sic) IBAN [111]:

• "GizzyCatBella, I agree that François Robere has not been following the advise of RexxS. Perhaps formalizing that advise as a one-way WP:IBANsanction toward François Robere is due. Or at least a final warning that it is imminent. " This is User:El C himself here
• "I gain the impression that this report resembles an attempt to weaponise AE, and I'm not keen to see a repeat. "'
• "believe the IBAN (between both; never been a fan of one-way IBANs) is the way to proceed here. It's clear there's some animus here against GCB by the filer." by User:Seraphimblade. Note this shows that the only reason this was a "bilateral" IBAN is because many admins, understandably, believe that one way IBANs are too much trouble. The original proposal was for a ban on just you. (nb, the "filer" in question was a different user)

None of this sounds exactly "faultless" to me.

Here are some other "last chance warnings" you've received over similar issues:

• [112] "If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned. Please consider this both warning and counsel." Warned
• [113] " I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence. " Warned again
• [114] And again
• [115] And again
• [116] And again
• [117] And again
• [118] And again
• [119] And blocked specifically for attacking GZB

And here are your recent comments and IBAN violation:

• This was a revert by you of this edit by GCB. Just because you reverted one of their old edits rather one of their new edits, doesn't matter. It's still the same behavior on your part and an IBAN violation. I guess you could've claimed that it was an accident but... in that case the right thing to do would've been to say "oh sorry, that was an accident". Instead you doubled down on it.
• [120] Taunting: "seriously? that's your best?" as a reply to me pointing out that you've showed up on yet another article you've never edited just to follow me around.
• [121] But I guess that wasn't insulting enough so you refactored it to spell it out more clearly: " Don't flatter yourself"
• [122] More jeering and taunting. "I suggest you keep your sass to yourself" (what???)
• [123] Taunting again: "I understand you're in a stressful situation with the AE and all" ("haha you have to constantly deal with BS AE reports!")

And if I had more time I could easily find more.

Look. I'm not gonna pretend that I want to be your friend or something. You went around and supported a guy [124] who made real life threats against me and my family. You still support him and defend him on Wiki, even after you know (and everyone knows you know) what he did. Honestly, I want nothing to do with you and I try to stay as far away from you as possible. Thing is... YOU KEEP SHOWING UP TO ARTICLES I'M EDITING! Ones which you've never edited before. I CAN'T avoid interacting with you. Wikipedia isn't like Twitter or Instagram or something where you can just block and ignore people who follow you around and grief you. Unless they're put under an IBAN. Wherever I go, there you are. You seem to be aware of it. You seemed to be aware of it when you did it to GCB and MM and E-960 and a bunch of other editors. Hence all the warnings and warnings and warnings and last chances and last chances. And I know you won't stop and will keep doing this (maybe make some half hearted promises along the way to do better) until you get another IBAN. And even then, as these recent violations show, you might not be able to help yourself either (hence the previous proposal to indef ban you)

And see, here is the difference between you and me. These diffs I posted above? Those insults and personal attacks you made? That IBAN violation? I could've written all that up and went running to WP:AE and asked for sanctions. Only reason why I'm posting all these diffs now is because you have chosen to once again attempt to escalate the situation. But I genuinely really do NOT like reporting people. Even you. I don't like how much of a battleground this topic area is, even if I do put the responsibility for that squarely on yours and Icewhiz's shoulders. I actually would rather not see you blocked or indef banned like Icewhiz was (and how you almost were). I just want you to stop WP:HOUNDing my edits (and yes, you 100% are, and pointing this out is NOT a personal attack, otherwise we wouldn't have a page dedicated to WP:HOUNDING), drop the stick, forget about Icewhiz and stop trying to fight his old battles and leave me the fuck alone.

And look man. I know exactly what you're trying to do. I'm not stupid. Your comment to El C about how "I doubt we're not headed to some form of WP:DR" makes it awfully transparent. You're trying to escalate and inflame these disagreements and disputes to a point where you can cobble together a justification for filing a request for another ArbCom case so that you can get a chance re-litigate the whole Icewhiz case, since that kind of turned out to be a fiasco for him. Hence the constant sniping, popping up at articles I'm editing, restarting old disputes initially started by Icewhiz, the constant battleground comments and attitude. I've been here here for sixteen years and I've seen people try to do that before. So I'm putting it in writing, right here, so that when you, or one of your Wiki-friends, or one of Icewhiz's sock puppets tries to file for another ArbCom case as result of your actions in regard to me... I can "I told you so". I still genuinely hope that won't happen though. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El C, User:Girth Summit - the problem is that the book by Fairweather is a comprehensive biography of Pilecki. The article by Fleming is a REVIEW of that book. Apparently we can use the book review but not the book itself. How does that make sense? And I guess it's possible to come up with some definition of "academically focused" if one really wants which would exclude the Fairweather book. But here are the reviews of the book:

• The Guardian: "Fairweather’s book is an impressive feat of research, organised by a keen moral intelligence and written with the elegance and pace of a first-rate thriller." Also calls it "extraordinary" by comparison.
• The Guardian, again, a glowing review
• interview with NPR
• "Book is full of brilliantly researched passages". In the interview it's also brought up that Fairweather had a staff of researchers, including professional historians working for him. The two researchers that are brought up are Dr. Katarzyna Chizynska, a historian and Dr. Marta Goljan, a professor Jewish Studies. It's also mentioned how Fairweather has been attacked by the "right-wing" in Poland because his book doesn't whitewash anything.
• Review in WSJ "Few books have enthralled, incensed and haunted me as "The Volunteer" has done", "Superb account of (...) Jack Fairweather".
• Here is Washington Post (where Fairweather has worked as a prize winning war correspondent for a decade+ (!))
• Interview in Time magazine
• The book was featured on C-SPAN (!)
• Here is Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York, which invited Fairweather to give a presentation and a discussion with historians and Holocaust scholars.
• Here is Kirkus reviews: An inspiring story beautifully told.
• Here is The Times
• Here is Publisher's Weekly "Fairweather mines letters, coded diaries, and personal interviews to tell the story " and "Fairweather tells this tragic tale in gripping fashion, bringing a new angle to the literature of the Holocaust"

• And so on and so forth. Look. Yes, Fairweather is an investigative journalist and a war correspondent not a guy with a Phd in history. But so what? The book has received glowing reviews from scores of respectable outlets and professional historians. It's published by a "reputable publisher". Fairweather spend several years researching the book with a team of actual historians (this may sounds strange but this is actually how a lot of books are written these days). This is a work DEDICATED to its subject.

But apparently we can't use it because ... the author doesn't have a PhD? Because someone went and found a single review where someone else has a little quibble about the definition of the word "volunteer"? (why can't we just mention that and still use the source?) This is *exactly* the kind of comprehensive work that we SHOULD be using. And you have to take a very narrow interpretation of both the letter and the intent of the sourcing restriction to reject this source. Apparently political hit pieces from tabloid newspapers are ok, but a thoroughly researched and widely acclaimed book isn't because of some technicality.

This just makes me shake my head. This is people trying their best to WP:GAME any kind of restriction or rule they can. Oh look! [Bob not snob, an account which started editing in November 2019, right after the ArbCom case concluded, who's first edits were to pick a fight with me, and who right from the beginning displayed a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policies, and who ceased editing Poland topics when the 500/30 restriction was imposed, and who then resumed editing Poland topics, as soon as they hit 500 edits, has now used this as an excuse to to completely gut the article, removing 25000 bits of text from the article. And they didn't just remove Fairweather's book. They removed half a dozen of actually reliable sources. Like a book by an Italian historian. A book by a British historian. An article by Timothy Snyder. And a whole bunch of others. And this even before the discussion has been closed.

Why is "Bob not snob" removing 25000 bytes of text on the pretext that one of these sources doesn't mean the sourcing restriction? Because they WANT someone to just revert them entirely so they can go running to WP:AE. Because "Volunteer Marek restored sources prohibited by sourcing restriction, oh noes! Someone safe Wikipedia from him!!!!" This is so painfully transparent. This is such a waste of time. This is the reason why this topic area is so toxic - because obnoxious game playing and bullshit like this is tolerated. Because new accounts that are obvious sock puppets STILL infest this topic. Because it's so easy for a couple editors to pull wool over admin eyes. This is a source we SHOULD be using. If it violates the sourcing restriction, then the sourcing restriction is absurd.

I'm so. sick. of. this. bullshit. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, Volunteer Marek, if you're able to show that the author employed academic researchers, then it likely meets the sourcing requirements. But how could anyone had known that this is so? I seem to keep telling multiple editors lately: don't expect omniscience. Live up to the spirit of WP:BURDEN. I know Girth Summit feels my pain in this regard (diff). So, I'm sorry to say, but that is on you. As for Bob not snob, feel free to file an AE report or contact the Arbitration Committee about him, I, personally, am not inclined to act with respect to him — he has somewhat cunningly preempted me with that bogus AN complaint about me, even though it was aspersion-riddled and ultimately deemed nonsensical and disruptive by all concerned. That normally would not stop me, but as it happens, I, myself, just don't want to deal with him right now due to... reasons. El_C 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I 100% understand not wanting to get involved wrt to BnS (I'm also 100% right about that account). And I'm not asking for omniscience, I'm asking for a bit of common sense. This is NOT what the sourcing restriction was suppose to do. This here is just WP:GAMEing and WP:WIKILAWYERing. We are NOT talking about some journalist for the Daily Mail or something writing some salacious tract. Fairweather is a veteran journalist for Washington Post and award winning war correspondent. Journalists actually write books (often in fact, biographies) as way to "cap off" their careers. These books - as long as we're talking about professionals at top outlets like WP or Guardian or something similar - are always researched thoroughly, they always have PhD historians and scholars as consultants and while they are intended for a popular audience they follow scholarly standards. This is how publishing works these days (it might also come as a shock to a lot of folks to learn that even many of the academic books out there are "ghost written" by an academic's grad students with the "author" just plopping his name on the cover) And here we have an entire work dedicated to a subject that we want to have a good Wikipedia article on - and yet we can't use it? Again, this just goes against common sense.

As far as who the particular researchers are on this book you have to dig for that a bit. Fairweather mentions who the researchers are on his twitter (they're both scholars with PhDs in relevant subjects). I know twitter isn't a reliable source but he also mentions it in the Haaretz interview (the interview itself is a good one, though the headline they slapped on it is click bait). Volunteer Marek 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, if you want "common sense" then live up to WP:BURDEN, each and every time. It is not a violation of WP:GAME for editors to insist on that. Veteran journalists do not meet WP:APLRS by definition. Whatever the degree of scholarly scrutiny that may be present in their respective works, again, needs to be established each and every time, not assumed a priori. Failure to do so is where problems are likely to continue to rise. The Committee has quite deliberately set an especially high bar for APLRS, similar to WP:MEDRS in many ways, and it is what it is. The sooner you come to terms with that, the better. El_C 22:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If saying you had an academic consultant, on twitter or an interview, turns a source into academic, then Poldark (2015 TV series) is academic too because it is advised by Dr. Hannah Greig of York University. Braveheart surely had historical consultants as well.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Astral Leap, the point is that when, say, a veteran journalist employs scholars to produce a work of note, it's reception and esteem among scholarly sources determines its corresponding status. Not sure drawing a parallel from that to historians hired to help make production sets of historical dramas more believable is that on-point, to be honest. El_C 10:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use this as an RS. It doesn't meet WP:APLRS, which isn't optional. It's a little breathless in the telling and there's reconstructed dialogue. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, having a book reviewed well by a non-scholarly source implies that the book was well written, but doesn't mean that it is accurate, as I doubt that most reviewers in English language press sources would be familiar enough with the source material to fairly judge that. Tiger King is a compelling documentary, but that doesn't mean the way that they presented the events was factually accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This may be a bit of an aside, but I still want to make it clear that my interpretation of WP:APLRS is that, once challenged, Consensus required on the side of WP:BURDEN basically comes into effect. That is, from that point on, the onus to achieve consensus for inclsuion of the disputed source as APLRS falls squarely on those advocating for its usage. Just to remove any doubt. And I'll finish by adding that I, for one, am a proponent of responding to any violations of that nature decisively, with impactful Arbitration enforcement remedies. El_C 00:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the discussion above illustrates how this sourcing restriction is leading to enormous waste of time and does not help to improve anything. Here is the problem. Some less significant sub-subjects are covered only (or mostly) by sources that do not fit such restrictions. And it is only fair using books for general public that qualify as RS (such as that one), along with academic publications. Nothing prevents from saying that "according to a popular perception/a book/an organization/whatever ... [refs], but the research demonstrate that ... [refs]". But that should be decided by Arbcom. I think they already said "no", but perhaps someone might ask again. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's right, this is a matter that is solely at the discretion of the Committee. I'd also say that fair is in the eye of beholder. I, for one, consider the sourcing requirements to be of paramount import and will strongly argue before the Committee against amendment proposals to weaken or rescind them outright. El_C 00:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do not really see why this subject area must be different from others, even more contentious subject areas. I do agree though that making WP:MEDRS on medical subjects was helpful, but it has been decided by community, after discussion, not by Arbcom. But whatever. I do not care too much because I do not usually edit these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, let's keep this space free to discuss on-topic matters, now that we got all of that out of the way. I'll add that if there is a less contentious topic area on the project, I, at least, have not encountered it. El_C 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:ARBPIA is a lot more contentious - based on my personal experience. There, simply commenting on a talk page, presumably in a neutral fashion (but of course it never is), can trigger a serious conflict between other contributors; that had happen; since then I avoid these pages like a plague My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I disagree: not WP:ARBPIA (which has calmed down a lot recently), not WP:ARBIPA, not WP:AP2, et cetera, etc., none of them comes close. Anyway, hopefully, that's it as far this OT is concerned. El_C 08:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It ebbs and flows, but generally ARBPIA is worse. This topic area was pretty peaceful 2012-2016 until Icewhiz and “friends” showed up. It’s been a disaster ever since. Also, in some ways this is a spill over from ARBPIA (even the same restriction 500/30).

Anyway, the sourcing restriction is most definitely not a carte Blanche to completely gut articles and then demand “consensus!” on talk, while stonewalling.

Every rule on Wikipedia can and will be WP:GAMEd (including WP:GAME itself). At the end of the day there’s no replacement for common sense and doing the grunt work and learning the sources. Volunteer Marek 08:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, until otherwise amended or rescinded by the Committee, it is to be enforced and that's that. Anyway, yes, ebbs and flows, but we're talking about the here and now. Yet, these ebbs and flows are not due to some bad actors appearing somewhat randomly, let's make that perfectly clear. Icewhiz is as much a symptom of and a response to recent key developments happening in Poland. Ones ultimately, culminating in the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and all that has followed since. So, best to just put everything on the table, wouldn't you say? To me, that is the true meaning of common sense. Yes, there's an WP:ARBPIA spillover, but so what? This is about disputing culpability for the darkest moment of our species. Sticking to the pretense that it's just another topic area — that is an inexplicable position. El_C 10:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, like I mention to Girth below, I had a long, profound, insightful and very persuasive reply all written here but my power and internet keep going out because of a snow storm so it got lost to the internet ether. Anyway, I 100% agree that the Polish government passing that idiotic Amendment influences/influenced what happened in this topic area. One way it has done so is that some editors arrived feeling like they had to "punish" Poland's government and even "Poland" for passing it by editing Wikipedia articles. There's a very strong element of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here. And they've used its existence as an excuse for their own disruptive actions. There's definitely "wrongs" in the actions of the Polish government, but this is as if I went to the article on, I don't know, Abraham Lincoln, and removed half of it because "look, Americans elected Trump as president so obviously all American written sources are questionable, and everyone knows you just can't trust those Trumpist Americans to write about their own history, we need impartial Eastern European editors to do so". I could repeat the analogy with Boris/Brexit and UK, or France where the National Front is the most popular party, or Israel where the left has effectively ceased to exist it seems like (Meretz has like ... 3 seats and Labor... does it even exist?) or Germany where the Alternative for Germany is making huge gains in parliament, etc. Yes, Poland has an aggressive right wing government that passes fucked up laws. So do a lot of countries these days.

And how are you going to enforce this restriction when nobody can tell what qualifies or what doesn't? What if someone goes to an article, removes 80% of it, then camps out on talk page insisting strenuously that none of the sources meet the requirement while yelling about "no consensus!" We gonna have to waste time going through each and every one or risk getting reported to WP:AE? This whole thing is a recipe for abuse. You pass ill thought out rules you get MORE litigation, MORE conflict, MORE battleground. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I'm going to restrict myself to responding to your comments on the source, rather than the history of the article itself or of any of the accounts that have been editing here. From the many positive reviews of the book you link to above, you could make a very strong argument that this book was widely well-received, but I don't see how they support the notion that it is academically focussed - they're all general publications. I already said that it isn't just about the author, or indeed any researchers they may have collaborated with, it's also about the style of writing and the intended audience. The front cover of this book (the one on sale on Amazon in the UK) is emblazoned with '#1 SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER', and 'the true story of the resistance hero who infiltrated Auschwitz' - it's very obviously popular history. I'm not saying that this automatically makes it bad, or that it makes it necessarily wrong on any of the fundamentals, but I cannot in good faith look at that book and agree that 'academically focussed' would be a fair description.

I have no view on whether or WP:APLRS is a good thing for the project or not - I don't know enough about the history of the conflicts that led up to it being put in place. It you obviously think that it's a bad thing, and I'd urge you to make the case for it to be modified or rescinded; as long as it remains in place though, I can't see how this book is usable as a source on an article on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45).

I'll add that I don't understand your comment about 'political hit pieces from tabloid newspapers' being OK - they would obviously not be OK on any article, but would be categorically prohibited by the restrictions of WP:APLRS. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Girth, I wrote a substantial response but we've got a snow storm here and my power went out and it got lost and I don't feel like rewriting it again so let me just say that I have no problem with anything you're saying and I understand where you're coming from. My complaint and frustration is with the general absurdity of the situation we find ourselves in. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that people read this article: [125] Maria Suchcitz, "A volunteer’s journey to hell and back: A review of Jack Fairweather, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz, London, WH Allen / Penguin Random House, 2019", New Eastern Europe, 12 November 2019.

What the article has to say seems more substantial than whether or not Gazeta Wyborcza is a "leftist" newspaper, or whether Witold Pilecki – 1940 cofounder of the Secret Polish Army resistance movement – should be regarded as having "volunteered" to get himself incarcerated at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp or whether he had been tasked to do so by his underground organization.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the others that The Volunteer does not meet WP:APLRS. It is not an academic book but one written for a mass market audience and published by a mass market publisher. It doesn't have the hallmarks of academic reliability (internal citations, real peer review, etc.) as others have pointed out above. That doesn't mean it's not an RS or can't be used anywhere, but I don't think it qualifies as APLRS and its use, if any, should be sparing, with attribution, and careful. It should probably not be used to support statements in wikivoice. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Fairweather's study, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz (2019), appears to qualify as a reliable source on Witold Pilecki. The book received an extensive positive review in Memoria, a publication of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, by Adam Cyra, since 1972 a Museum staff member: [126] "Review of Jack Fairweather's Book 'The Volunteer: The True Story of Witold Pilecki's Secret Mission', Memoria, no. 36 (September 2020), pp. 14–23. The book discusses the methodology used in its researching and composition and provides copious notes. Fairweather acknowledges the assistance of ten institutions including the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Yad Vashem; of a large staff of qualified researchers and translators; and of respected scholars of Polish-Jewish history and the Holocaust including Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer, Wojciech Kozłowski, Hanna Radziejowska, Rafał Brodacki, Jeffrey Bines, Staffan Thorsell, Wojciech Markert, Kate Brown, Magdalena Gawin, Anna Bikont, Francis Harris, and Suzannah Lipscomb. Nihil novi (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

RFC: The Federalist

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Federalist?

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

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Federalist)

• Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [127]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum I can understand the reluctance to deprecate a "source" that has only been invoked infrequently so far, but I can also see the value in nipping a problem in the bud. The point raised by Newslinger a few lines below about talk pages is a good one; why should we let the community's time be wasted? XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Federalist's website has been linked from 195 article talk pages. Discussions such as Talk:GameStop short squeeze § Yellen, in which an editor insists that The Federalist is reliable for a controversial claim about a living person because consensus (such as the consensus that would result from this RfC) has not yet been documented, sap editor time and effort even if the source is ultimately excluded from the article. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  There were several more, but I already removed the worst and most obvious uses prior to opening this RfC - I realized there was nothing stopping anyone from coming along and reverting me on the grounds that there's "no consensus" it's unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise that simple search doesn't search in the source text. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Obvious pusher of conspiracy theories is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2- This is just a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. As of this writing, it appears (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like a statement of fact. As other have pointed out, the source is rarely used anyway, but I don't see any reason it can't be used with attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This fails to engage with the substance of the claims - that it has a history of fabrication and conspiracy theories. I asked below about these claims, and you're pretending they don't exist. This does not instill confidence (and doesn't address the deprecation). I most note that this is not a vote - if you can't provide a reason of substance why it's actually a good source, rather than claiming a conspiracy to suppress a poltical view, then your opinion doesn't address the question, and would properly be ignored in a policy-based assessment of consensus - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I stand by my previous statement "it appears" is not a statement of fact. The article in question also was written on November 4 when explanations for some of these oddities mentioned in the article still were not provided (ie. Antrim County) and when official explanations were provided the author noted them. The facts presented about Pennsylvania in this article about changing of election laws still remain true, although it has since been shown late mail-in ballots were not numerous enough to change the result of the election (something which was clearly unknown on Nov 4).--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The fact is that there are consequences for selling your soul to QAnon trollery in a bad-faith effort to gin up clicks with outright lies about the election. There are any number of conservative outlets which affirmatively chose a different path, and chose not to stoke the flames of sedition. The Federalist chose to feed credulous dupes a manufactured series of easily-discredited falsehoods specifically designed to cast doubt upon the results of a free and fair election. This could have had no other intended effect but to foment outrage and hatred, and it led to one of the most embarrassing and dangerous spectacles in modern American history. The Federalist chose poorly, and choices have consequences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @NorthBySouthBaranof:That's just not true. The Federalist did not promote QANON, I am 100% sure of this. In fact, it called it a "conspiracy theory" here, here here, here and roughly 10 other articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
          • Then why did they pander to those same credulous dupes by publishing obvious falsehoods about the 2020 election, stoking irrational fear and hatred for the purpose of generating clicks and ultimately generating a violent insurrection? The answer is that like every other part of the Trumpist media ecosystem, they feared being insufficiently Trumpist. They could have simply explained the facts - that more people voted for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. They chose poorly, and again, choices have consequences. As I explained below, the Trumpist conspiracy ecosystem cannot be neatly separated - your party wove a tangled web of lies and is now caught in the trap. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm trying to assume good faith here, but which your choice of language makes it very difficult. First, your party, really? You don't know if I'm a registered Republican or not (and I'm not). Second, raising questions oddities in election results is not the same thing as publishing obvious falsehoods and claiming that The Federalist was responsible for ultimately generating a violent insurrection is something you really should strike. Here's a interesting article about the election that as far as I know contains factual content, doesn't prove anything other than this election was one of the strangest in history (I hope we can at least agree on that point). Also, note that the article which has plenty of citations, mentions a correction which disproves another claim you made that The Federalist doesn't issue corrections. I think most reasonable people would wonder how these results occurred, though not necessarily reject them. Bottom line is you've made several false claims in this RFC (apparently because you did not do your research first) and The Federalist which is mostly an opinion source (see WP:BIASED is far more creditable than you have portrayed it.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I never said The Federalist doesn't issue corrections, I said the article I linked above which falsely states that Democrats stole the election has neither been retracted nor corrected. Which is true.
              • That link is not an "interesting article" at all - indeed, it's a hilariously obvious dog whistle to the idea that the election was stolen. There was nothing particularly strange about this election, actually. Lots of people voted, all their votes were fairly and accurately counted, and 8 million more Americans voted for Joe Biden, flipping five states. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard is entirely correct here. It is inappropriate to use this page as a forum for speculating on the imagined motivations of other editors. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor (an I apologize if it was taken that way), but it seems to be a trend here. Just look at how many recent RFCs involve right-leaning sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, it's not Wikipedia's problem that a number of "right-leaning sources" chose to openly and notoriously discredit themselves as reliable sources by publishing patently-obvious lies about the 2020 United States presidential election. Policy demands that we base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source chooses to destroy its own reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that choice has consequences. If you think there are any "left-leaning sources" which have published similar lies about the 2020 election, please point them out because they should be deprecated too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You say: To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor - but this RFC was brought by an individual editor, and your own words above claim their action was a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. This is clearly and directly a claim about the motive of a particular editor, and it's nonsensical to claim you somehow didn't say what you literally said, right there, just above. And you still have not addressed the substance of the claims - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • David, with all due respect, I have addressed the substance of the claims. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't tell me I haven't addressed them. In fact, the editor who brought the RFC made an easily disprovable claim that this source is pushing QANON conspiracy theories which he has neither responded to or retracted. Does that matter to you?--Rusf10 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
          • "The election was stolen by Democrats" is a conspiracy theory clearly linked to QAnon amid an atmosphere where Trump's base repeatedly rejected reality in favor of a constructed fantasyworld where Trump was actually popular, COVID was a hoax, racism no longer exists, a "deep state undercover agent" posting on an anonymous imageboard is giving you the real inside scoop, and the only way Republicans could lose elections is if Democrats cheat. All of this ridiculous nonsense is of a piece, and we don't have to pretend otherwise. Trump sold lies to credulous dupes, and The Federalist chose to pander to those credulous dupes rather than tell the harder truth that lawn signs and boat parades signify nothing. Your own house organs sabotaged their own credibility, and you have no one but yourselves to blame. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • You're still pushing the absolutely false claim that the Federalist promotes QANON, when I have proven that they've denounced it multiple times over a period of two years. Just stop, QANON has absolutely nothing to do with this source. I don't know where you get your news from, but you are so misinformed it is incredible. While, I do not have the time to fact check every claim you just made. I'll start with your first one. The very fact that 74 million people voted for Trump (more than the 68 million that voted for Obama) actually does prove he was popular. That was so easy, I'll do one more. COVID was a hoax Trump never said this and here's a fact check from PolitiFact (which is not a conservative source). Ask PolitiFact: Are you sure Donald Trump didn’t call the coronavirus a hoax? --Rusf10 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per OP and XOR'easter. This seems like an uncontroversial call. Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I took a deep look at their early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic about six months ago and was appalled at the disinformation bilge that I found there. Their coverage of Trump's 2020 defeat was, if anything, worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [128], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [129] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [130]. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny:They actually do make corrections. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't know about their Covid reporting, but the stuff i've researched on there seems factual. They have their spin of course and the titles aren't great. Just checked their site and it's good they are reporting about the lifesite youtube channel being banned. Earlier today i was looking for the story and it was only on the actual lifestyle site, so they might pick up stories otherwise missed.Fred (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 just general hooey and unreliability. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Don't see the need for the drastic step of deprecation, but the falsehoods it has published is enough for it to be classified as generally unreliable. Zoozaz1 talk 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, unfortunately. I do read them sometimes and do think there's a place for their contrarianism, despite being very far away from them on the political spectrum. They have done real reporting which has been better than the dead-eyed nihilism of Sean Davis's twitter feed (likely for many people their first exposure to the website) might indicate. However, that difference has declined and they're basically Radio Trump now. Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 or 3, given the repeated instances of publishing false and fabricated information, as noted by OP above and by David Gerard in the Discussion section below. -sche (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, just look at this stuff. This should be kept as far away from sourcing for articles as possible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The source cannot be trusted for reliable information. I'm hesitant to fully deprecate, however, because there could be some value to their opinion pieces. -- Calidum 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - let's be realistic - there were different conspiracy theories going back & forth on both sides throughout Trump's term - we've endured 4 years of clickbait media on steroids over party politics including 2 impeachments in a Democrat-controlled House, and 2 acquittals in a Republican-controlled Senate. Left-leaning sources sensationalized the impeachments while right leaning sources downplayed them. The side that downplayed it turned out to be correct - he was acquitted - and its the same song, second verse with the Russian collusion conspiracy theories, yet the conservative sources were downgraded, not liberal sources. We've endured boatloads of speculation, sensationalism, and just plain ole political rhetoric in all of our news sources - not one of them stayed in the dugout for that game. If you downgrade this source, then downgrade them all because they all played the same clickbait political game to their respective political demographics. As for the OP's reasons for wanting to deprecate - let's go back in time - read this article, and let's deprecate all of the sources who promoted the Democrat's belief that Bush stole the election. That's how silly it all looks with retrospect. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 as per Atsme and the usage mentioned in the discussion. I respectfully disagree with Atme's assertion that the second acquittal of Trump was in a Republican-controlled Senate, but that seems to be their own view and not The Federalists, so does not affect my vote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Atsme. As explained, there have been other cases of similar theories of election stealing. This one doesn't require it's own special treatment. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 their disinformation campaigns around COVID and election conspiracies are without a doubt enough to label them unreliable, and the intent behind them pushes it into deprecation territory.Shadybabs (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Agree the source should not be used but we don't need to deprecate every single unreliable source we stumble upon. Considering it's cited so infrequently as stated above I do not think we need to deprecate it. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Saying that it appears is plainly a statement of fact and is unambiguously false, and sources publish unambiguously false things - especially such high-profile ones - should be depreciated, especially given that this is part of a longer history of posting similarly false things about eg. COVID-19. Atsme's assertion that there are comparable WP:RSes that spread conspiracy theories in 2004 is breathtakingly wrong - if found, any such sources should absolutely and unequivocally be depreciated (unless there is substantial reason to think they have changed since then, and even then we'd need to be cautious of anything from that era), but I note that Atsme has not named a single such source. "Everyone posts conspiracy theories about elections sometimes" is an unthinkably terrible thing to use in an WP:RS discussion - and if it's true, then we need to stop using all such sources, rather than using it as an argument to use sources that publish false or fabricated material. @Atsme:, please provide specific sources that are currently considered WP:RS (or at least ambiguous) that you feel have advocated similar conspiracy theories, or strike your comment. I note that the one source you linked roundly rejects them and characterizes them as WP:FRINGE, which disproves your own assertion. It directly says ”And those who believed that the election had been stolen got no help from the mainstream press, where even left-leaning outlets wouldn’t take up the idea of a vast web of fraud. In The Nation, Alexander Cockburn was caustically dismissive: “As usual, the conspiracy nuts think plans of inconceivable complexity worked at 100 percent efficiency, that Murphy’s law was once again in suspense and that 10,000 co-conspirators are all going to keep their mouths shut.” Of course there's a constant political haze of misinformation surrounding elections, but we don't rely on "conspiracy nuts" that are known for pushing it, and depreciate them if people insist on trying to use them - Steven Freeman, who felt in his bones that the 2004 election was stolen, is not a reliable source for anything. The Federalist has similarly placed itself in that category. --Aquillion (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • • well... Steven Freeman is reliable as a primary source for the views of Steven Freeman. NOW, whether any given article should mention Freeman’s views is a valid question... but it is one of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. A primary source is ALWAYS reliable for itself. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion - first of all, saying that it appears is not a statement of fact. There is a big difference between it appears and it is. Things can take on an appearance and that is not a false statement. Keep in mind, every conspiracy begins with a theory, and circumstantial evidence is based on what things appear to be. Your accusations against me speak volumes, particularly the ridiculous statement that comparable WP:RSes that spread conspiracy theories in 2004 is breathtakingly wrong. You were joking, right? Start here and do your own research. I simply don't have the time or the inclination to do it for you. There are also plenty of sources for you to examine at 2004 United States election voting controversies. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 00:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The piece ends with the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest - this is obviously, patiently false. And it is equally absolutely, unequivocally false that there were WP:RSes advocating conspiracy theories about the 2004 (I'm baffled that you continue to double down on such a plainly unsupportable point despite failing to turn up even the slightest shred of evidence to back your claim.) In fact, did you even read the paper you linked me to? This paper specifically says that mainstream coverage, even on the left, immediately accepted the outcome as legitimate; the only conspiracy theories it cites are from random contacts with individuals and unnamed websites on the fringes (implied further down to be blogs) - obviously not WP:RSes. If you disagree, then be specific, don't keep linking to vague sources that disprove your point - you implied that there were sources we now consider WP:RS that advocated conspiracy theories about the 2004 election. Well, give me a specific source, and link me to a specific situation where they said something comparable to this. I would love to mark those sources as depreciated or unreliable; we shouldn't be using sources that publish outright falsehoods. But what we absolutely cannot do is allow WP:RS to become a race to the bottom, especially with vague handwavy "everybody does it!" statements like yours. It would be bad enough to have a reliability race to the bottom against actual, concrete examples, but to do it against this vaguely-defined cloud of conspiratorial thinking is plainly a recipe for disaster. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

• Previous discussion from 2019 indicates similar problems with deliberate promotion of conspiracy theories by the Federalist. Here's some 2018 promotion of conspiracy theories:[131]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories[132]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health"[133]. If advocates have any excuses to offer for this history of fabrication and deliberate misinformation, that would be useful to hear - otherwise this looks very deprecable - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Covid conspiracy theory, how is it different from all the newspapers that said that masks are mostly needed for people working with patients [134]? This was an article from April 2020 when we knew little about covid and even expert opinion fluctuated a lot. Do you have other examples (I haven't voted yet)? Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The Federalist is political, thus their takes will draw ire from the opposing side and will definitely lead to comments like found in the New Yorker. One cannot make a good judgement based on those alone, otherwise it were possible to kill the 'reliable source' stateus of any smaller media by an astroturfing campaign. It is also important to separate opinion from reporting - the New Yorker source is based on pieces in the Federalist that appear as opinion to me. You should not use opinion as a reliable source of anything else than the opinion itself, but it cannot overtly be used to discredit a publication. The better publications sometimes publish disclaimers stating the opinion they publish is not the official one of the publication. It would be odd, though to require this method for any take that somebody could consider controversial. --91.153.156.132 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is this usage of the editor by the BBC, alongside usage of university professors. [135] -- --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the "political editor" being on a podcast translates to the website being reliable. People get chosen for panels, interviewed on TV, etc., for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just because they're visible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

    They were picked by the professional journalist "Ritula Shah", presumably as one of the experts. I have not actually listened to it, so there is a small chance that Davidson was not actually on the expert panel. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America (VOA)

Hello, Voice of America is not a reliable source?, according to user:CommanderWaterford. Thanks 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, first of all I would ask you to discuss Article Content Disputes at the Article Talk Page as you did several times before.It is by far not the first time I see you questioning my edits, you need to understand that Article you have created are not your OWN articles and that they of course will be checked and edited - by me and by several others. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it wants itself to be an encyclopaedia with a CLEAR neutral point of view, for very good reasons. None of your recently created articles were free of at least dubious sources and every first version was with a clear political intention. Secondly VOA is related to Myanmar Protests or the current Myanmar Government not really a reliable, neutral source since VOA is financed by the United States and I am sure that no one really can deny that the U.S. government has own particular interests in this issue. The other source you gave was - once again - from a clear political intentions driven medium. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting that VOA a dubious source and is just as bad as other state propaganda organisations like RT or CGTN is disingenuous. VOA maintains a firewall between government and itself and is widely respected for its accuracy. Despite recent turmoil, I don't think that saying that it is "unreliable" is a fair assessment. What specific claims are being contested? Are they in any way exceptional or not made by other sources? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hemiauchenia; the US Gov't's relationship with VOA is nothing like RT's with the Kremlin. GPinkerton (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: I believe you are mistaken. Government funding does not in and of itself have an impact on a sources's neutrality or reliability as wikipedia understands it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Honestly I cannot believe this - point me to the policy/essay proving this please. If you have a look at the article about VOA you will see a separate section with controversies regarding their independency. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You can’t believe that a source can both accept government money and be independent? Thats hard to fathom given that almost all of our perennial reliable sources receive government funding in some way whether it be grants, subsidies, or tax preferences. A lack of editorial independence would be a problem, but thats not the argument you have made. I would suggest reviewing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Eg, the BBC has long proven that you can have a state-backed media enterprise that retains high independence from influence of the state. The state sees a well-funded information service like the BBC as necessary to support an educated society but keeps its hands out of influencing how it handles topics to avoid the COI). --Masem (t) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC; it's all offloaded onto TV-owners as the licence fee. GPinkerton (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, license fees which the state legislated and legally obligates TV-owners to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Car-owners also need driver's licences for which they are legally obligated to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions. The government of the day is forever threatening to reduce or abolish the fee whenever it feels itself unpopular. There used to be dog licences too. As I understand it, VOA's backing comes out of general taxation, so it is rather more the party organ than the BBC could ever be. For both institutions, the international news (i.e. the World Service, etc.) is directed at a non-domestic audience and is unlikely to be influenced by state policies of any government and most unlikely to take a contrarian angle. GPinkerton (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You’re splitting hairs which don’t exist to make absurdly contrarian points like "In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC” when the statement you’re disagreeing with from Masem uses "state-backed” rather than “state funded” so your pedantry is not only unwarranted but based on a misreading of another editor’s argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is better to specify which Wiki article is being discussed. Where do you want to use this source?-Renat (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear all, user:CommanderWaterford, is a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. Do justice to me? Please help me... See pls Talk:Khin Thiri Thet Mon, User talk:Hintha#Notabality of Khin Thiri Thet Mon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khin Thiri Thet Mon, and [136] even that The Irrawaddy and Myanmar Now are the most RS of my country. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Why people are using "their experience on Wikipedia" as a weapon ????? What is the community value of these over actions? Taung Tan (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you - WP:HELPAFD.--Renat (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RenatUK I don’t mean AfD. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}}) when there is no information questioned at all. [137], [138] and [139]. Taung Tan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there probably has been a misunderstanding here. It would be wrong to just say "this is a propaganda machine" and "this is not". The burden of proof for policy violations lies on the accuser, not the accused. I think everyone kind of just needs to calm down here, even me ahaha. We cannot have civilized discussion when there are constant assuming bad faith and negative attacks and whatnot. Aasim (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So VOA is clearly reliable ? Well, Hi... CommanderWaterford do you note ? Taung Tan (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is reliable its similar to BBC though Government funded there are editorial independence contrary to government funded press in various dictatorships --Shrike (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Both VOA and BBC are more reliable in the present than they were in their well-documented early histories. I've yet to see anyone reaching into the archives and for current news articles they are on par. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is not like the BBC. Among US media, NPR and PBS are most similar to the BBC, as public broadcasters that are considered relatively independent from their governments. However, media such as Voice of America, and the various "Radio Free X" outlets are in a different category. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. were established explicitly as propaganda outlets, and were openly run as such for decades. Voice of America's official goal was to present a positive image of the United States to the world, while Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (which were covertly controlled by the CIA until the early 1970s) were much more bluntly tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc over shortwave radio (so that people in the Soviet Bloc would be able to listen in). The history is detailed here. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have gone through various reorganizations over time, but they still are much more tied to the US government than NPR or PBS. Voice of America's editorial section explicitly states that it reflects the views of the US government. There is a supposed "firewall" between the news section and the US government. However, as a former long-time (35 years) Voice of America correspondent / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review,

The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd. Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn't stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.

During the Trump administration, there was a scandal over the extent to which Trump tried to overtly influence VOA, but as Dan Robinson explains, government influence in VOA reporting precedes the Trump administration (though he was somewhat blunter about it). The influence of the US government on Voice of America is fairly apparent in the types of topics it focuses on. For example, VOA prominently advertises its section, "VOA News on Iran" (the only other regional news section it advertises on its banner is "US News"). Whether or not VOA should be used as a source depends on the subject. In general, I would say that editors should be aware of its biases and connection to the US government. At times, in-line attribution may be appropriate. For contentious claims about subjects the US government has a strong interest in (particularly with regards to countries like Iran and Cuba), VOA should probably only be used with in-line attribution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that the statement above, that it reflects the views of the US government, is taken out of context. The full page says

"The Voice Of America will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

(from the VOA Charter, Public Law 94-350)

As called for in its charter, the Voice of America presents differing points of view on a wide variety of issues. This includes the broadcast of editorials expressing the policies of the United States government, as well as essays on American ideals and institutions," specifying editorials, not news reporting. Zoozaz1 talk 04:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't take anything out of context. I explained that the editorials explicitly represent the views of the US government, while there's a supposed "firewall" between the government and the news section. However, as Dan Robinson (a long-time VOA correspondent and foreign bureau chief) has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review, that "firewall" is not effective, and there is significant government influence on the VOA news section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly think as in general for any state-owned media that if I see an article from state-owned media that appears overly pandering and presenting a case not corroborated and in disagreement with other RSes reporting on the same, there's an issue, and we can safely ignore it under IAR/UNDUE/FRINGE reasoning and use the other RSes. If it is the only article making a pandering claim and we have nothing that is "counter" to it, then inclusion should be discussed on the talk page (usually a claim by only one source usually isn't enough for inclusion). There are ways to deal with a situation described as a potential issue here as we'd have for any source and moreso as state-backed media in terms of its lack of independence to the state, but we don't have any clear evidence of a massive bias problem to mark VOA wholesale as a problem. --Masem (t) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

State-owned media is the only free media in many countries. Privately-owned media is intrinsically biased and corrupt. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is like the BBC, specifically the BBC World Service. The US doesn't really have a government-owned domestic broadcaster like the BBC (PBS and NPR are very different). Furthermore, while Trump tried to ruin VOA like he tried to ruin most of the rest of the government, his attempt failed and his people have been removed [140]. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA was created explicitly as a Cold War propaganda outlet, in order to project a positive image of the US. Trump tried much more explicitly than other recent presidents to direct government broadcasters, but as the long-time senior VOA reporter / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained, every administration exerts influence over VOA's reporting. This is how he sums up the situation at VOA and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty:

Government-paid journalists can no longer pretend they are just like their friends at CBS, NBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, and others, or expect to be seen as such by those working for non-government media. That’s simply living in delusion.

This is a pretty harsh judgment coming from someone who was at VOA for 35 years and who held senior roles in the organization. Note how he separates VOA / Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty outlets from the more independent NPR. NPR and PBS - not VOA - are the US' closest equivalents to the BBC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously an RS.My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I know, that it's reliable for Europe and Central Asia related articles, not sure about other areas. But I lean towards "generally reliable".--Renat (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Generally reliable, but in-line attribution may be preferred when the topic is one where the US government has a strong interest" seems to sum up the situation, from what I've seen so far. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer in-text attribution in reporting about countries with ongoing conflicts with the US. --MarioGom (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's everybody dude. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• VOA is a reliable source. It does has some unusual aspects because it was created specifically as a reliable source for regions where independent journalism was banned (e.g. the Soviet Union spent a lot of effort trying to jam it), but that doesn't really matter to us. What does matter to us is that it follows typical RS journalism standards in its news reporting. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA's primary purpose was not to provide reliable reporting. It's purpose was to project a positive image of the US into the Soviet Bloc. Accuracy was secondary (if at all important). It still serves a similar purpose with respect to countries like Iran, as is obvious if you go to voanews.com and look at the masthead (where "VOA News on Iran" is one of the four main topics). Of all the places in the world that have poor press freedom, why do you think Iran is the country that VOA focuses on? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really, if "[its] purpose was to project a positive image of the US" then you'd think it wouldn't carry stories that project a negative image of the US, but it does: [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146], [147], etc. As for Iran, Reporters without Borders says: "Iran has been one of the world’s most repressive countries for journalists for the past 40 years." [148]. - GretLomborg (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA sometimes carries stories that could be seen as reflecting negatively on the US, but the fact that it was established in order to project a positive image of the US is well documented (see the article on its history I linked to earlier).

As for Iran, the fact that the Iran does not have a very free press does not mean that VOA will report reliably on Iran. The US government has a clear interest in demonizing Iran, and there is strong support within the US establishment for a policy of regime change in the country. The VOA's particular focus on Iran is in line with that policy. RSF ranks Saudi Arabia even worse than Iran for press freedom (at place 172 of 190, with Iran at place 170), but Saudi Arabia is an American ally, so it doesn't get its own prominent section on VOA's website.

I'm not saying that VOA is completely unusable, but it's no BBC, and particularly when it reports on countries with which the US has hostile relations, in-line attribution is probably required. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this source ok to support a major claim in the lead of an article?

This statement is currently in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran:

• "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in it s homeland"

We had a RfC debating if this should be removed from the lead of the article or not. Eggishorn closed it in "no consensus" and suggested to ask at RSN instead.

The source used to support this statement says "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."

Is this statement ok for the lead? or would it be better to have this moved to the body of the article instead? - MA Javadi (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the latter half of the sentence, "... a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in it s homeland", supported by the reference on the pages specified (or elsewhere)? I realize I am not directly answering your question, but this point might be relevant. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It depends, is it just Ostrovar's opinion or is it shared by other researchers? (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe - I agree. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The second half of the sentence (a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland) strikes me as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, especially the very last part; summarizing the opinion of something as "treason" is very strong wording, as is the claim that this one action destroyed their support in their homeland. If it really is so important for those specific reasons, it should be easy to find additional sources to settle the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Markworthen: No, it's not supported by this reference. There are other references that (inconsistently) describe the effects MEK-Hussein cooperation had on the MEK's popularity, but they talk about events from 1986 onwards (Hussein-MEK collaboration post-1986 is already in the lead of the article), and not 1983 (which is the date this reference is pointing to).

• @Buidhe: These are the only other sources found about MEK-Hussein collaboration before 1986, but some are vague about the type of collaboration and none talk about the effects this had on the MEK's reputation.

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terronomics

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

• @Aquillion: there are mixed opinions that talk about the MEK's popularity after its collaboration with Hussein, but none refer to anything before 1986 (the year that the MEK put its base in Iraq).
• What do y'all think? Should this sentence be in the lead of the article, or in the body of the article? - MA Javadi (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a long lede (introduction) to begin with, so one option might be to make the lede more concise overall. Whether or not the lede is tightened up, I would remove or change the second half of the sentence. Perhaps something like: "By 1983 Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that decreased MEK's appeal in Iran." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I found two sources to support the statement:

This OUP book says "While the Islamic Republic came out of the war more powerful than ever, the MeK lost any legitimacy within Iran. To this day, the MeK's name is synonymous with treason for many Iranians".

This book by Hurst Publishers says "The MKO leadership first fled to France and then, somewhat imprudently, relocated to Iraq in 1986. There, in the words of one historian, they completed their transformation from a political movement into a cult. More important, as far as ordinary Iranians were concerned, was their decision to enjoy Saddam Hussein's patronage at a time when Iran and Iraq were at war. This simple fact made their claim to be the official opposition difficult to justify. Most Iranians, whatever their feelings towards the Islamic Republic, could not side with an organization that was effectively committing treason." Fences&Windows 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Your two sources talk about from 1986 onwards (which are already covered in the lead of the article). The source we are discussing here says "by 1983". So we are trying to determine if this only source talking about 1983 is enough to have this in the lead of the article. Can you comment about that please? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the date, whether 1983 or 1986, is the focus of the dispute. The key parts of the disputed section are the MEK's alliance with Hussein's Iraqi regime causing a precipitous decline in support and being viewed as treason by many/most Iranians, which those two reliable book sources have verified. It is also such a central part of the organisation's history that it needs to be in the lead. Fences&Windows 16:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I do think that 1983/1986 is also important and the bit about 1983 should be dropped as WP:UNDUE if it can't be confirmed by more sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, we definitely need to treat the two parts separately:

1. "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support" is still disputed. We know Rajavi met Tariq Aziz in Paris in January 1983 to sign a treaty [149] and this is already in the body of the article. That supports a date of 1983 for cooperating with Hussein's Iraqi regime. Financing is another question, but Piazza (1994) says "This meeting was highly significant in that it marked the beginning of what was to become a long-term relationship between Baghdad and the Mojahedin, one which would guarantee future Mojahedin funding and military support".[150] Maybe "In 1983, Masud Rajavi began to cooperate with Saddam Hussein's regime after a meeting in Paris, leading to the MEK joining Iraqi forces in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support".

2. "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" is definitely supported, including by Piazza: "At a period when the war with Iraq was taking a heavy human and financial toll on the Iranian masses, the Mojahedin’s move to Iraq and collaboration with Saddam Hussein was viewed by the Mojahedin’s supposed constituency inside the Islamic Republic with suspicion and scorn at best. It remains a specter which haunts the Mojahedin to the present day." It should be retained in some form. Maybe "The decision to side with Iraq was viewed as treason by many Iranians and caused lasting harm to the MEK's reputation in Iran." Fences&Windows 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows 1. There are a number of sources that document Saddam-MEK relationship in 1983, they were presented in this RfC. Several of those sources specifically mention financial support. There are no scholarly sources that contradict this assertion.

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terrornomics By Sean S. Costigan, David Gold

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support.
— Vanguard of the Imam, Oxford University Press

The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin
— The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

2. I agree. The exact wording can be teased out at the article's talk page and I see you already proposed that.VR _talk 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Vanguard of the Imam source is the only source specifically talking about 1983 MEK/Hussein relations. This means we have a controversial statement supported by one source in the lede of the article. That is problematic. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health

Is it ok to source the following sentence with Frontiers Journal in Public Health:

In spring of 2012, three miners cleaning bat feces in an abandoned copper mine near the town of Tongguan in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County developed fatal pneumonia.[151][152]

This source expands on a brief Nature Journal source also used for the sentence. Two editors (PaleoNeonate and Alexbrn) have stated Frontiers is no good. Frontiers Journal in Public Health has an impact factor of 2.483[153] and Frontiers the publisher is the 5th most cited science publisher in the world[154]. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Borderline predatory publisher, best avoided for anything not trivial. But even if it were reputable, this is a primary source and so not suitable, especially for controversial claims about COVID-19 origins. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also see these older threads in relation to Frontiers journals: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205#Scientific Research Publishing and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?; and I suspect Alexbrn refers to WP:PRIMARY vs WP:MEDRS, —PaleoNeonate – 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Frontiers is a predatory publisher, listed as such on WP:CITEWATCH. Frontiers publications are generally not usable as scientific sources. If the claim is solid, it'll be in a usable source. In this case it is, so use the RS version and not the jazzed-up version - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Frontiers is borderline, listed as borderline on WP:CITEWATCH. Citing the CiteWatch is also putting the cart before the horses, because the CiteWatch reflect community consensus, it is not independent from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Frontiers is to be avoided whenever possible, their own statements about how popular they are notwithstanding. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I encourage the people who create the scientific content on Wikipedia to look at the statistic links that I've provided. Many of the people who voice their opinion on this reliable source noticeboard have not created any scientific content here on Wikipedia. And there are also those, unfortunately, who are unable to read scientific literature. It actually does take time to learn how to understand the literature of different fields of specialization.

I'll provide this table, since I know many people do not actually click on links.

2019 Journal Impact Factors
Journal	2019 Journal Impact Factor
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience	4.362
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience	2.512
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology	3.644
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine	3.915
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology	5.201
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology	4.123
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience	3.921
Frontiers in Chemistry	3.693
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience	2.535
Frontiers in Earth Science	2.689
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution	2.416
Frontiers in Endocrinology	3.644
Frontiers in Energy Research	2.746
Frontiers in Environmental Science	2.749
Frontiers in Genetics	3.258
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience	2.673
Frontiers in Immunology	5.085
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience	2.152
Frontiers in Marine Science	3.661
Frontiers in Materials	2.705
Frontiers in Medicine	3.9
Frontiers in Microbiology	4.235
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences	4.188
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience	4.057
Frontiers in Neural Circuits	3.156
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy	3.292
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics	2.649
Frontiers in Neurology	2.889
Frontiers in Neurorobotics	2.574
Frontiers in Neuroscience	3.707
Frontiers in Nutrition	3.365
Frontiers in Oncology	4.848
Frontiers in Pediatrics	2.634
Frontiers in Pharmacology	4.225
Frontiers in Physics	2.638
Frontiers in Physiology	3.367
Frontiers in Plant Science	4.402
Frontiers in Psychiatry	2.849
Frontiers in Psychology	2.067
Frontiers in Public Health	2.483
Frontiers in Surgery	1.826
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience	3.293
Frontiers in Veterinary Science	2.245

Click on the following links to learn about the statistics of the publisher which is the 5th most cited scientific publisher in the world.

Frontier's publisher: Impact overview

Frontier's publisher: Journal Impact Factors

Frontier's publisher: Journal CiteScores

Frontier's publisher: Journal Citations

I look forward to having a rigorous discussion here on the reliable noticeboard as to what makes a science journal reliable or not. I also strongly encourage everyone who creates the scientific content on Wikipedia to contribute. This is an important topic that does not have room for gut feelings, politics, or passions. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

From WP:CITEWATCH: Will accept almost anything (80-90% of submissions), and has sacked editors for being too selective. Perhaps WT:CITEWATCH is the place to discuss the matter if you want a Frontiers journal regarded as a respectable source and removed from CITEWATCH - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers Media is near bottom of the barrel among non outright-predatory open access publishers. Editors have a high pressure to be non-selective about what is published in their journals. The acknowledgements section sets off many alarm bells. Citing "DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19)" for "invaluable discussions". As far as I can tell DRASTIC is a bunch of anonymous and otherwise unnotable twitter users who are dedicated to pushing the lab leak conspiracy theory. The authors also cite "Dr. Jonathan Latham of bioscienceresource.org" for translating the manuscript of one of the masters thesis. Dr. Jonathan Latham is the operator of "independentsciencenews.org" see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#independentsciencenews.org an agriculture focused fringe site, which last year also began pushing lab leak conspiracy theories. This demonstrates that like other previous pro-lab leak papers like The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin in BioEssays that they are strongly drawing from "lab leak twitter". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If you're trying to source a crank conspiracy theory, then Frontiers is certainly the sort of publisher who will have the sort of papers you're looking for; however, that's why they're not usable in Wikipedia. You may wish to consider sticking to firmer RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the Mojiang Mine story is that no samples were ever taken from the infected miners, meaning that anything about the identity of the agent that caused the illness is entirely speculation, and will never be definitively proved for sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead author on twitter has indicated that she is associated with DRASTIC. Even if it was judged to not be unreliable its still very much undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Mona's main speciality is methane oxidizing bacteria, while Rahul's is plant biology, meaning that neither have relevant expertise in virology. Further to this, she has attempted to canvass editors to wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of reliability, there is the much bigger WP:DUE concerns. That three miners caught pneumonia is trivia at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Frontier's Journal in Public Health a reliable source?

Note this section is to unpackage the question above and does not relate to the sentence that is being sourced above with the journal article. What metrics does Wikipedia wish to use to judge the reliability of scientific journals. I propose we utilize whether a journal is indexed in PUBMED and what its impact factor is.

"The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited"

-- Measuring Your Impact: Impact Factor, Citation Analysis, and other Metrics: Journal Impact Factor (IF)

These are the statistics for Frontier's Journal of Public Health in terms of real time impact factor:

IF: 2.6 Rank (279/516) / Source: https:// academic-accelerator.com/Real-Time-Impact-Factor/Frontiers-in-Public-Health

The statistics indicate that the journal is in the middle of the pack in the topic area of "Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health". The statistics indicate that it is an indexed reliable source that has been cited by other reliable indexed scientific journals. I will also note that the journal always clearly notes in the left margin who the peer reviewers are and who edited the article. The source is a reliable source. If you dispute that this journal is a reliable source, please provide statistics to back up your argument. (Also, to foreshadow and see if this board is serious about reliability and science publishing: what is plan s?) --Guest2625 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Impact factor, particularly Impact_factor#Criticism, is an excellent argument for why we shouldn't do that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The citation index and impact factor are irrelevant. A scientific paper may never be cited, but be 100% reliable. For example, some articles on X-ray crystallography of proteins are never cited. The concern here is different: the predatory publishing, which indeed undermines reliability of publications because it means the papers did not receive a strong peer review. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Provide numbers and statistics

There have been no numbers or statistics provided to back up the argument that this source is not reliable. There appears to be this belief if you call a whole publishing company something that will make it true. It will not. You have to prove your case with numbers and statistics. Gut-feelings do not cut it. Only people who are not aware of the scientific method do such things.

Here is more proof that Frontiers Media is a trusted partner with institutions and nations in the scientific field.

Frontiers pioneered fully transparent, national Open Access publishing agreements for research organizations and their researchers at a national level. National agreements simplify the process for authors wishing to publish in Frontiers journals, and help contribute to the growing number of research articles that are openly available to all.

Extended content

National Members Austria Norway Qatar... Sweden... United Kingdom... Frontiers Institutional Members AUSTRALIA Queensland University of Technology... AUSTRIA Austrian Science Fund (FWF)... Graz University of Technology (TU Graz)... Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria)... Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences... TU Wien (Technische Universität Wien)... University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria... University of Klagenfurt University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna... University of Vienna... CANADA Brock University Simon Fraser University University of Ottawa... FINLAND University of Helsinki... GERMANY Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI)... Bielefeld University... Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin... C.v.O University Oldenburg... Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum... Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE)... Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen... Forschungszentrum Jülich... Freie Universität Berlin... Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (FSU)... GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel... German Aerospace Center (DLR)... GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences... Goethe University Frankfurt... Göttingen University... Hannover Medical School Heidelberg University... Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)... Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf... Helmholtz-Zentrum für Infektionsforschung... Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum für Material- und Küstenforschung... Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin... Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz... Justus Liebig University Giessen Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)... Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München... Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg Max Planck Society... Max-Delbrück-Centrum für Molekulare Medizin (MDC)... University of Rostock Rostock University Medical Center Ruhr-University Bochum... Technical University of Munich (TUM)... Technische Universität Berlin... Technische Universität Darmstadt... TU Chemnitz... University of Bremen... University of Duisburg-Essen Universität Kassel... University of Konstanz... Universität Leipzig... University of Mannheim... Universität Osnabrück... University Potsdam... University of Regensburg... University of Stuttgart... University of Ulm... University of Würzburg University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) Helmholtz Zentrum München HUNGARY Semmelweis University... University of Szeged... ITALY Italian Biomedical Research Institutions (Bibliosan) NETHERLANDS Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences... Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)... TU Delft... NORWAY BI Norwegian Business School Fafo Research Foundation Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences Institute For Social Research Institute of Marine Research Institute Of Transport Economics... NILU Norwegian Institute for Air Research... Nord University Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norwegian Institute for Water Research... Norwegian Research Centre... Norwegian School of Sport Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology Ostfold University College SINTEF Soerlandet Hospital Sykehuset Østfold... University of Agder... University Of Bergen... University Of South-Eastern Norway University Of Stavanger... UiT The Arctic University of Norway... Western Norway University Of Applied Sciences Nofima the food research institute Norwegian Veterinary Institute Norwegian Institute Of Public Health Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research Norwegian Institute for International Affairs QATAR Qatar National Library... RUSSIA Kazan Federal University... SAUDI ARABIA King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)... SPAIN Spanish National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CSIC)... SWEDEN Chalmers University of Technology... Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College... Halmstad University Karlstad University... KTH Royal Institute of Technology Lund University... Malmö University Mälardalen University... Mid Sweden University Örebro University... Stockholm University... Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences... Umeå University... University of Gävle... University of Borås University of Gothenburg... Uppsala University... University West SWITZERLAND European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)... ETH Zurich... University of Zurich... Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW)... UK Brunel University... Cardiff University... Cranfield University Francis Crick Institute... King's College London... Lancaster University Manchester Metropolitan University... University of Oxford Queen Mary University of London... Newcastle University... Queen's University Belfast... Sheffield Hallam University University College London (UCL)... University of Aberdeen University of Birmingham... University of Bristol... University of Cambridge... University of Edinburgh... University of Exeter University of Hull University of LiverpoolUniversity of Manchester University of Nottingham... University of Salford... University of St Andrews... University of Sheffield... University of Southampton... University of Stirling... USA Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation... California Institute of Technology (Caltech)... Duke University George Mason University... Iowa State University of Science and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)... University of Arizona University of California, Davis (UC Davis) University of Indiana Yale University

All these nations and institutions have agreed to work with this publisher. They obviously do not see them as a disreputable publisher, or otherwise they would not work with them. Now please provide statistics or numbers to back up the empty gut feelings. We are talking about science not newspapers.

How many reviewers does a New York Times article have?
How many journalist's articles (who works at the paper) are accepted by the the New York Times for publication?
How much time is spent on writing a New York Times article?
How many authors on average write a New York Times article?

Think about this. How many total research-hours are spent by all the authors on that one little science article. Look at the original sentence above. Something is seriously wrong with this board if a local newspaper can source it, but not a normal old indexed science journal with a fairly decent impact factor. A publisher that has agreements to work with endless numbers of universities and nations. So what is plan s? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if the journal was reputable (which is in doubt because of the criticism it received over the years), it would still not meet WP:MEDRS as a primary source, —PaleoNeonate – 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Impact factor, particularly the section Impact factor#Criticism, contains numbers and statistics indicating why one should not take IF as indicating reliability for our purposes. The text copy-and-pasted above is essentially advertising material for the publisher and conveys no information; that an organization has a nominal relationship of some kind with a publisher means very little. Thanks to product bundling, academic libraries often have to buy journal subscriptions in package deals, getting everything that a publisher offers even when only a sliver of those journals are actually valued by scientists. Consequently, inferring anything about a particular journal knowing only the publisher is apt to be misguided. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers in Public Health is ranked as Q2 in the field "Public health, Environmental and Ocuppational Health" by Scimago. All journals included by Scimago are reputable, and the only ones to be borderline are the ones classified as Q4 with low values of the citation indexes (Scimago's own index, SJR, has a value of 0.672 for this journal, which is not low). Forich (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, not all journals indexed by Scimago are reputable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)

Link: [155]

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a US government funded news source. They almost only publish news critical of enemies of the United States. The articles regularly do not cite their sources, which makes their reporting unreliable. For example, this report (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/beatings-01222021193838.html) refers to "RFA’s source" and "Tibetan sources say." I think that RFA should be depreciated in line with a number of other state media sources.

Edit: Here is another example of an article that I would not consider entirely reliable: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/cosleeping-10312019160528.html . Again it contains no named sources and it ended up being picked up by other media https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/this-is-mass-rape-china-slammed-over-program-that-appoints-men-to-sleep-with-uighur-women/news-story/ed45cd065e39690354b6402d02904557 . Just because it does not contain any named sources does not mean that it is fabricated, but I feel like, at least on a case by case basis, it might make sense to depreciate some articles from RFA that seem like they can't be authenticated. I don't know if there is any precedent for this.

Dhawk790 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say yes, deprecate, or at least generally unreliable. Not only a source of political propaganda, even their non-political claims are unreliable. For instance, this piece claims that boxer Abudureheman Abulikemu stopped competing in 2003, but in fact he continued competing in 2005, 2008, and 2009. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Wow! I didn’t know you were literate in Uyghur, you should definitely add that to the brag boxes on your user page. Do you mind if I ping you in the future? We get a surprising number of Uyghur sources but have almost no editors literate in that language for verification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye's Back, the ping didn't work but fortunately I checked back on this discussion. Unfortunately I am not literate in Uyghur (I wish I were!). I used Google Translate, cross-referenced with other online translation tools, to see what that source said. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, what interested you about that particular article in the first place? Did a third party point to it as containing an inaccuracy? I’m only fluent in one language so my personal judgement of RFA is based primarily on their publications in english. If theres a significant difference between the reliability of their different language services that would probably be important to note. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have the Abudureheman Abulikemu article on my watchlist, so I saw when it was added as a reference. It's conceivable that there might be a difference in reliability between languages. My impression of the English version is that it's basically propaganda. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick question: I'm using google translate (like you) and I'm getting that the source reported that he had some spinal injury in 2003, rather than he ceased boxing altogether after that point. What are the other translation tools you've been using? I know translations of Uyghur by machines is rough, so I'm interested in learning more about the methods used. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I also used Glosbe, Uighur Dictionary, and Uyghurche. As far as I can tell " مۇسابىقىگە قاتنىشىشتىن توختاپ" means something like "stopped participating in competitions", but I'd be happy to be corrected. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you’ve pulled a segment too small to be useful. I get "Well-known boxer Abdurrahman entered the tournament in 2003 with a back injury” from "تونۇلغان بوكس ماھىرى ئابدۇراخمان 2003-يىلى بەل ئومۇرتقىسى زەخىملىنىپ مۇسابىقىگە" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I think you pulled your segment from the wrong line, you pulled it from the following line “قاتنىشىشتىن توختاپ قالغاندىن كېيىن مەشقاۋۇللۇق قىلىپ كېلىۋاتقان ئىدى." which translates as "He had been coaching since he stopped attending.” or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I copy the full sentence instead of just that phrase, Google Translate gives me "Internationally renowned boxer Abdurrahman has been coaching since 2003 when he suffered a spinal cord injury and stopped competing." In any case, this was just one example that came to mind. My overall impression of RFA is that it's a propaganda outlet, and I would not rely on it for factual claims. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable : Political propaganda, funded by the US Gov. Even our own article links without opposition to Propaganda & Psychological warfare.CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• unreliable; per WP:GLOBAL, we should not privilege US state propaganda media over those of other countries, such as Russia and China. NightHeron (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We should treat government controlled news organisations like RFA on a case by case basis and not kneejerk rank them as unreliable. RT and Sputnik had a long history of dubious reporting when it came to issues that contradicted Russian interests, i.e. Syrian use of chemical weapons, MH-17 and the Skripal poisoning to name a few. I'm not familiar enough with RFA to make a judgement, but evidence needs to be given of its unreliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Is it known for actually fabricating news, or simply skewing it in a pro US bias? Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no history of fabricating news but I think the pro-US/pro-Democracy bias is significant enough to impact reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If the bias does not result in fabrication or fake news, I don't see why we should classify it as unreliable (see WP:BIASED).--JBchrch (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The impact is minor, I wouldn't use them in wikivoice (especially for a BLP claim) but I don’t see a problem using them with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Good question. My problem is that they report in such a way that makes it difficult to determine whether it is outright fabrication or just creative reporting. See the Wuhan Crematorium story, which as far as I know, has not been backed up by other reporting. They refer to social media posts without linking or even citing the platform. They also regularly use extremely vague sources such as "A source close to the funeral industry surnamed Ma." https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/wuhan-cremations-04062020143043.html Dhawk790 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Reuters appears to have reported that cremations were happening en masse, with families not allowed to see bodies before they were burned. Bloomberg also reported (link to content republished by Time) along a similar vein to RFA. France24 seems to have done so as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about direct fabrication of stories whole-cloth, but RFA does have a tendency to publish sensationalist claims that are poorly sourced (for example, relying heavily on social media). One recent example is their article claiming that tens of thousands of people died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan, based on a conspiracy theory from social media: Estimates Show Wuhan Death Toll Far Higher Than Official Figure. The story was prompted by social media speculation about the number of urns given out by crematoria in Wuhan after the 76-day lockdown ended (tens of thousands of people die in a city of 10 million in any given 76-day period). RFA began with that speculation, then did some interviews with various people identified as "Wuhan resident[s]" who provided evidence-free speculation, and then quoted a supposed "source" who said that there were people who died at home without seeking treatment (as happened all around the world). The article spitballs a few different numbers: 46800, 40000, 2000/day, etc., all based on extremely flimsy reasoning. The point of the article was to suggest that the "real" death toll was 10-20 times larger than reported. Subsequent studies, including seroprevalence studies published in Nature and PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases, have estimated the total number of people infected in Wuhan, finding results that are completely incompatible with RFA's wild estimates (unless you assume that CoVID-19 has a staggering infection fatality rate of 10-20%). Basically, RFA amplified wild social media speculation that turned out to be false.

The example I've given is in line with RFA's historical mission. The Radio Free X outlets were historically set up in order to broadcast negative stories about the United States' Cold War foes (as opposed to Voice of America, which was supposed to project a positive image of the US). They typically publish stories in the local language first (the urn conspiracy theory story was first published in Mandarin and Cantonese, for example), with the goal of impacting public opinion in the countries they cover. They've undergone various reorganizations since, but the material they put out still follows a similar pattern as before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable but attribute, their significant pro-US/pro-Democracy bias means that they should generally be used with care with appropriate attribution. That being said they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. They also have much more editorial independence than those outlets in Russia and China which NightHeron mentions and are headquartered in a country with the rule of law (something neither Russia or China has), I think NightHeron’s argument is a false equivalency. Also unlike the deprecated outlets from those countries RFA doesn’t habitually publish disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So the US has the "rule of law" and its principal adversaries do not? Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "rule of law"? Do you mean a country that consistently follows international law in its dealings with other countries? Do you mean a country that enjoys a peaceful transfer of power? Do you mean a country whose population faithfully observes state and local emergency public health laws? In the latter case, note that China, thanks to its citizens' strict adherence to the law, has kept COVID-19 deaths to about 3 per million population, while the US is currently at about 1500 deaths per million population. Many Americans might see their country as the shining example of rule of law and faithful dissemination of the truth, but WP:GLOBAL asks us to try to take a more international perspective. NightHeron (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

By rule of law I mean rule of law, I apologize if you’ve never encountered this concept before. Strict adherence to the law =/= rule of law. Neither China or Russia has an independent court system or a legal system which applies equally to the citizenry and the government (in China the CCP is literally above the law). Also if you want to talk about a country that has both a population which faithfully observes state and local emergency public health laws as well as the rule of law might I point you to Taiwan, which also has a much lower death rate than China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize; I know what "rule of law" means. But which country is better or worse is a matter of opinion. Many people, including many Americans, do not consider the US to be an exemplar of equal treatment of citizens under the law -- rich and poor, powerful and powerless, white and racial minority. Also, I wasn't suggesting that only adversaries of the US have been doing a good job controlling the pandemic. New Zealand's done great, as has the US state of Hawaii.

Getting back to RFA, although some Americans like to think of US propaganda as benign advocacy for democracy, that POV is not a global perspective. NightHeron (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Its true that "Many people, including many Americans, do not consider the US to be an exemplar of equal treatment of citizens under the law” but rule of law is a low bar... Remember you’re comparing America to two of the worst countries in the world in this regard. For instance on the Press Freedom Index the United States is #45 with a score of 23.85 (low is good), Russia is #149 with a score of 48.92, China is #177 (four from the bottom) with a score of 78.48. America’s state media wouldn't look good if you weren’t comparing it to the worst of the worst. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's all a matter of opinion. Is it worse for the CCP to be largely above the law in China, or for the rich and powerful to be largely above the law in the US (or for prosecutors whose misconduct sends innocent Black men to death row to have impunity, per today's NY Times)? Many Western sources might say that the former is worse, but, again, that's not a global perspective.

Much of the Western press, including the NY Times, has been complaining that the Chinese government and media have been spinning the COVID-19 story in China into a narrative of success, rather than telling the truth. I scratch my head when I read this. Three per million dead from COVID aot 1500 per million. What's not to like? A friend from Iran told me that China has been a life-saver for the people back home, who would otherwise be cut off from assistance because of sanctions. Of course, China's humanitarian assistance is motivated by national self-interest, just as the US's is.

My only point is that we as Wikipedia editors should try to see things globally, free of a pro-US bias. NightHeron (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesnt appear to be your only point, you also seem to be making a point about the reliability of RFA. I don’t think anyone takes Chinese COVID numbers any more seriously than they took SARS numbers (or Chinese government statistics in general for that matter), we know the Chinese are lying... We don’t know what the real numbers are but we do know that China has been fibbing about the numbers since day 1. If China’s response had been successful we wouldn't have a pandemic. The Chinese government and media have been spinning the COVID-19 story in China into a narrative of success, thats backed up by reporting in a plethera of both western and non-western media. It is in fact the truth. If you say otherwise we’re going to need sources which support that fringe opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any indication that the numbers put out by the National Health Commission in China are any less accurate than the numbers put out by other countries. All countries suffered from similar issues early on (e.g., not enough testing capacity), and as a substantial fraction of cases are mild or asymptomatic, many people who get infected (in any country) never get tested, and therefore never show up in the official statistics. However, there have been several studies of seroprevalence within China (e.g., in Nature and PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases). From these studies, it's impossible for true mortality to be that much higher than the official figures, unless you make extreme assumptions about the infection fatality rate (i.e., far greater than 1%). One of the ways that RFA's biases have affected its factual accuracy over the last year is that it has published truly wild claims about the number of CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. RFA ran this story, based largely on social media posts and speculation from random residents of Wuhan that RFA says it contacted, which threw around numbers like 42,000 and 46,800 deaths in Wuhan, which are an order of magnitude higher than the totals suggested by seroprevalence (you'd have to assume an infection fatality rate of over 10% to get death totals that high). Essentially, RFA amplified wild social media speculation that turned out to be way off. Given the history of RFA as a Cold War propaganda outlet, that's not surprising. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You’ve seen no indications that China has issues with the accuracy of government statistics, government transparency, and academic freedom? Well then, carry on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I've seen no evidence of significant problems with the CoVID-19 statistics. On the contrary, seroprevalence studies are consistent with the death tolls reported by the National Health Commission, but importantly for this discussion, are completely inconsistent with the numbers the RFA hypothesized in the article I linked above (and not just by a bit - we're talking about RFA inflating the numbers by a factor of 10). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Just think I should also note in this thread that the RFA article in question is accurate for what it is. It could be used as a source for a claim that many people were skeptical of the official death statistics, but it could not be used to cite claim about the actual death toll. Furthermore, even if it did report a death toll that later turned out to be incorrect, that's not evidence that RFA is unreliable, rather it's WP:RS AGE in action. Furthermore it's not unwarranted to look at PRC statistics skeptically, especially when there are political implications to them, because even senior PRC officials consider them unreliable, see Li Keqiang index for an example. GretLomborg (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable. Even though RFA takes U.S. government funds, the consensus among RS seems to be that RFA is a reliable news agency. News organizations often cite specific numbers published by RFA, and even use RFA as the sole source for their reporting, as I note below.

Multiple RS have used RFA as their sources, including The Wall Street Journal (1, 2) and The New York Times, which has both cited it as the basis of their reporting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and directly republished stories written by RFA. As can be noted by clicking through the links, these sources cite RFA even when China is the subject of the events depicted in the articles themselves.

There are reliable sources that have explicitly upheld the reliability of RFA as it pertains to issues of controversy, including the Uyghur genocide. According to The Atlantic, "from the day China’s detention campaign began in earnest, RFA’s Uighur Service—the only Uighur-language news outlet in the world that is independent of Chinese government influence—has frequently been at the tip of the spear of coverage. From the RFA offices in Washington, D.C., its team of 12 journalists has broken hundreds of stories, sometimes bearing sole witness to China’s alarming and escalating crackdown on Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups in the country." The magazine regularly cites reporting from RFA as a source for news in China, even on topics of controversy (1, 2). In other times The Atlantic has reported that RFA provides "independent news to many rural Cambodians".

The Financial Times has also used RFA's reporting in order to write its own stories (1, 2, 3, 4).

The RS that report this are not limited to those RS that are based within the United States and the United Kingdom. Al-Jazeera has also repeatedly used RFA as a source for their reporting on topics of controversy within China (1, 2, 3, 4) and Burma (1). Spain-based El País has used RFA as a basis for its reporting on the events in Xinjiang. RFA has even been cited by Argentina-based Clarín on topics involving North Korea.

If there is any bias, it may be in the selection of which stories RFA covers, as has been alleged by prior readers, but selection bias does not impugn reliability in the stories that the agency chooses to report. It should also be noted that anonymous sources are regularly used by RS, and may be the only way to truthfully obtain information in certain circumstances. It seems to be generally reliable based upon the fact that other generally reliable news agencies regularly cite the group, even when the topic of the stories are the subject of public controversy. Neither OP nor other editors have alleged that Radio Free Asia has any sort of history of fabricating facts, so deprecation ought be out of consideration altogether. And, if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don't see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is unreliable for reporting facts on the ground. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Economist has also praised the quality of RFA's reporting (See: 1 and 2). - Amigao (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• This Salon (website) is a reliable media source reporting on RFA bias and how it creates an eco-chambers with US politicians. https://www.salon.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-go-from-the-margins-to-the-mainstream_partner/ Dhawk790 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI thats a reprint from FAIR not a Salon piece, it is however reliable enough. I don’t see anything about echo chambers in there though. I also don’t see them criticizing RFA’s reliability. Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon." according to WP:RSP. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  A biased source does not mean an unreliable source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable; probably should use attribution. RFA provides a lot of unique sources of information and perspectives when it comes to oppressed communities such as the Tibetans. It was actually the first to report the 2008 Tibetan unrest (see, e.g., the WSJ's article). It has also won awards such as the Radio Television Digital News Association's Edward R. Murrow Award for multiple times (see, e.g., last year's list of winners). Normchou ^💬 19:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable the above evidence suggests that the outlet has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. May need attribution in some cases. (t · c) buidhe 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. I do not see any real indications it is not reliable. "is a US government funded news source". Well, good for them, that does not affect reliability. Of course if they were funded by Putin, it would be different story. "They almost only publish news critical of enemies of the United States"? This is BS, none of these countiries is an enemy of US. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How about "geopolitical rivals"? Certainly, all of the countries they report on seem to fit this description, and (oftentimes more repressive) regimes that are aligned with the US seem to get a pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not unacceptable, if properly attributed I tried to find coverage of this event in other international media, and most of what I found was virulently anti-Chinese sources, so I'm naturally skeptical. Moreover, the date of his arrest for the flyers seems to be contradicted by several of these other sources.[156][157] All of these sources are published by entities that either directly have, or are owned or overseen by governments that have, their own "beef" with Beijing, which would not be a problem if we attribute their views/claims appropriately, but why does the RFA source seem to have its information contradicted by The Hans India and The Tibet Post? It might be a translation telephone game, since I doubt Richard Finney (by whom the linked article was "written in English") has any direct access to primary sources. It would, of course, depend on the context in which it is being cited; the RFA website seems to consider "Tibet", "Uyghur" and "China" to be separate countries, which certainly does not align with NPOV or the official foreign policies of any country anywhere in the world. On a more general note, RFA certainly doesn't seem to be free of US government interference: doing a Google News search for "Radio Free Asia" -site:rfa.org right now brings up, on the first page, several articles published immediately after Biden's inauguration that either accuse the Biden administration of ousting Trump appointees or praise the Biden administration for giving these outlets back their previous editors.[158][159][160] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Re the RFA website seems to consider "Tibet", "Uyghur" and "China" to be separate countries, which certainly does not align with NPOV: WP:NPOV is a requirement for editing articles. It is precisely because different sources have different POVs that Wikipedia requires NPOV to "[represent] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Normchou ^💬 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is a requirement for our articles, not our editors. If we use excessively biased sources, we need other reliable sources to balance/fact-check them. Excessively biased sources are not outright banned by our normal editing practices, but said editing practices require that we use such sources with care. Anyway, it's super-weird for me, a 16-year Wikipedia veteran to be talked down to about our policies and guidelines by so many new editors who seem to be themselves somewhat unclear on the points they are discussing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Re NPOV is a requirement for our articles, not our editors: in your comments above, you were citing NPOV and applying it to a source—not even editors. Looking at WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view, one can see it is clearly describing the proper behavior of editors when editing articles. I have no comment regarding your "16-year Wikipedia veteran" thingy though. Normchou ^💬 15:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm not sure where you're getting that RFA considers "Tibet", "Uyghur", and "China" to be a separate countries. The main page of RFA has an enumerated list of "Topics" in the footer, which list "Tibet", "Uyghur", and "China" separately, but I don't think that would be enough to make the claim that RFA says they are indeed separate countries. Would you be willing to provide a link to where RFA affirms that it considers "Tibet", "Uyghur", and "China" to be separate countries? If so, it would be helpful in clarifying the discussion around this point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from pinging the same user multiple times in succession. Anyway [161] Tibet, a formerly independent Himalayan country which was invaded and incorporated into China by force in 1950; as for Xinjiang, it's weaker, but this article does imply that the region [hadn't] come under Chinese control [until after] two short-lived East Turkestan republics in the 1930s and 1940s (i.e. following the Warlord Era and during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, none of which seem to be mentioned, nor the Protectorate of the Western Regions). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting they’re unreliable because they didn’t mention ancient history (that would be like saying an article about Brexit that doesn’t mention the roman occupation of Britain renders its publication unreliable)? Also I believe you’re misinterpreting NPOV, even if RFA treated them as three separate countries (they don’t) it wouldn't be an NPOV issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You bring up three links to back up your claim that RFA "doesn't seem to be free of US government interference". I'm not sure that the articles you chose actually back up this claim.

Having looked, and even per your own brief analysis here (before the borderline No True Scotsman argument), RFA doesn't appear to being calling these separate modern countries at all. Note that it refers to Xinjiang as a region, and never as a country; similarly, they are not claiming that Tibet is still an independent country. Hijiri88, I think your assessment that they regard either of these places as "separate countries", as you say, may be a bit flawed. And as the other two editors pointed out, NPOV isn't a policy applicable to sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RFA clearly states that Tibet was an independent country pre-1950. This is a very controversial statement, given Tibet's lack of international recognition at the time. Tibet was de facto independent, but internationally recognized as part of China. This was during a time of civil war in China, so much of the country was beyond the control of the central government. Yet RFA makes a definitive statement that Tibet was an independent country. Given the historical purpose of RFA, there appears to be a political motive behind this claim, just as there would be if a Russian state outlet were to refer to South Ossetia as an independent country, omitting the fact that it is internationally recognized as part of Georgia. This is an example of the type of area in which RFA's reliability is affected by its political objectives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As you note, it was a de-facto independent country. What is stated is simply factual. And no, the international community absolutely did not see Tibet as a part of China, and there was in fact a consensus in place to keep China from annexing Tibet, and to keep the Tibetan government independent of Chinese rule. But Tibet was isolationist, and thus the international community recognized the de-facto suzerainty of China, as Tibet wasn't interested in international affairs beyond its continued independence and a promise of non-interference. Regardless of all this, your reading of a political motive in RFA's acknowledgement of the political reality before the establishment of the PRC is just that: you inferring a political motive where I think none is implied. There's also no need to bring up a hypothetical whataboutism. The "historical purpose" of RFA was to provide factual reporting in places where none existed, due to government censorship and propaganda. It's not nefarious. RFA (and its sister organization, VOA) is internationally recognized as an outlet for reliable factual journalism, and has garnered a veritable cornucopia of awards in journalism over the years to prove it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The first article you are citing show that VOA and RFA worry about the perception changing due to the Trump Administration's (failed, per "Pack had vowed to break down the legally guaranteed firewall against meddling in editorial decisions" and the article being about Pack resigning) attempt to undermine their editorial independence. It doesn't say that Pack succeeded in doing so (and it implies that his resignation ensured quite the opposite), but the article primarily is focused on cataloguing the potential for reputational damage that the journalists there worry about. In other words, the article doesn't actually say that the outlet has become less reliable, but its showing that journalists worry that it will be perceived as less reliable due to the Trump Administration's attempted meddling.

The second article you cited actually serves to affirm the claim that RFA and VOA have historically been reliable (at least prior to Pack), as it says, that Pack "intended to turn venerable U.S. media outlets into pro-Trump propaganda machines". There's an implication here that RFA and VOA were reliable before Pack, and that Pack tried to undermine that.

The third article is identical to the first article, as it was written by AFP and then republished by both of the news agencies. I'm not sure why you included it, since it doesn't add any additional information (aside from labeled photos of reporters for VOA and RFA). Why did you choose to tack this link on? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I misinterpreted anything. I noticed a trend in the GNews results when I tried to verify the claim made by a number of people further up this RFC (including you) that a plurality of third-party media consider RFA to be a generally reputable/trustworthy source. I was, of course, unable to find anything that supported your assertions, and indeed, even if what I found didn't explicitly discredit your assertions, that doesn't support the positive claims you made above (that various other media rely on RFA) and are now making (that RFA's being funded by the US government and being a direct successor to a CIA domino theory operation doesn't imply they are a US government mouthpiece). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable RFA and VOA were specifically founded and structured to bring RS-quality news media to regions/languages where it didn't exist, because spreading RS-quality news-media and demonstrating the benefits of press independence is a US foreign policy goal. It's specious to treat all government-funded news organizations as equivalent, because the real distinction is what purposes they serve and what processes they have. RT doesn't produce unacceptable propaganda because it's government funded, it's unacceptable because Russian foreign policy is to spread disinformation and lies to weaken its adversaries, and it's well-documented that RT does that. What really matters is the processes that RFA has, and they are those of a reliable news outlet. Furthermore RFA and VOA are important sources for Wikipedia, because the often attempt to do RS-quality reporting in regions that are extremely hostile to it. Also, other RS trust it enough to rely on its reporting, for instance: [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]: "Radio Free Asia (RFA), a US-backed news group whose journalists have produced some of the most detailed reporting on the heavily securitised region of Xinjiang", [167], [168]. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the Radio Free X stations were founded by a CIA front organizations, and were tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc and other foes of the US into the respective countries. The history is discussed here. They've been reorganized over time, and claim to be editorially independent of the US government, but both recent events (namely Trump's blatant influencing of government broadcasters) and a casual glance at the coverage of these broadcasters (it's a who's who of countries the US government does not like, such as Cuba and Iran) should give editors pause. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Negative stories aren't bad things, in fact I'd say they're a key function of journalism: shining light on the bad things no person or organization would willingly reveal about themselves. Given the whole point of RFA is to be beamed into areas where RS journalism isn't allowed (due to political control) and to demonstrate its value, I'd actually expect an excess of negativity, since that's where the need is. Pravda and Xinhua can be trusted to tell the positives stories, even if they're lies. Negative stories are only bad things if they're untrue or deliberate lies. I did have a lot of concerns about what was going on at VOA/RFA towards the end of the Trump administration, and I may have voted differently if Trump gotten a second term, but Biden has cleaned the Trump stay-behinds out [169] and replaced them with long-serving agency staff, so and I don't have any concerns for at least the next four years. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Negative stories aren't in themselves bad, but we should be cautious about a US government outlet whose main purpose is to make foreign governments that the US regards as foes look bad. That often leads RFA to promote poorly sourced stories, such as its wild claims about the death toll from CoVID-19 in Wuhan. As I explained in a comment above, RFA took a conspiracy theory from social media, then spoke with a few random Wuhan residents, and wrote a story speculating that over 40,000 people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan. This turns out to be about 10 times higher than any reasonable death toll one could estimate from the seroprevalence in Wuhan. You say that their purpose is to provide independent, reliable reporting in places where it is lacking, but an alternative view is that their purpose is to promote negative content, often with little regard for the strength of the sourcing, in countries that the US has poor relations with (typically old Cold War foes). This is something that editors should be aware of when considering whether/how to use RFA. When RFA reports on countries that are perceived by the US as foes, it would be prudent to include in-line attribution for RFA's claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RFA's "main purpose" is not "to make foreign governments that the US regards as foes look bad." It's to bring western-style, skeptical journalism to places where it's not allowed by the authorities. Now that's a difficult job, because of interference and intimidation by those same authorities. Given that interference, censorship, and an important, unfolding story; reporting on what's said on social media isn't that unreasonable. Also, your comparison above that you referenced is pretty specious: you're comparing an early news report on social media chatter with scientific estimates from a few months to almost a year later. One, the RFA report was pretty clear it was reporting on social media speculation, and two, you can't reasonably expect breaking news to be as accurate as later scientific analysis with no timeliness constraints. That's a limitation of the news in general, not a specific source, and it's captured in the policy WP:RS AGE. So let's say someone wanted to cite a claim to that RFA article now, the correct response is not to claim RFA is unreliable, but 1) to note the RFA article text does not support any particular estimate, just that there was skepticism of the official estimates, and 2) note that WP:RS AGE supersedes that reporting and better estimates are now available. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The RFA's reporting was not at all reasonable at the time. There was never any serious indication that the death toll in Wuhan was anywhere near 40,000. It's irresponsible to take completely unfounded claims from social media and to report them as serious estimates of the death toll. What would you think of a news agency that took unfounded conspiracy theories from Twitter about NY city's death toll being 20 times larger than reported, then called up a couple of taxi drivers for their opinions, and then wrote an article mixing those opinions with its own wild speculations? That's essentially what RFA did for Wuhan. It was no surprise when further scientific studies were completely inconsistent with the RFA's estimates - that's what happens when you replace factual reporting with conspiracy theories from social media.

RFA's article came out on the same day as the US surpassed China in cumulative confirmed cases, and as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans began to suggest that China's epidemic had been much larger than reported ([170]). Maybe that's a coincidence, but I'm doubtful.

You keep repeating the mantra that RFA exists to provide reliable coverage, but that's simply inconsistent with what I see here. I see the RFA amplifying wild speculation that's damaging to a government the US views as a foe. Chinese media, by the way, covered this story much more reliably than RFA. Caixin did actual reporting on the handing out of urns in Wuhan. RFA took that kernel of truth and added in the social media speculation about 40,000+ CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable and biased. In addition to the uses by various RS enumerated by Mikehawk10 above, they do correct stories when they get something wrong.[171][172] At the same time, the US gov't bias is clear. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• RFA often publishes rumors from unverified sources and these rumors have been used for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. I would rather use WP:INTEXT attribution for it. --MarioGom (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for insider stories, reliable for verifiable claims: The main problem I see with RFA is that a lot of its own reporting falls under extraordinary claims, yet is based on unverifiable, "anonymous RFA sources". Obviously every source is biased, government-sponsored ones perhaps often moreso than others (and that in itself is fine), but it does become problematic when a lot of the own reporting of a government-sponsored outlet is simply unverifiable (example 1, example 2, example 3) but used for extraordinary claims and then presented as fact. If it is kept, I would say that given the US itself has banned RFA from targetting American audiences under the Smith-Mundt Act, it should never be used for any claims that are based on "anonymous RFA sources" and can therefore in no way be verified. Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I like this formulation. We use reporting, because reporting goes to the primary sources and can theoretically be verified. In a lot of instances, that is not possible with RFA when they use anonymous or vaguely referenced sources. I feel like it would be sensible to have a policy about not citing stories that rely on these types of sources if (as you suggest) it is not also reported by another source. Dhawk790 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Here doesn't a verifiable claim mean one that can be sourced to an RS and not just to RFA? If so, then shouldn't the RS and not RFA be cited? How's "reliable [only] for verifiable claims" different from just plain unreliable? Or am I missing something? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

My wording was confusing. When I was discussing sources within an RFA article, I meant the person cited as making a claim. So for example, person Y said X. Y would be the source. In cases when person Y is anonymous or only vaguely referenced, I feel that the reliability of the RFA article should be questioned. If another source (meaning from another news outlet) has similar claims and includes a named source, I think it would be okay to cite RFA. But you are right, it may be more sensible to just cite the other article and disregard the RFA article. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Smith-Mundt Act article itself says the restrictions you mentioned have been repealed: "The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012...amended the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be disseminated (widely spread) within the United States." And that restriction, when it existed, doesn't say anything about the quality of RFA's reporting, but rather the role it was meant to play. Towards the end of the article, regarding one of its provisions, the article states states: "...Rep. Karl Mundt (R-SD) and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs William Benton stated clearly: as private media stood up, government media would stand down." It is not meant to be a government competitor to private media, which the US had (and has) plenty of. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is i (newspaper) reliable?

Since 2019, the British i (newspaper) has been owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Most other publications owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust are now depreciated as poor quality sources (Daily Mail, MailOnline, Metro (British newspaper)). Although the i was reputable historically, I am concerned based on the fact that it's owned by a group with poor quality sources. Do people think the i is still a reliable source or not? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's still reliable. It still seems reasonably left-wing in its editorial line, so I presume editorial independence has been maintained for the time being. One to watch for the future perhaps. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Still reliable except for issues regarding the Daily Mail and General Trust. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would probably agree with that qualification. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronos Encyclopeadia

Hi Folks! Does anybody consider the Russian Chronos encyclopedia to be reliable as a source? It is located here: [173]. I have an editor who is using it at: Draft:Peter Moskatov and I have a feeling it is a bit dodgy as it doesn't even have a site x509 certificate. It could be good, but don't know. scope_creep^Talk 19:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The website had been Russia's largest online history resource, widely used by scholars in Russia and elsewhere as a unique source of biographical and historical material." [174] and "Hrono.ru offers a chronology in Russian. This chronology is very detailed and can be viewed by century, by clicking on any of the century or decade links seen at the top of the page" [175] seem to put in the reliable side. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see some evidences that it is widely used by Russian scholars. It seems overwhelming majority of authors as well as the editor-in-chief are self-appointed "historians", although some authors (Teslya) have PhD in history and are real scholars. It seems it is mostly a self-published source according to our criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we need a RFC since we have two opposing views? scope_creep^Talk 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC CHRONOS

This is an RFC to determine if the Encyclopedia Chronos is a reliable source. It is located at [176] It has no Wikipedia page and the site itself doesn't have an SSL certificate, perhaps indicating it has been run by a team of volunteers with little money. It is a Russian encyclopedia that I've seen used in multiple places but up to this point, it has not been investigated as an RS. There has been no prior discussion apart from the previous two statements. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Encyclopedia Chronos?

• 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

scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Motley Fool

The Motley Fool is cited over and over in finance articles, and I am wondering it it's actually a reliable source. From what I can gather, it's not really a WP:NEWSORG, but a firm that provides various services and, among other, publishes its own research. Their "about us" page is pretty vague. The NYT has described it as a "financial services" firm [177] and the WSJ as an "advisory firm" [178]. So based on that I guess it would qualify as WP:SELFPUB?--JBchrch (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We currently have 827 citations per fool.com  . I don't think that Motley Fool is a terrible source but they are ultimately a stock picking company. I think its probably fine for uncontroversial statements of fact, but any analysis should probably be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gooood question! It's a bit NEWSBLOG-like. They are a source of information a lot of people use. Not quite a NEWSORG, as you note. I'm not quite sure how to class them - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I’d say generally unreliable, they’re less reliable than a major brokerage or something like that and we wouldn’t treat traditional financial analysis outside of the press or academia from anyone else as reliable. They also seem to fit the lens of opinion/analysis more than anything else. At best these are opinion pieces in a marginally reliable source, I’m not seeing any benefit to using them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Given their clear conflict of interest, they likely should always be attributed. Even for apparent statements of fact, except for the most incontrovertible claims. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Canary

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Canary?

• 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

— Newslinger talk 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Canary is a British left-wing news website founded in 2015. It is currently cited in 45 articles  . Prior discussions were polarized, and the most recent discussion (at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321 § The Canary) was formally closed with a recommendation to start a proper request for comment. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Responses (The Canary)

• The Canary has previously been discussed four times on this noticeboard:
  1. Is the Canary a reliable source? (2018)
  2. Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox (2019)
  3. The Canary (2020)
  4. The Canary (2020, formally closed in 2021)

— Newslinger talk 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

See also WT:RSP § The Canary. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was generally unimpressed with the quality of these discussions: IIRC arguments for GU were not supported by any discussion of specific false factual claims on the site. Let's change that in this RfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Canary and Sqwawkbox are almost always factually correct but almost always include the editorial perspective of the publication in the story. I don't quote know where that leaves us, as I would argue most mainstream publications do the same, but are not seen as biased because they reflect a dominant ideology rather than a minority one. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's not our role to judge whether the editorial perspective is acceptable or not, only whether their reporting is generally accurate. Extua (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know of good evidence that the Canary are liars - I was distinctly unimpressed with the claims of such in previous discussions. OTOH, they're explicitly biased and proud. They're rather stronger on the opinion than, say, Byline Times, which also has a stance but is about being a proper news outlet for it. At the moment I'm thinking Canary might be "usable with attribution", and I'm not sure yet if they connote notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I check what your argument is User:David Gerard? If we had eviednce they are "liars" wouldn't that translate to option 4 (deprecation), as "generally inaccurate for factual reporting" is a more modest claim than "they are liars"? I think the comparison with Byline Times is useful: Byline Times is biased too but has several indicators of reliability despite bias, such as an extremely experienced reporting team made of people with a track record for investigative journalism published in other reliable sources, whereas The Canary gives the impression of being a news source through using terms such as "Exclusive" or "uncovered" but no track record of actual investigative work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I just looked at The Canary. This is the first article. It describes new proposed reforms to the NHS and then summarises some criticisms of the proposals. Conveniently, this happens to be an area I work in. The individual summaries given of the proposals are accurate. Yet it is a selective presentation. The article begins, "Government plans to restructure the NHS have been met with criticism from academics and campaigners, as they warn the plans could see increased privatisation and cronyism." It's true that some academics and campaigners have made those criticisms, but that's a selective review of the reaction the proposals have garnered. The article cites a BMJ blog, but, for example, there's a BMJ article, which is a more formal piece than a BMJ blog, which is more balanced and nuanced about the proposals, and more optimistic about them. Then there's this BMJ editorial that is more critical, but its criticisms are not about "increased privatisation and cronyism". Other coverage of the reform proposals has likewise been more positive or concerned about different problems than the Canary's summary. If we were to have a Wikipedia article saying "Government plans to restructure the NHS were met with criticism from academics and campaigners, as they warned the plans could see increased privatisation and cronyism", citing The Canary, then that would be wrong, a failure of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. The Canary, we all agree, has a very strong editorial view. Factual reporting done through such a lens can end up being misleading. I see nothing in this article of use to Wikipedia (editors can just go to the sources summarised instead). The Canary is not a big media organisation: the vast majority of what they cover will be covered by sources with less bias. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Let's look at another recent example: Covid colonialism: outbreak among UK troops could jeopardise Kenyan successes. Again, this article is largely summarising what other sources have said and appears accurate in doing so. Then it says, "The revelations raise concerns that the deployment may have brought UK strains of coronavirus to Kenya." There is no sourcing for that claim. It's not something a scientist has said. It's not something that the Kenyan health authorities have said, as far as I can see. The article goes on to quote two other reports, but neither is actually relevant to this claim. That's misleading and poor reporting. I've looked at 2 recent articles: both are somewhat dubious. I'll say Option 3. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 They regularly publish fake news as evidenced[179] by Stop Funding Fake News. I will also repost the links from a last discussion nothing has changed
  • • "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Topple, Steve (27 September 2017). "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference". The Canary. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • Lewis, Helen (27 September 2017). "The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks". New Statesman. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • "Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 2020-11-19.

Another complaint in 2018 was also upheld. See here --Shrike (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for assembling this list. Of the points listed there, only the claim that Kuenssburg was to give an invited speech at the Tory conference involves a specific false claim and the Canary did retract that. The complaint you link to concerns use of a misleading headline, not false reporting. SFFN have sometimes done good work, but their campaign against The Canary has been weak. E.g., their exhibit #1, that The Canary pushed a Putin-friendly conspiracy theory in Official narrative used to bomb Syria in 2018 is disputed by leaked OPCW report is just them reporting on awkward questions raised by Peter Hitchens about the justification of the 2018 Syria bombing. Not only is this not tinfoil hat territory, it's the kind of detail that is under-reported in mainstream press and a reason for us to be concerned about RS/P becoming too narrow. I don't see a solid case for option 4 here. I'm leaning to either option 2 or 3. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just state that complaints against media sources are common and sometimes upheld (The Times had 5 upheld against it in 2015, for example) The Jewish Chronicle is itself an extremely opinionated source when it comes to matters relating to the Labour Party, and has a strong pro-Conservative bias. And the article you link does not show any objective reason to doubt the Canary as an RS. The opinion piece by Helen Lewis is again written by a strongly anti-Corbyn writer, and though the Canary has definitely been highly critical of Kuenssberg, she is a journalist whose work displays strong political biases in a position of great importance in the UK media. We might remember her immediate acceptance of the "attack" on a tory staffer, and her intervention to stop an angry father asking questions to Boris Johnson. I don't see anything in those links to disqualify the Canary a priori.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Shrike BTW, after checking the 2019 press code violations, I found that the Canary had not violated the Press Code in that year, but the Jewish Chronicle had, 3 times, including making false accusations against a member of the Labour Party in Liverpool. There are also several false accusations relating to Labour Party members in 2020.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Helen Lewis is a highly respected journalist working for a left-leaning, generally Labour supporting, reliable source. To dismiss her as "a strongly anti-Corbyn writer" is silly. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

But she is a factional opponent of Corbyn writing an opinion piece about a Corbyn-supporting news outlet. I feel safe in dismissing that as opinion, while recognising her as a serious centre-left journalist. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Canary is unambiguously an opinionated source, and there are times when you have to look through the opinion to get at the facts. Last time I looked in detail (which I admit was a while ago) there weren't any instances of fabrication but more than one of shaky extrapolation from facts that were more nuanced or less clear than a surface reading would have you believe (although this is something the mainstream UK tabloids also do, even if they are less upfront about their political perspective). I'd be wary of citing them without attribution, and certainly they should never be the only source for matters related to UK politics and closely related matters (for NPOV reasons) but I don't see a reason to prohibit it as a source. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thinking about it a bit more, I think I'd say option 2 is the most appropriate. Generally reliable but strongly opinionated so be careful to cite facts not opinion, strongly consider attribution and never cite it as the only source for matters of UK politics. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: The last time The Canary was discussed on this board, there weren't any serious cases of false reporting raised. The Canary is clearly favorable to the left-wing factions within (or formerly within) the Labour Party, so for contentious questions about Labour Party infighting (and similar issues), it may be appropriate to use in-line attribution when citing The Canary.

Note that Stop Funding Fake News is a political advocacy group that is largely anonymous. There's no discernable reason why we should attribute any importance to the opinions of this group. The only people I've seen clearly associated with the group are Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, both of whom campaigned against the left wing of Labour for alleged anti-Semitism. In other words, Stop Funding Fake News' campaign against The Canary looks like it's politically motivated, rather than being about actual fake news.

The example that's given above, of The Canary's reporting on Kuenssberg, is relatively innocuous. The Canary reported that she had spoken at a Conservative Party conference. She had actually spoken at a fringe event associated with the conference. The Canary corrected its story.

There have to be actual reasons for deprecation. I don't see any here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 There is little evidence of unreliability but as a study just released indicates "a strong editorial focus on criticising the government’s right-wing policy agenda, as well as opposition towards mainstream media – notably BBC news" then attribution is probably the safest course for the present.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3+: The last time The Canary was discussed on this board, several examples were given of bad reporting, including misleading and sensationalist reporting, and of widespread description of its content as "fake news" by reliable sources. I'm pasting here my one set of examples I posted then: As well as (a) the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg,[180] and (b) conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[181] (c) it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor.[182][183][184][185]; (d) as well as Grayzone contributors, it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[186] (e) it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[187] (f) it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[188] (g) one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[189]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[190] (h) it published a Daily Mail-style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[191] (i) it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[192] (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[193][194] (k) before setting up the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[195] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[196] and (l) it published Pizzagate-style fake news about Seth Rich's murder.[197][198] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour,[199] Owen Jones[200] or Momentum's David Osler.[201] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough inform ation for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Here's another example (m), from a 2018 article by the editor. Headline: "Israel put up a £1,000,000 bounty for Labour insiders to undermine Corbyn". Lede: "The second release from Al Jazeera‘s undercover sting operation on key members of the Israel lobby in Britain revealed a £1,000,000 plot by the Israeli government to undermine Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn." Dig into the actual story and you get a quote from Middle East Eye saying "Masot described taking delegations of Labour members on trips to Israel and told Joan Ryan, the chair of LFI, that he had he had been approved £1m ($1.2m) to fund further visits." In other words, money isn't "to undermine Corbyn" but to fund visits to the Middle East.[202] That's dishonest reporting which goes way beyond mere bias (and plays into antisemitic conspiracy theories). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Having looked through those, I don't see a great deal beyond what you would expect of any newspaper like the Times or the Guardian. The only actual factual problems are that of the £1 million donation which was part of a campaign whose instigators discussed "taking down" anti-Israel MPs. It's off, but you see worse on the BBC. The fact that £50k was given to Starmer's campaign by a pro-Israel lobbyist is entirely factual and relevant. The criticism of its clickbaity headlines is justified, especially in the past, but it does not falsify its factual reporting. This is less of a problem now since its change of business model following the boycott campaign led by that weird astroturf organisation. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you u|Boynamedsue. i disagree that these sorts of things are true of the Guardian. Worth adding that the "£1 million plot" was not just a clickbaity headline but an outright lie in the headline and, crucially, the lede, in an article written by the editor of the website so can't be blamed on an overzealous sub making a story more sensational. At the very least, this shows they why should never be used on any topic relating to Israel, Jews, antisemitism or Labour - but those topics are core to their output. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response BobFromBrockley. I would suggest that there is not an outright lie there, the Israeli lobbyists were discussing a plan to influence British politics, part of which was a gift of £1 million to LFI, another part of which was to bring down anti-Israel MP's. The headline is a stretch, but not much of one, I have seen worse on the BBC and the Times. The question of being unreliable on Israel, Labour and Antisemitism, as far as I know they have no violations of the press code recorded against them in this regard, whereas the Jewish Chronicle have several. Would you also support the JC being deprecated for this topic?--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you pare down this list to examples that you actually think are fake news? You've included a mix of complaints, many of which don't have to do with accuracy. Just taking one of your points, (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack, you accuse The Canary of spreading fake news, and insinuate that it's somehow being funded by the Russian government. Your only non-broken link to source this claim ([203]) itself looks highly suspect. It's a website that appears to be dedicated solely to attacking the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party, and the website also appears to have completely ceased publishing around the time that Corbyn left the leadership. It complains that The Canary quotes someone who pointed out that countries other than Russia have Novichok (which is true, not fake news). Essentially, the complaint is that The Canary did not immediately accept the UK government's claims about the Salisbury poisonings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing that The Canary routinely produces "fake news" (if it did I would suggest we'd need to go swiftly to deprecation) but that it is generally unreliable for factual reporting, as their reports include falseshoods, misleadingly selective presentation of facts, and state-sponsored propoganda, and that its journalistic team has no track record in decent journalism but on the contrary has a track record of publication in deprecated sources, antisemitic conspiracy theories and writing for state-sponsored fake news publications. I'll look at the Salisbury issue and return on that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You haven't actually shown that The Canary has published any anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or state-sponsored propaganda. Just take your last example: you're saying that The Canary's discussion of the pro-Israel lobby in the Labour Party plays into anti-Semitic tropes. How is a news organization supposed to discuss this issue? I don't see raising this issue in itself as anti-Semitic, and any such accusations should be well grounded. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've given two examples above of how misleading reporting which plays into antisemitic tropes: (e) the example [204] given by veteran Marxist writer Bob Pitt (previously Ken Livingstone's researcher and editor of the website IslamophobiaWatch), who shows how an article by John McEvoy[205] is misleading: the source the Canary cites[206] shows that Starmer received some £455,000 from wealthy donors, but the Canary only ignores £405,000 of this and reports jsut one donation, by the only Jewish donor, Trevor Chinn, who is described by the Canary only in terms of his support for Israel, leaving out his long history of Labour party activism, philanthropy and support for pro-peace groups such as Yachad (compare e.g. this JC article[207]), i.e. no actual lie but would be dangerous to use this as a soure for factual claim about Starmer's funding or Trevor Chinn; and (m) the piece about the "£1 million plot" which I've shown has an actually false headline and lede. In addition, I've given an example below from an academic joural article[208] which describes a misleading report in the Canary about the extent of antisemitism, which the academic summarises as a denial of anti-Jewish racism, suggesting that if their article was used as a source on antisemitism our content would be misleading.

You also ask about state-sponsored propaganda. The examples I gave of that were (c) where they republished (from a deprecated source) articles that were part of a state-sponsored disinformation campaign against a journalist in Nicaragua;[209] (i) the publication of Russian-sponsored stories about the Salisbury attack, claiming various perpetatrators other than Russia (this[210] is one example, which claims to "unravel" the "Russian spy story" (i.e. the version we now know is true), citing as its authority conspiracy theorist Annie Machon on the Kremlin's RT.com platform), which were never retracted now this is beyond doubt; and (l) the several articles they published showing Seth Rich was the source of the DNC hack, which are all based on false reports that had already then been revealed to come from the Kremlin[211] to obscure the fact that Russia had done the hacking - see our article Murder of Seth Rich. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You give two examples of supposed anti-Semitism. The first is pointing out that a pro-Israeli donor have money to Starmer. It's not anti-Semitic to point this out, and the Canary's claim was true, as far as I can see. The second example you give is of the "1 million pound plot". The Al Jazeera documentary showed that the Israeli government had set aside 1 million pounds in funding for a project to influence the Labour party. It's clear from the documentary that a major goal of this operation was undermining Corbyn (which isn't surprising, given his history of supporting the Palestinian movement) and others who were perceived as hostile to Israel. You're objecting that not necessarily all of the money went directly to trying to remove Corbyn, but that's really a matter of interpretation. And reporting on this is not, in itself, in any way anti-Semitic.

Your other accusations are guilt by association. The Canary expressed skepticism about the British government's claims about the Salisbury poisoning, at a time when the UK government had not released convincing evidence. The Russian government also disputed the claims. Ergo The Canary = Russian propaganda? By this logic, news outlets that expressed skepticism about the US' WMD claims were Iraqi propaganda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am dithering between option 1 and option 2. I don't see it as any more or less biased than The Times or The Guardian which are generally RS. My only problem is that people might misuse it because there is quite a lot of opinion mixed into factual stories, so if we decide it's kosher people might start using it to try and quote the parts that are clearly meant as opinion as if they were fact. That also happens with those other papers, but ironically, as they are slyer about it, it is more difficult to identify. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact mixed with opinion thing was also mentioned for Jacobin, whether one should consider that type of reporting a bug or a feature is unclear but it is definitely a trend. WP editors ought to be able to differentiate between one and the other, I would have thought.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 in general, as per the above votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for problematic areas, as shown above. I wonder consider the problematic areas attacks on individuals, specifically relating to accusations of racism, and also their claims on their reliability of other organisations. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 for the satire section. This should absolutely not be used in anyway, but I oppose this "deprecation" (or as it sometimes misspelt depreciation) system.
• Option 2 Not unreliable enough for deprecation, but too biased to be "Generally reliable". As with many news sources, we have to determine how reliable they are in each specific case. For one thing, their overly critical stance on Israel may disqualify them as a source in any news item relating to this state. Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Bias is not really an issue. The issue is that they regularly report fake or highly misleading news as shown above. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There haven't been any examples of fake news given above. The examples being given of "misleading" reporting are extremely flimsy - for example, a story claiming that someone spoke at a Conservative Party conference, when they actually spoke at a fringe event to the conference (The Canary corrected the story, and this is the sort of minor error that all news organizations make). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides, I gave 13 examples above of unreliability in factual reporting. They're all "extremely flimsy"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think yes. If we used similar standards of evidence, I feel that even longer lists of examples of unreliability could be provided for sources we regard as reliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your list of examples includes lots of minor things like failing to distinguish between a conference and a fringe event associated with the conference (The Canary corrected this minor mistake), as well as issues that have nothing to do with factual accuracy. I've asked you to reduce your list to the examples that you believe actually represent serious factual errors (i.e., trim out things like the Kuenssberg story and the usual political attacks from right-wing Labour outlets that don't like pro-Corbyn outlets). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2, as I don't think that the evidence presented here amounts to a blanket ruling of Option 3 for all their content. However, it should always be attributed (as it is clearly a biased source), and when it comes to Israel and Jewish-related subjects (broadly construed), Option 3 likely applies. Obviously, anything from their "Off the Perch" section is clearly meant to be regarded as satire. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm having a look at Google scholar to see what academics say about The Canary. It's difficult, because "the canary" is not a very easy search term so needs to be combined with other terms such as "media" and still takes time to find the references. I'm adding some of these to our article on the website. Here are the first few I've found:
  • General reputation for hyper-partisan reporting and sensationalism:
    • Leeds University political scientist Jonathan Dean wrote in the peer-reviewed Sage journal Politics in 2020 that "websites such as Evolve Politics, Skwawkbox and The Canary have aped a more tabloid style, with short, punchy headlines and an often rather sensationalised style of reporting. The Canary, in particular, has faced criticism for its highly partisan presentation of political news stories, with critics often deeming it symptomatic of the rise of so-called ‘fake news’".[212]
    • Three UK media studies scholars from three different universities in 2018 in New Media and Society: "In the fallout from the 2017 UK general election there was much discussion about the growth of sensationalism in online political news as a result of the popularity of new, ideologically-slanted news sites such as, for example, Breitbart UK and Westmonster on the right and the Canary and Evolvepolitics on the left."[213][214]
    • A 2018 Routledge book on new media and journalism by two journalism lecturers: "If there was a British equivalent of Breitbart it would be The Canary... It is a simplification to say hyperpartisan news is automatically fake news. What unites these sites is a commitment to report stories that they believe that mainstream media ignores. In this respect, they see a role of expanding media plurality and provide a platform for alternative voices. Kerry-Anne Mendoza, Canary editor, states the site's aims: 'Today, a handful of powerful moguls control our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative. One that isn t afraid to challenge the status quo, to ask the hard questions, and to have an opinion.' (Canary n.d.) Their skilled use of social media optimisation when promoting stories on social media has meant their stories are often widely shared. In some respects they share the traditions of journalism, e.g. they usually seek to break exclusive stories and expand the public debate. But with a strong commitment to a particular political cause their reporting is by definition one sided."[215] (chapter 3)
  • Specific examples of misleading reporting:
    • Leicester Uni (and now Kings College London) scholar on digital media Daniel Allington, in the specialist Elsevier journal Discourse, Context & Media in 2018 gives an example of misleading reporting: "both the pro-Corbyn online tabloid The Canary and the website of the Israel-critical organisation, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, presented the research positively but reported it selectively in order to create the false impression that the finding was that only those on the political right were likely to be a problem for British Jews (see JFJFP, 2017, Micner, 2017). This was in effect a denial of racism."[216]
    • Labour Party scholar Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, wrote about the Portland Comms conspiracy theory: "McCluskey suggested that these sinister forces could be linked to the public relations firm Portland Communications – an organisation which he claimed had clear links with Tony Blair and the Labour right. This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an article published on the pro-Corbyn website The Canary that (falsely, as it turned out) argued that the firm had been directly behind the attempted coup (see Topple, 2016). "[217] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The denial of racism is the same one you already mentioned in your previous comment, personally I'm having a hard time interpreting the reporting as a denial of racism, selective reporting, sure but not exactly a denial of racism. The other "This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an (Canary) article" is not the same as saying that Canary did it. I know you are not fond of the Canary but I think there is a lot of mountain from molehill here.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I find Bobfrombrockley's analysis highly persuasive and more evidence-based than many of the comments here. If academic sources are describing The Canary as "tabloid style" and like Breitbart, then we should respect that and clearly cannot consider it a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I think editors are in danger of holding The Canary to too high a standard, simply because of its strong political position. In practice, the mainstream press also have clear party political preferences and these are evident in headlines, in the stories they select and in how they report them. What is more important is actual misleading stories. The Canary have been the target for few, if any, lawsuits or regulatory rulings, despite the hostility to them of e.g. SFFN, whereas the Jewish Chronicle, for example, regularly loses lawsuits and is the subject of regular adverse regulatory rulings on the grounds of inaccuracy. 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Jontel (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The Canary has made mistakes like all media organisations and acts responsibly when errors are discovered. My comment from last time on some of the examples that were presented and have resurfaced this time: "I went through all the Canary articles that have been mentioned by editors in the discussion. I found three articles where an identified error had been made by The Canary. They were the Laura K and fracking stories that went to IMPRESS and the story that was described as "it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS". The Canary acknowledged the error in the first 2 cases and took appropriate action. It appears that The Canary itself identified the third error and made the correction which related to The Canary's description of a pilgrimage as a march. The other stories involve innuendo, opinion, guilt by association and other diversions that don't impact on reliability. The story titled "The Canary Deleted A False Viral Story About The Sun's Coverage Of The Manchester Attack" was discussed by Press Gazette which stated: "The Canary story remains live on its website with an update at the foot of the article that reads: "The Sun contacted The Canary to request that we update the piece to reflect that The Sun went to print prior to the concert bombing. The paper issued an updated front page subsequently. We’re happy to do so" ". Burrobert (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The errors shown above all appear to be good-faith mistakes that any source of timely news is likely to run into, and The Canary has also shown that it is more than willing to voluntarily, promptly, and prominently correct these good-faith mistakes. That's how a news source is supposed to work. --Jayron32 16:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Nothing I've seen here shows it any more biased or unreliable than most other sources considered RS. The objections I've seen seem to be based on an objection to its political stances rather than any firm proof that it is a source which is not journalistically methodical or deliberately sets out to mislead. The few errors and mistakes it makes here and there are within the usual margins of error. It is however beneficial to Wikipedia to have sources presenting a wide array of viewpoints. G-13114 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 The Canary is generally unreliable. There are plenty of cases that support this as well as the fact that "Stop Funding Fake News" (SFFN), part of the organisation Center for Countering Digital Hate, whose head, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here) has repeatedly referred to the Canary as a purveyor of, among other things, fake news. In addition, I don't find the suggestions by some editors in this chat (and previously) that because it's a regulated publication by IMPRESS or has passed Newsguard assessments, it therefore can't possibly be unreliable; such a position is silly in my opinion. It was during the Canary's of membership of IMPRESS that it broke the rules. As well as this it was during this time that it made the claims about "political Zionists", which is not a statement we would consider reliable as a matter of course. In relation to Newsguard, some people may be interested to know that the Guido Fawkes blog, an organisation deemed to be unreliable by many of those in favour of the Canary's recategorisation, has a better reputation than the Canary within that particular service. This issue has nothing to do with whether or not the Canary holds a "strong political position", but whether the editorial staff can separate their political affiliations from the reporting of the facts. It seems quite strange that an editor above believes that we're "holding The Canary to too high a standard" when they are recommending that we blanket an organisation like the Canary (with its 'particular record) as generally reliable. Alssa1 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly a surprise that an anti-establishment left-wing publication would attract the ire of the establishment. There's undoubtedly a political agenda to try and tarnish the reputation of independent outlets like the Canary. The fact that the "Commission for Countering Extremism" focuses on outlets like The Canary but not say the Daily Mail, which has a long history of supporting bigoted causes and inaccurate reporting, should tell you all you need to know about it. I'm sure we're capable of coming to our own conclusions on the evidence, rather than follow the opinions of organisations with an obvious political agenda. G-13114 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@G-13114: can you tell me the distinction between "anti-establishment" and WP:FRINGE? As for your claims about "organisations with an obvious political agenda", what is your justification for applying that statement to the organisation in question? You just assert that the organisation has got a political agenda because you disagree, you need to have actual evidence for it. Furthermore, if you support a change in categorisation for the The Canary, can you tell me whether you believe the use of terms like "political Zionists" is an acceptable practice for a reliable source on Wikipedia? Alssa1 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether you believe that they are fringe or not has no bearing on whether or not they are unreliable. I assert that they have a political agenda, because many of the people involved in those organisations have been shown to have close links to organisations and factions hostile to The Canary's political stance. As for the "political Zionists" it is undoubtedly true that many of the attacks on the Canary have been due to their pro-Palestinian stance, by strong supporters of the Israeli government. Such people are invariably supporters of the political ideology of Zionism, so why should it be unacceptable to describe them as "political Zionists", which is after all an accurate description? G-13114 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Stop Funding Fake News organisation is not a neutral actor, it is a highly politicised campaign group holding a centrist political position, with opaque funding sources and links to the Labour right.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: sources please. Alssa1 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Alssa1 They are very secretive about their funding, but the founder was Morgan McSweeney, the campaign manager for Liz Kendall, the Labour right's candidate in Corbyn's first win. Imran Ahmed, their director, worked for Hillary Benn and Angela Eagle, the exceptionally anti-Corbyn Rachel Riley is patron. The idea that this is an impartial organisation is simply false. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4. Far-left website that generates thousands of low-quality clickbait pieces. When Facebook and Google changed their alogirthms to filter this clickbait, The Canary described this as an overarching Zionist conspiracy: The Canary blames attacks by 'political Zionists' for failing business model as cuts fall, Press Gazette. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman were involved; how would you describe them? Jontel (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that's a big misrepresentation of what they said. They in fact blamed a campaign by their opponents targeting advertisers with dubious claims of fake news for falling revenues, which was correct. And it's fair to say that many of their opponents could be described as Zionists (in the correct sense) who oppose their critical stance towards the Israeli government. G-13114 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Labeling Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman, media personalities who have spoken out against widely recognized antisemitism, as "Zionists" is 50 shades of wrong. For The Canary, everything is the result of some "Zionist conspiracy". 11Fox11 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that The Canary is implying that the reason that strong supporters of Israel, such as RR and TAO, have mounted so many attacks on supporters of Palestinian rights such as The Canary, is in order to weaken support for Palestinian rights. Jontel (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3 - I've nothing to add to the arguments already thoroughly set out. TrabiMechanic (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 or 3: if The Canary ever includes accurate information, it is entirely accidental. It follows all the classic practices of conspirational thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editing56 (talk • contribs)
• Option 2, possibly 3 in some areas. It's obviously but I read some examples provided by BobFromBrockley and I don't see deliberate lies. Alaexis_¿question? 11:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 The bulk of their content is comment and analysis. Original (i.e. not taken from other sources) factual reporting is thin on the ground but not obviously unreliable, and they have acknowledged mistakes. It's still pretty new, and clearly under resourced journalistically. There's a concern that they have muddied the line between comment and reporting on occasion. 82.19.214.50 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Per information provided by Shrike. The Canary is generally unreliable.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, The Canary is fully unreliable, bellow minimal standards of Wikipedia, borderline antisemitic, absolutely bias.Tritomex (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

MDPI journals

David Gerard (actually Tgeorgescu) has created an entry on the Perennial Sources list for MDPI, an open access publishing company, as "generally unreliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MDPI, stating that "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI are generally unreliable, since MDPI has a very shallow peer-review process". I disagree with this assessment and think that journals published by MDPI should be evaluated on a case by case basis. MDPI was placed on the infamous Beall's list of predatory access publishers in 2014, but was subsequently removed from the list in 2015 following an appeal. This post on Scholarly Kitchen from August 2020 gives a positive assessment of MDPI's operations, describing it as "simply a company that has focused on growth and speed while optimizing business practices around the author-pays APC (article processing charge) business model" rather than a predatory publisher. MDPI is now the world's 5th largest publishing company and largest open access publisher, and it has improved significantly in citation rankings and reputation since the mid 2010's when most of the cited discussions on the reliability of MDPI took place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't create it, I just tidied up an entry someone else had added. I think it's superfluous on RSP, it's already on WP:CITEWATCH, where it most certainly belongs - the "appeal" was legal threats - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Source on legal threats? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There's suggestions of it here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: The actual creator of the entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've marked the entry for MDPI (RSP entry) as disputed, pending the result of this discussion, as it is a new entry. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally unreliable is too harsh. It should be yellow with "additional considerations" and the like. Same for Frontiers Media journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, in my life as a physicist, I tend to treat articles in MDPI journals as a notch more vetted than preprints on the arXiv. I've seen some jank in their journals, but I've also found very reputable people publishing there; John C. Baez comes to mind [218]. I suspect that they may be "journals of last resort", places where people send work that is legitimate but without the oomph needed to get into journals that are more established. (Maybe a paper ends up there because it was bounced from Physical Review A, or maybe the authors figured they didn't have much of a shot at PRA in the first place.) For example, Gill (2020) is a paper that pushes back on nonsense, upholding a mainstream view rather than promoting a fringe one. But the nonsense being debunked is not very high-profile, so plenty of journals wouldn't find a debunking interesting enough to publish. So, yes, "generally unreliable" is too harsh; generally unremarkable may be closer to the truth. But I wouldn't put them in the green either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that this is strongly field dependent. In Palaeontology, where the difference between the highest and lowest ranking journals is relatively low, MDPI journals don't stick out as any worse than say, PeerJ or Scientific Reports. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they probably have to be judged field-by-field, if not journal-by-journal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It definitely should be on a case by case basis. There are definitely journals MDPI publishes that are on the predatory end and should not be trusted. At the same time, there are a number of journals they publish that appear to have proper peer review and other systems in place for promoting proper research. Trying to deprecate everything MDPI is involved in would be...a lot of the scientific publishing world. And would negatively impact thousands of articles. Silverseren^C 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I added the entry. Of course consensus may change, however past RSN discussion did not give me much confidence about MDPI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This thread was archived but @Alexbrn: is edit warring with me when I try to correct the entry, including when I try to add the archiving tag. I don't see how the previous discussions and this one justify the claim that MDPI is generally unreliable for everything it publishes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing the entry (twice) only to say "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI should be considered on a case by case basis", especially after such a brief discussion, is not a true reflection of views on this matter. I shall ping WT:MED to widen consensus, as not everybody watches this NB. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert the exact same entry twice, I added the Beall's list mention from the first entry the second time. I agree that my entry on both times was short and not ideal. The first entry is problematic, however, as it makes claims such as that MDPI journals "have a shallow peer review process" and were removed from Beall's list as a result of legal action that as far as I am aware are not backed up by discussions, so I don't think the first entry is a true reflection of MDPI either, it's much more negative that the corresponding WP:CITEWATCH entry. As I have previously stated, I don't have a high opinion of MDPI journals. Like Frontiers, they are generally bottom of the barrell and many of their journals publish fringey stuff. This is probably more important in medical topic areas, and I can understand your opinion on MDPI from that perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be case by case, but it should be made clear that "most MDPI journals are considered generally unreliable due to lacking quality of peer review processes. Furthermore, some MDPI journals are considered predatory and these should not be used. Other (generally larger) MDPI journals should be discussed on a case by case basis." - It should not be listed as yellow nor should it be listed as "case by case basis" without further information such as that many are predatory and lack peer review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Headbomb, and I don't think that a low-quality peer-review process is actually sufficient to meet the WP:GUNREL standards. This is the list of GUNREL criteria:

• lack an editorial team – They have one, with their names and affiliations published in each journal.
• have a poor reputation for fact-checking – Outside the category of "glossy magazines", almost nobody does actual fact checking, but they obviously do have a peer-review process (which Wikipedia counts as a form of fact-checking), because people are complaining that their peer-review process isn't slow enough. (I guess that long delays, during which the reviewers refuse to look at the paper, are a marker of a high-quality review in some people's eyes?)
• fail to correct errors – They retract papers,[219] which is the most stringent form of error correction.
• be self-published – Since people are complaining about the publisher, then this obviously doesn't apply.
• present user-generated content – Obviously not.

So none of the GUNREL criteria indisputably apply to this publisher. Nor would we, if we sat down and considered it, say that absolutely none of the articles in any of the publisher's journals should ever be cited for anything unless the editor was willing to invoke WP:IAR as the reason. (That, too, is the standard for a GUNREL finding.)

I think that the facts indicate that "MREL" is the correct classification. Maybe what we need is "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI should be considered on a case by case basis" with a recommendation to look at CITEWATCH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at CiteWatch is a no-go. The Citewatch is based on community consensus, not vice-versa. Also "have a poor reputation for fact-checking" is exactly what's at stake with MDPI. Their peer review process is, at best, incredibly lax. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There are probably several other publishers in the same class. JMIR Publications comes to mind. My main interest is on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. In this case, we have a strong interest in not promoting bad health advice. So for purposes of WP:MED, we should generally avoid citing pay-to-publish articles whenever possible. An exception is where we cite in the same paragraph/context a very highly reliable (ideally secondary) source. This may allow us to put the new citation into context. For example, the article on Dengue fever discusses the use of papaya extract as a treatment. This is based on some relatively unreliable sources. No reliable sources mention papaya extract, other than by exclusion from lists of known treatment. So this is an example where unreliable references are not paired with reliable references and should be treated with extreme caution. However, a counterpoint is that increasingly very reliable journals are embracing a pay-to-publish model. So we definitely cannot classify all pay-to-publish articles as unreliable. At least for WP:MED I would classify MDPI Journals as Wikipedia:GUNREL, which includes the following description, "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." WP:GUNREL still allows one to use the citation on a case-by-case basis. Jaredroach (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not have the medical project come up with a list of journals that the project likes and doesn't like, and then use those in your project. Other science projects most probably prefer having their own criteria. I know MDPI's journal Viruses and those articles are just fine. MDPI is one of the three big open access publishers. Using the category open access/pay-for-publishing as a de-qualifier is a fool's errand. Pay-for-publishing is now mandatory in Europe, and this will be the business model throughout the scientific world in 5 years. That is why I have been mentioning Plan S. I would recommend using Impact Factor/(your preferred journal metric) and whether it is indexed in pubmed to determine whether to use it. ---Guest2625 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with JMIR publications, Jaredroach? I publish regularly in JMIR journals. They have robust peer review and are highly respected in their relevant fields. These are open access journals. Open access journals use article processing fees. They are not "pay-to-publish": papers have to be accepted in the same way as for other journals. Open access is very much the future of academic publishing, not something to be suspicious of. There are predatory journals that we need to avoid and I don't have any specific view on MDPI, but don't tar all open access journals like this. Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Predatory does not necessarily means that a journal is an unreliable reference. For example, JMIR is definitely predatory, but may have articles that are reliable. JMIR aggressively spam emails all authors of MedRxiv with bait-and-switch efforts to increase revenue. Definitely predatory. YMMV with respect to reliability. JMIR Preprints in particular is full of unreliable material. Jaredroach (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but Wikipedia sources need to be well-reputed. The WP:DAILYMAIL runs an occasional good story, but because of its deficiencies in other areas it is not a suitable source generally. Same for predatory publishers.

Re:"Predatory does not necessarily means that a journal is an unreliable reference." Predatory means exactly that. It doesn't mean all articles in predatory journals are inaccurate/wrong (broken clocks are right twice a day after all) but all such articles cannot be relied upon, unless vetted explicitly by reliable external sources deeming them reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence that JMIR journals are unreliable. Publications in JMIR journals are routinely cited by articles in other high quality journals and have good impact factors. As I said, I publish regularly in JMIR journals: I was recently promoted to professor on the back of a publication track record including papers in JMIR journals. The promotion committee were all happy with that.

JMIR Preprints is for preprints: they haven't been through peer review. That's what a preprint is. No, a preprint is not a reliable source. I have preprints at present with JMIR and with medRxiv. It's COVID research, so some of them have already been cited or received media coverage, but fellow scholars know to only cite a preprint with caution and Wikipedia should definitely be avoiding them. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Alison Weir

A new editor Thequeenofaragon expanded the article about Aimery of Cyprus with information about the first marriage of Aimery's eldest daughter, Burgundia/Bourgogne with Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse ([220]). The edit was verified with a reference to a book written by Alison Weir (Weir, Alison (2020). Queens of the crusades : Eleanor of Aquitaine and her successors. London. ISBN 978-1-910702-09-3. OCLC 1197774310.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)). I am not sure that the book meets the criteria of reliable sources, because she is not a historian and I doubt that her book was peer reviewed. I emphasize the information about the marriage may be correct, but I think it should be verified by a reliable source. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable: Weir is not an academic. She is a popular historian who specialises in the area of English medieval/early modern nobility, largely using secondary sources. She does this with sufficient accuracy to be accepted by Wikipedia as WP:RS as supporting dates, births, deaths and, important for this question marrages. It wouldn't make sense to use her analysis but she is certainly good enough for those details. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is she regularly cited in peer reviewed sources? Could you refer to a review of her works in academic journals? Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka, I think you are being a bit too harsh. While we certainly prefer academic authors who are cited and published in peer reviewed journals, we do not reject amateur historians with good reputations. My understanding is that Weir has a reasonably good reputation. I think we can cite her. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. I understand. She is not a historian, her books are not peer reviewed and they are not mentioned in academic reviews, but we can cite them, because our research shows that she is accurate when writing about dates, births, deaths and marriages. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I noticed they've also added the same source to Raymond_VI,_Count_of_Toulouse. Although it hasn't gotten to the point of concern, if a pattern of the same author getting added into numerous article develops, WP:REFSPAM is something to be on the look out for. See Talk:Rarotonga for example. Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Microskiff

Hello, I would like input on whether these sources would help to warrant an article on the topic. Microskiffs are a relatively new class of small boats designed for extreme shallow water fishing, primarily in saltwater. This is a boat class that is accepted within the flats_fishing and saltwater fishing community for areas where microskiffs make sense due to extreme shallow water flats that anglers need to pass through (eg: Florida, Texas, South Carolina). I'd like to create an article on it, but there is no mainstream media attention to this topic - it exists in the fishing world which does not have a WP:RS huge presence online. Sources: DrGvago (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Comment The topic certainly appears to be notable to me. A Google search shows it coming up in large numbers, and if people are becoming interested in a topic like this, then it makes sense for us to begin developing an article on it. I see no problem with using magazines as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, as they seem to demonstrate that the subject is indeed notable. I'd say, go for it! A loose necktie (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I second that. Go for it! François Robere (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian enclaves and sourcing for an alternate name

There is a dispute at Talk:Palestinian enclaves as to whether or not these sources are a. reliable and b. support that the term "bantustan" is a widely used name to describe the "enclaves". The sources are as follows:

• Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
• Yambert, Karl (2012). The Contemporary Middle East: A Westview Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-97253-9. Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"
• Harker, Christopher (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa
• Penny Green; Amelia Smith (2016). "Evicting Palestine". State Crime Journal. 5 (1): 81–108. what are popularly described as "Bantustans", those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its checkpoints

An editor has said that these sources do not pass the smell test and that the authors are partisans and the sources do not support that the term bantustan is widely used by anybody besides critics of Israel. In support of that argument, the editor has brought this NYT article which says But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” to support the contention that this is a term only used by critics of Israel. Are the three sources above reliable, and do they support the statement that the term bantustan is widely used without the qualification by critics of Israel? nableezy - 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• State Crime Journal seems obscure, and from a self-describe progressive or socialist publisher (Pluto Press), perhaps not academic. I don't think anyone is questioning the reliability of university presses or Routledge. Part (B) of the OP is a content dispute about NPOV not a dispute about RS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's peer reviewed journal. And yes, an editor has said these sources do not support the notion that "bantustan" is a widely used phrasing to describe the "enclaves", that the authors' supposed bias leads them incapable of supporting what they report, so I'm asking here if they are reliable and if they support that. nableezy - 01:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me like WP:POV issue. The proper place is WP:NPOVN --Shrike (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well a user said these sources dont pass the smell test and that nothing has been brought that backs the statement the term is widely used by anybody besides critics of Israel. Do you agree they are reliable and that they support the challenged statement? nableezy - 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Re the question here "Are the three sources above reliable, and do they support the statement that the term bantustan is widely used without the qualification by critics of Israel?". Yes and yes. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Are we really going to question the reliability of multiple scholarship? These are not opinion pieces or something of that kind. The first says "widely called", the second "often referred to" the third "often referred to" and the 'progressive socialist'(?) says "popularly described as". I could see how we might say that a particular source has a bias so severe that it ought to be discounted but trying to paint every source as biased because of disagreement with what the sources say is taking things too far.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment on the narrow question of if the sources are reliable and if the sources confirm the term "bantustan" is in common use, true on both counts. On the wider question, it seems like a variant of the "no true Scotsman" argument is being used; the objection seems to be that any source that uses the term "bantustan" must be invalid because the term is critical of Israel itself, so by that circular logic, it could never be sourced to any source because any source using the term invalidates itself as a source that the term is used. My brain can't wrap itself around such a catch-22. These sources are sufficient to state that the term is in common use. Whether or not the use is justified or not, and whether or not the use of the term represents a criticism of Israel merely by its use is a discussion to be had on another day, but on the narrow question of whether or not the term is used, yes, the sources are sufficient for that purpose. --Jayron32 15:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This was taken to RSN on a strawman premise, i.e. one that was never asserted. These sources are not by default unreliable. However, they are inadequate to support the statement that "Palestinian bantustans" is a "widely used" term beyond critics. Why are these sources inadequate to do so? Because these sources represent the view of participants in that debate, specifically, they are critics of the proposed enclaves who support usage the term bantustans.
• Jerome Slater is a notable critic of Israel and this is manifested in the positions he takes in his writings, including on the Bantustan issue. See his writings here. He criticizes the U.S.-Israeli relationship and solely blames Israel for the series of wars that have broken out in the region as well as the failure of the peace process.
• Christopher Harker is a frequent critic of what he calls "Israeli settler colonialism." See here.
• Penny Green has attracted controversy for her statements on Israel, including comparing Israel to ISIS. See here.

None of this is to comment on the validity of these criticisms, but to point out that these are participants in a debate who have staked out partisan positions on complex issues, and this must be accounted for before claiming that their views or statements are widespread or representative. The same can be said of partisan advocates on the other side of the debate. But while Nableezy and others in that discussion have raised these issues with say, usage of a source like Alan Dershowitz, a noted advocate for Israel, they wave off these exact same considerations when it comes to sources on the other side. This isn't acceptable. Showing "widespread usage" means showing that it is a term consistently and repeatedly used, and that any common person would recognize, in mainstream and objective sources. The NYT is notable because it is such a source -- mainstream and widespread -- and it explicitly avoids claiming that this term is widespread, and attributes it to critics. The counter to this at the Talk:Palestinian enclaves has been to claim that it is The New York Times that is partisan, not the sources they present, even as their views have attracted controversy and reflect sharply ideological positions. This is not a coherent argument. If Nableezy believes that there is "widespread usage" of this term beyond just critics, they need to present mainstream objective sources consistently using that terminology. So the question is not the narrow "do these sources support this wording?" that this RSN thread presents; the question is, "does the body of sources confirm widespread and consistent usage in mainstream objective sources?" The only mainstream and objective (as much as one can hope for) source that is presented here in the NYT, and its answer is clearly no. You cannot present a limited view of partisan commentators as widespread and remain consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:PARTISAN, and WP:WEASEL. These are usable sources and reliable in some respects, but not for what users are attempting to use them for in this instance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 Just because the authors are themselves critical of Israel doesn't make them automatically unreliable (see WP:BIASED).VR _talk 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To respond to Jayron32's point that any source using the term "Palestinian bantustans" must be critical of Israel and therefore is only of limited value. This is not necessarily true. The applicable policy here is WP:POVNAME. Yes, the term "bantustans" implies a criticism because it suggests a model of racial/ethnic segregation. However, POV names are accepted where objective sources consistently use the phrasing. It is true that there is a slightly higher bar on Wikipedia for loaded phrases, per the policy I just cited. But that is for a good reason. It is so that Wikipedia articles avoid wading into debates and instead default to describing them. The sources presented are not mainstream or objective, and academic not a synonym for either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• All the sources look reliable to me. State Crime Journal looks like a peer-reviewed journal connected to the International State Crime Initiative and appears to have a distinguished editorial board. VR _talk 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

These sources are usable, but the body of available sources is not enough to satisfy WP:POVNAME for "Palestinian bantustans," and there is already a consensus at Talk:Palestinian enclaves to that effect. No one has objected to citing these sources in the article, there is a disagreement over how to properly use them. Trying to phrase this RSN as whether these sources support the specific wording Nableezy has proposed comes off as WP:FORUMSHOPPING and what the article talk page, not RSN, is for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason that these sources have been brought here for scrutiny is precisely because of a dispute at the article talk page over their validity as rs so an allegation of forumshopping seems inappropriate. I am pleased to see that you have retreated from the assertion that "These sources don't even pass the smell test." If subsequent to a determination that they are in fact rs, there arise non-NPOV issues by virtue of their use as rs, that can be dealt with then.Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This board is for evaluating whether particular sources are reliable for particular statements. You not liking the comments that predictably came as a result of a challenge to scholarship is what this board is not to be used for. This board is precisely the place to evaluate whether a particular source supports a particular wording. Can you at least pretend to try to read the page notice when you hit edit here? Note point 3: Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: text. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". nableezy - 17:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

98bowery.com

I've removed bloggy references, as well as a big chunk of in-prose contents at Colab based off of vintage scans of postcards which at one time served as an advertisement listing for the said postcards the site. Upon search, I see the source used in close to 30 articles. The website is ran by an art curator/historian. Should this website be used in the way it was used? Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

defseca.com

Are any of the following four defseca.com articles reliable sources for the corresponding statements:

1. [221] in AeroVironment Wasp III for "Bangladesh Army: RQ-12B on order"?
2. [222] in Accuracy International AX50 for the statement that the sniper rifle, "started to be used by Bangladesh Army"?
3. [223] in STREIT Group Spartan for the statement that among operators of the armoured personnel carrier is "Border Guards Bangladesh - Ukrainian built KrAZ Spartan variant"?
4. [224] in List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy for the statement that their submarine is armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines"?

Defseca.com hasn't been discussed here before, but bdmilitary.com now redirects to defseca's forum. Bdmilitary.com was discussed here once before. There were few participants, and discussion sidetracked into a debate about whether the source was correct, which is different from whether it is reliable.

My sense is that defseca.com is a self-published enthusiast portal and has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking (for example, neither it nor bdmilitary.com is widely cited by books or news organizations). I see no evidence of subject matter expertise, journalistic credentials, or editorial oversight.

Pinging participants in previous bdmilitary.com discussion and frequent contributors to Bangladeshi military equipment topics, where defseca.com keeps cropping up: @Thomas.W, Maxx786, Justlettersandnumbers, AzfarShams, FOX 52, Nafis Fuad Ayon, and SRS 00: --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nope. "Defseca" is just "bdmilitary" in new clothes: a self-published Wordpress-blog with no information about who they are, how to contact them or who their writers are (none of the articles I checked was signed), and apparently no editorial oversight/control whatsoever. So, no, "defseca" is no more reliable as a source than "bdmilitary" was, and cannot be used as a reference here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nope. Defseca.com is nothing but a new website of bdmilitary.com run by the same person Syed Amar Khan. I personally called the website rumors making machine. In my opinion 7 out of 10 information related to procurement of military equipment are totally wrong and based on nothing but on their imagination. They also mixed true information with false information. They have no respecting in the copyright law. They copied images from other websites and used their own watermark. They are actually selling false information. Some amature YouTube channels also spreading rumors by following the defseca. The website should blocked from wikipedia to used as a reference.

I'll add the reasons. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Defseca:

• Reason 1: Generally unreliable for procurement reporting. Because they publishes false or fabricated information most of the times.
• Reason 2: Some examples of previously provided false information of both bdmilitary (B) and defseca (D): "Bangladesh ordered LY-80 SAM" (B), "Russia offered TOT of Mig-35 to Bangladesh" (B), "Bangladesh army ordered APCs worth 1 billion dollars" (B), "Bangladesh navy going to buy destroyers" (D), "Bangladesh Navy will buy Helicopter carrier" (D), "Bangladesh navy going to install 8 C-802A missiles on BNS Madhumati" (D) and lots more.
• Reason 3: Generally mixed true information with wrong information. Example: Bangladesh Border Guard (BGB) bought STREIT Group Spartan without the Remote controlled weapon station mounted ATGM. But they reported BGB Spartan APCs have Corsair ATGM installed. Actually these APCs have non rotating turret with heavy machine gun.
• Reason 4: Their editors are not trustworthy. I know Syed Amar Khan and had a long discussion with him in social media. They have a facebook page. After I continuously asking them about reliability of their false information they simply blocked me from the facebook page.
• Reason 5: They make news from imaginary self research. If Bangladesh military issued a tender for weaponry they simply publishes a news immediately before the winner announced. They simply labelled one of the possible candidates as winner. Example: Bangladesh army issued a tender for medium range SAM but winner not announced yet. Defseca published a news that Hisar SAM already selected.
• Reason 6: Most of their true news are copied from other websites like Janes. Example: Procurement of RQ-12B.
• Your answer: Truth of those four references User:Worldbruce: (1) Maybe true, because army is the suitable for operating it. (2) True because the information is based on a image. (3) BGB is the operator, but without the ATGM. (4) Kilo class submarine could carries DM-1 naval mines. So they simply mentioned Myanmar navy submarine armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines without any proof. But it could be. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• No. No opinion on the specific cases as such, but I can't imagine any content for which this could be a reliable source. It's somebody's blog, the registrant of the domain is hidden (registrant is displayed as Domains By Proxy, LLC, Scottsdale, Arizona), it has no editorial oversight, no institutional or personal authority – it's just yet another random website of the kind that Wikipedia should never cite. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Nope: Just as User:Nafis Fuad Ayon said, defseca.com or The Bangladesh Defense Analyst is rebranded bdmilitary.com which already proved how reliable it is to be cited as sourced to be used as citation. With very few exceptions, most of the news is mixed true or not true at all. The page mainly feels like a Amature Press/Fan site of the Bangladeshi Military, which usually publishes articles like "What type of equipment should the Bangladeshi Military should procure", "Speculation/Conspiracy theories about the geopolitics of Bangladesh" and "Procurement news of the Military forces of Bangladesh and its neighbors". Their writings show signs of immaturity and unprofessionalism. Personally speaking, I contacted some of the editors of that site and I really have doubts about their qualifications. Very few of the procurement news proved to be true even sometimes they exaggerate the information. Their articles sometimes encourage readers to jump to the conclusion by using misleading sentences/words or headline. I want to address the four questions User:Worldbruce bought at this issue.

1. [225] in AeroVironment Wasp III for "Bangladesh Army: RQ-12B on order"?

• Answer: There were 2 citations for that claim. One form defseca and the other one was from Jane's Information Group, in the Jane's report there was no information about which branch of Bangladeshi military were procuring AeroVironment RQ-12B. It only said "Bangladesh". In defseca, they claimed that the Bangladesh army ordered RQ-12B.

2. [226] in Accuracy International AX50 for the statement that the sniper rifle, "started to be used by Bangladesh Army"?

• Answer: Based on photographs, and visual identification. Most photographs were taken during 2017 South Surma Upazila bombings. The source claimed that the Bangladesh army using both AX50 and AX308 which uses .50BMG and 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges respectively. Fundamentally both are different types of firearms as the first one fits the definition of an Anti-materiel rifle and the second one is a Sniper rifle.In November 2018, DGDP issued a tender about buying cartridges specifically for AX308, RPA Rangemaster and Thunderbolt. So it is safe to assume that Bangladesh Army actually operates AX308 but no information about AX50 cannot be found. It is possible that, editors of Defseca.com jumped to a conclusion identifying one variant.

3. [227] in STREIT Group Spartan for the statement that among operators of the armoured personnel carrier is "Border Guards Bangladesh - Ukrainian built KrAZ Spartan variant"?

• Answer: Based on photographs, and visual identification. Most photographs were taken by automotive enthusiasts in Dhaka taken outside of BGB Headquarter. Although there were reports in national news portals of BGB procured riot control vehicles and APCs but didn't mention the name of the vehicle. Instead more images of the vehicle were found. All images showed similarity with STREIT Group Spartan, but nothing more than that. Visual . About RK-3 Corsar, defseca.com's clever use of words can make readers think that those ATGMs were attached to those APCs but no such information can be found. Instead, there was only one report in January 2020, by the Irrawaddy that ATGMs being used by BGB stationed at St. Martin's Island identified as "Corsar Anti-Tank Missile System". . I think the question, "Does BGB actually uses such weapons?" deserves a separate discussion.

4. [228] in List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy for the statement that their submarine is armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines"?

• Answer: Just like User:Nafis Fuad Ayon stated, the Kilo-class submarine has capabilities to be armed with 24 naval mines. Mostly DM-1 as it is mostly used by most countries navy which operates this submarine. The editors of Defseca.com jumped to a conclusion based on that fact.

Now, I want to share some of my opinions. If any new editor cites Defseca.com as a reference, do not remove the entire information just remove the citation and replace with {{Citation needed}} template and told him/her to find a better source. Always remember to, assume good faith and not to bite them. Give him/her the idea of what type of sources Wikipedia accepts and what doesn't. It is understandable why most editors use such types of sources for information especially in military equipment topics. Remove the information if the editor fails to add a reliable citation. If that editor seems to be troublesome, you know the rules. Keep in mind that, new editors sometimes don't understand why what they see are not accepted as true just because he/she saw that. For example, SLC-2 Radar a Counter-battery radar used by Bangladesh Army, which was displayed during the 2017 victory day parade but no reliable source cannot be found to back that claim. It happens in the list of military equipment articles in most third-world countries. Thank You. --AzfarShams (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Template for "no reliable sources"?

We have templates for "no sources", and for "some unreliable sources", but we don't seem to have a template for articles where all the sources are unreliable ones (which happens quite regularly on new page patrol). For example, Longest Words in Hebrew is only sourced to Quora and Preply (which is similar to Quora, although the responders have at least some education). Would it be useful to have a new template specifically for this kind of article? Fram (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You could try searching Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles for a more apt template. --Jayron32 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. For this specific case, Template:user-generated may be appropriate, but a general template like the one I describe doesn't seem to exist (only one for "some unreliable sites", not for "all"). Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fram, I think might have been more appropriate for the talkpage. The template Template:Unreliable sources has a parameter "some", if you change that to false then the wording of the template changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording then becomes "some or all", which is somewhat better, thanks. Fram (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

...Or we could develop a template called "{{Template:No reliable sources}}", no? A loose necktie (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, did I just do that?? A loose necktie (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Fram (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comingsoon.net

Hello. Do people believe that Comingsoon.net is an RS? I see it for example being used to quote a non-RS ... odd, and I'm not sure how we handle that if it is an RS - second question I guess. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Currently the wiki page for it is just a redirect to Mandatory (company), which is confirmed as running the site. I've used it before on a limited basis, but I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. I did a search for it, and it has been cited by ComicBook but I can't find it anywhere else, yet. Historyday01 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Possibly reliable, but of very limited use. Most of its articles features on news relating to films and television. These can probably be sourced to other sources as well. Dimadick (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. What to do where it is being used to refer to a source that itself is a self-published source? 2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

SciTechDaily

Source: SciTechDaily
Article: Chicxulub impactor

Content: [229]. Text was:

In 2021 a research team at Harvard University showed that a significant fraction of a comet originating in the solar system's Oort cloud was pushed off course by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and sent on a new orbit that brought it much closer to the Sun. As it approached, it began to break apart because of the Sun's tidal force and fractured into smaller pieces which then began to regularly cross Earths orbit and now impact the Earth every 250,000 to 730,000 years. This frequency is consistent with other impact events in the past, and the carbonaceous chondrite composition of the impactor is more consistent with that of a comet from the Oort cloud rather than a rogue asteroid from the much-closer asteroid belt.

While the website's own "About" page states that prior to 2011, "...the New York Times and others referred to us as essentially a Drudge Report for science and technology...", they claim to have made some major changes in their methods since then which, a decade later, make them look like a reliable source to me. I wanted to use them as a secondary source on an article published by a Harvard research team headed by a Professor of Science there, Avi Loeb, that was itself published in the journal Scientific Reports. Not reliable? Please comment. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A link to evidence that "they claim to have made some major changes in their methods since then" would be nice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to use this source over the NYT article that covers the same paper that is also cited in the article. The SciTechDaily article simply uncritically repeats the research akin to churnalism. While the NYTimes article actually asks other experts, who universally disagree with the conclusions presented in the study. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, there's no obilgation to include every single study that gets a widely publicised press release, per WP:NOTNEWS, and after I undid the edit the article was rewritten to include reference to the study and the fact that experts interviewed about it disagreed with its conclusions, based on the NYTimes article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A doctoral thesis from 2020 cited in around 40 pages

I am a little concerned about the exceptionally widespread use of this source, it is a 2020(!) doctoral thesis by Andrey Nikulin entitled Proto-Macro-Je: Um Estudo Reconstrutivo, which reconstructs the ancestor of a proposed linguistic macro-family. I am not an expert in South-American languages, but I know a fair bit about linguistics, and it looks serious work. The supervisors have published widely in relevant fields. I would suggest it is the kind of doctoral thesis which we might be able to use with care, but it seems to have been added absolutely anywhere it can be put, it is listed as a source in around 40 of our articles.

What does the community think, is it necessary to reduce the use of this source or am I being overly bureaucratic in my interpretation of WP:RS?

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They all appear to have been added by a single editor, @Sagotreespirit:. I would like to hear their explanation for using a doctoral thesis so widely before commenting further. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to know the logic behind it. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sagotreespirit's userpage on the Portuguese Wikipedia, listing their interests and the articles they work on there, makes me believe that they very well might be the author of the thesis, or at least someone closely connected to the author... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is cited a similar number of times on the Portuguese wiki, again added by the same user. But we would probably expect that from any user who had access to the paper, given its subject matter and language, assuming they considered it relevant. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I've been adding and checking the references for the South American languages listed on Language Isolate, and I've come across another exceptionally widely used doctoral thesis, again seemingly tied to @Sagotreespirit: This one is used more than 100 times, entitled Estudo arqueo-ecolinguístico das terras tropicais sul-americanas by Marcelo Pinho De Valhery Jolkesky, from 2016. Both dissertations are from the University of Brasilia. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, Doctoral thesis are generally reliable, so the concern here seems to be more related to possible WP:COI/WP:SPAM than reliability, I think. The question is whether the source is used properly or just added as a 'see also' link. Perhaps this discussion should be taking place at WP:COIN instead of here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines say they are to be "used with care as they are often in part primary sources", these sources are almost always used to add the research of the scholars concerned to the article, rather than summarise past work. That probably opens up questions of WP:WEIGHT as well. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• User:Degoiabeira, who has also added the thesis to WP, is, based on their user pages here and on the Portuguese WP, obviously the author of the thesis, with User:Sagotreespirit probably being an assistant, working closely with Degoiabeira on WP, editing the same articles and adding works by Nikulin as references etc (not only the doctoral thesis but also other earlier works). So it's at least bordering on being WP:REFSPAM, and a deliberate attempt to promote Nikulin by getting him cited as many times as possible here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pakpassion

Hi. I've seen this website used as references for BLPs on Pakistani cricketers, but wanted to find out more about its reliability. For example, this edit to Mohammad Hasnain's article adds a cite for his height. Now the article looks like an interview for the site, but at the foot of the page it has a "Discuss" link taking it to the website's forum, which copies the interview. So who is the article's author? A professional writer, or some anon. user on a web forum? Thoughts welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it would fall under WP:UGC and it should generally be avoided. However, given that it was an interview with the BLP, using the site as a citation for the subject's height may be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Do you have a reason to believe the interview was completely fabricated, and anon users supplied those answers? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it's more of a hunch than anything. I don't think the interview was fabricated, just wondering if the source came from the site's forum and posted on the main site, or vice-versa. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

People may lie about their heights (to make themselves seem taller), so I'm not sure we should be accepting his height based on an article that's either got the height from Hasnain himself or UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And one of the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF is that "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". I would say there is doubt- the height is separate from interview, so not clear if it's self-generated or UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Briefly coming out of retirement here, from my understanding the author of some of the interviews is Saj Sadiq who seems to have written for Sky Sports a few times. See here and here. He has also wrote for wisden see here so I would assume he is relatively reliable. Not sure about this Amir Hussain though who seems to be another editor on the website but his interviews seem to be reprinted quite a few times. Overall though I would count any interviews done by Saj Sadiq fine but I'll leave Amir Hussain up to you. Thanks and bye. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - and hope you're well. So looks like most of it looks legit. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Reason and WaPo on NYT on Slate Star Codex

Sources. I'm asking about two sources:

1. This Reason piece which elaborates the idea that the NYT piece is a lazy hit piece that actively misleads readers, giving them the false impression that Siskind is at the center of a stealth plot to infiltrate Silicon Valley and pollute it with noxious far-right ideas
2. This WaPo piece which reports that There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.

Article. I'm wondering about using these sources in the article on Scott Alexander's now-defunct blog, Slate Star Codex.

Content. The article currently states:

The New York Times published an article about the blog in February 2021, two weeks after Alexander had publicly revealed his name.

This content cites this NYT piece. I'm suggesting that we add an additional sentence by appeal to the above two sources:

This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They're both opinion pieces (Reason largely publishes opinion and the WaPo source is from PostEverything, which publishes opinion pieces from outside contributors.) Reason is obviously a WP:BIASED source about rationalists in particular, so it would have to be attributed, and the WaPo mention is just in passing. Furthermore, the WaPo source says nothing about political positions specifically; it just vaguely mentions "multiple issues." I definitely don't think they're enough to make a sweeping unattributed claim that This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. In theory the Reason piece could be used for attributed opinion, but I feel that it's WP:UNDUE in context (it's a severe digression given that currently the article doesn't even attempt to summarize the NYT piece - ie. why would we cite an opinion piece responding to a NYT article when our article does no more than acknowledge that the NYT article exists?) I mean, what is the point of the sentence at all - "a NYT article on Slate Star Codex exists, which Reason magazine took issue with?" That seems tangential at the moment. If we were going massively in-depth on the NYT article it might make sense to cover back-and-forth related to it, but we're not. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the WaPo article is labeled as an opinion piece and should thus not be used. Aapjes (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For context please check out discussion here: [230]. Aquillion is making a good point. On the other hand, note the surprisingly large number of prominent journalists and academics who reacted strongly to the NYT article, calling it a hit piece. Also, The Hill's morning show (which, apparently, has an audience of over a million) devoted a big chunk of their program to the article [231] (I'm not sure if this should be considered notable by Wikipedia standards). Another comment about Reason: I'm not sure in what sense it is an opinion piece, it's in their Media Criticism section and the author is a senior editor. Eliokim (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with defining an article as an opinion piece when it expresses opinions, is that articles that are not flagged as opinion pieces, frequently do contain opinions. For example, the NYT story on SSC has an opinion in each of the first three paragraphs (I stopped at three):

• The website had a homely, almost slapdash design
• It was nominally a blog
• In a style that was erudite, funny, strange and astoundingly verbose

None of these are objective facts, but opinions by the author. Ultimately, the Reason piece was posted as a normal article, just like the NYT article and I thus believe that they should be given the same treatment, with regard to treating them as opinion pieces or not. Aapjes (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The difference between news articles and opinions is not the level of subjective judgement by the author, it's the amount of editorial oversight.--JBchrch (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that there is no editorial oversight for the factual claims in the piece? Newspapers/-sites typically make a clear distinction between pieces that are excluded from editorial oversight by labeling them as opinion pieces or such. I see no such label here. I worry that Reason articles are subjectively deemed to lack or have oversight based on the editor's biases. Aapjes (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with Aquillion that the Reason piece is an opinion piece, just based on the content and common sense, even though it doesn't say "OPINION" or whatever on the page. I also agree that WaPo only mentions this briefly. However, the mention from WaPo links various critiques that all agree with each other that the NYT piece is inaccurate and misleading about Alexander's political positions. The fact that WaPo sees this perspective as worthy of mention, and recommends reading pieces that express this perspective, lends credence to the idea that this perspective is DUE. In other words, per WP:DUE, it is easy to name prominent adherents such as Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias, Scott Aaronson, Kenneth R. Pike, Steven Pinker, Fredrik deBoer, and Scott Alexander himself. All of this, I think, should settle that the perspective itself has DUE weight. And so, given that the perspective has been most elaborated by Reason, and Reason is generally regarded as RS but with a warning to make sure it's DUE, I feel like there's no good reason not to include this perspective sourced to WaPo and Reason. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is long, but so is the detail of the discussion.

These two were the survivors of a farrago of blogs, tweets and unreliable sources that were posted in an attempt to impeach the NYT article - see the list at Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_Times_article. The editors in question appear to be of the opinion that a large pile of bad sources make a good source.

The WaPo article is a passing mention; SSC fans are attempting to use it to leverage in the opinions of the three linked blogs. Here is the complete text of the passing mention:

The New York Times also ran a long feature by Cade Metz about a blog called Slate Star Codex that was popular with some Silicon Valley types and has since moved to Substack. There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.

There is no meaningful RS opinion to abstract from this. As Grayfell pointed out, "that it "has issues and has been critiqued" is comically, absurdly loaded. Every article of interest has issues, and this one has been critiqued... on blogs and twitter. Gossip isn't encyclopedically significant on its own."

The Reason article is a media opinion piece. Reason is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable for news and facts." But even if this is treated as a "news and facts" article, rather than an opinion article, this particular article is sufficiently bad that it's difficult to argue that it's WP:DUE, as the RSP entry cautions for Reason's opinions - as its facts are trivially false.

Reason asserts that Nick Land is primarily known for writing about artificial intelligence. Here's the quote:

he best he can do is point out that SSC linked to the blog of Nick Land, a British philosopher "whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists." But before his neo-reactionary turn, Land was primarily known for writing about A.I., so this is rather thin evidence. If this was the only weird slip up in the article, it might have been forgiven.

The problem is that this is false. Per the article on him, Nick Land was a noted postmodern philosopher in the 1990s, but in this century is best known for naming and lending academic heft to the Dark Enlightenment, an outgrowth of neoreaction, has repeatedly advocated white nationalism, and literally invented something he called "hyper-racism" because the ordinary sort wasn't sufficient for him. Land's words on AI are mostly making fun of Eliezer Yudkowsky over Roko's basilisk. The NYT article is a reasonably accurate quick summary.

Reason's source on Land is a passing comment in a blog post by Scott Aaronson, a physicist, on the NYT article in question. Aaronson is not any sort of expert with regard to Land, and appears not to know much about him himself - the Reason writer seems to have picked this blog post because he broadly agreed with its opinions, but is now using it as a source for facts. This shows both sloppiness at facts and an inadequacy at sourcing facts on the Reason writer's part.

The Reason article claims that the NYT article is wrong about Land, but the Reason article is the one that is obviously, trivially, wrong about Land, and the NYT summary is both factually correct and a reasonable summary.

The NYT article suggests Scott Alexander is a fan of Charles Murray, and agrees with Murray on the (pseudoscientific) link between race and IQ. This is true, but Reason disagrees with the Alexander article that the NYT links:

This juxtaposition leaves readers with the impression that Siskind agrees with Murray on this point, but in fact, Siskind was merely agreeing with Murray that there ought to be some sort of universal basic income guarantee. It's extremely misleading to suggest that Siskind is aligned with Murray on the subject of race and IQ.

But, in the blog post the NYT article links, Siskind himself says:

The only public figure I can think of in the southeast quadrant with me is Charles Murray. Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and he in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture

So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever. And Siskind is himself a supporter of "human biodiversity", the current term for scientific racism.

The rest of the Reason article makes no strong factual claims - its weight rests on these two factual claims. Reason gets the factual claims completely and trivially wrong, and don't justify the author's opinion based on them. The only substance remaining of the Reason article is that the author doesn't like the NYT article.

This article is a good worked example of why Reason opinion pieces aren't considered RSes, and are unlikely to be of due weight. I appreciate that the SSC fans like it because they agree with it, but its facts are trivially wrong, and it's basing its opinion on the facts it got trivially wrong. Even if most Reason opinion articles were RSes of due weight, this example clearly is not. I submit that the factual sloppiness is pretty good reason not to consider this a significant opinion of due weight for an encyclopedia article - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, RSP says that Reason opinions should simply be attributed, not that they can't be included. So where is this claim that Reason opinion pieces aren't RS coming from? The above comments from David Gerard are largely copied and pasted from the SSC talk page, where I responded to them. So I will repeat here what I've already explained in detail on the talk page for SSC: the Reason and NYT pieces do not contradict each other at all, and David Gerard's personal opinion that the Reason piece is inaccurate is entirely irrelevant to the question we're dealing with here. See talk for further details. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be reasoning here in terms of "do I have an excuse" rather than "should I" - the second is what I'm addressing above. Saying you have an excuse is probably insufficient at RSN. If you can't address the clear issues with the Reason article, that's fine, you can say that, but it would be better to address them - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what this comment means. I have responded to your claim that RS factually conflict with the Reason piece. If you have further RS (you know, not just your opinion) that conflict with the Reason piece, then please provide those sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what this comment means It means that there isn't a robotic yes/no answer dispenser on sources - you have to actually consider them. Grayfell explained this to you at the article talk page as well: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, for a start. If there's good reason to doubt a particular source, that's a matter to go through. So yes, you have to answer the question if you're going to claim to understand how a Wikipedia source dispute works, and you've been on Wikipedia long enough that this is a reasonable expectation - David Gerard (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

When did I say anything was robotic? Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. If you think something in the Reason piece is false, the way to show that is to provide a reliable source which conflicts with what it says. There is nothing robotic about doing such a thing, but you have certainly not done so. Please let us know if you have a relevant source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I can back you up on the Land misreading. The only non-reactionary things Land is known are his unique brand of right-wing free-market accelerationism and his drug-fuelled essays on technology and futurism, among which there may be something about AI. Adding Nick Land on my to-do list, it needs to be improved. Shinealittlelight, Aapjes this source definitely has some WP:REDFLAGs.--JBchrch (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

He's still known for his '90s stuff - I know people who knew him then, and lament his horrible far-right turn - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, can you provide a source for your view that Reason has erred on Land? WP editors' opinions on this don't really matter, right? We need reliable sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would love to, but unfortunately the body of academic research analysing recent Reason articles from a critical perspective is pretty thin. Banter aside, please note that it is acceptable to discredit a specific source on the basis of editors' consensus, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:REDFLAG.--JBchrch (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus on this among the editors. If we go that route we'll also have to consider inaccuracies and disputed claims in the NYT article. I worry that debates between editors on a contentious topic like this will not get us closer to consensus. Eliokim (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG, also called WP:EXCEPTIONAL is a policy concerning exceptional claims. The proposed content is that the NYT piece has been criticized for inaccuracy. This is not an exceptional claim, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply. As for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this is not a blank check to rely on your political opinions to claim that some commentary is inappropriate. Rather, it's a policy that backs up arguments like "this falls outside their area of expertise" or "in this case they have a conflict of interest" or whatever. But that sort of thing isn't happening here. Rather, they are providing commentary that is DUE per WaPo and the prominent people who have expressed similar commentary, and they are moreover commenting on political issues that are squarely within their wheelhouse. You guys just disagree with them. But that's not a reason to exclude their opinion. Unless of course you can provide some RS--not just your opinion--against some factual claim they've made. But nobody has done that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not read any of Nick Land's work, but the Cybernetic_Culture_Research_Unit page suggests that Nick Land was involved in studying cybernetics from a cultural theory perspective. Cybernetics seems to be more or less a superset of AI, but the term cybernetics is not very well known (and the term AI is often abused for software that doesn't involve any real intelligence). It seems pretty common for journalists to replace lesser known terms with related, more known terms, even if those aren't entirely accurate. I'm not sure that this is a significant WP:REDFLAG, at least in the context of what 'respectable' journalists or their employers tend to consider acceptable reporting. Aapjes (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Cybernetics seems to be more or less a superset of AI. Disagree.--JBchrch (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the NYTimes seems to not see them as distinct, see this NYT article which uses the term cybernetic poet for what clearly would be called AI today, having a computer create poems that are similar to human poems. The entire story is published under 'Artificial intelligence' (see the top bar.) Aapjes (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard, this is not a forum. You are merely giving us your subjective analysis and interpretation of Siskind's words, when you write that: So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever. The guidelines for WP:PRIMARY instructs editors as follows: do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

You have already made your allegation that Siskind is a supporter of "human biodiversity" and thereby a believer in "scientific racism" on Talk:Slate Star Codex, where the evidence you offered was an archive of a retracted tweet by the husband of Siskind's ex. This is in no way a WP:RS.

Keep in mind that Siskind is not here to respond to interpretations of his words, or to allegations that he is racist. I believe that such allegations should not be made here unless you have reliable primary or secondary sources, which you didn't provide. Aapjes (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

100% of your edits, across all namespaces, since about August 2020, have been advocacy for Scott Alexander and SSC. You're now throwing around jargon in ways that literally don't make sense in the context of WP:RSN. More broadly, this is a pattern: you've seemed to treat Wikipedia rules as a programmable machine that you just have to figure out the hack for. I strongly urge you to reconsider, as this attitude is not the way to a long and productive Wikipedia career - David Gerard (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the third time that you have implicitly threatened me with a ban. Your accusations are rather silly. An editor is not obligated to be very active across a broad range of topics at the same time and your subjective claim that I'm engaging in advocacy is false. My aim was merely to fix the Controversy section of the page to create a narrative that is not deceptive or missing important events. Aapjes (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Aquillion raises a very good point. The article barely even mentions the NYT story, so any response to it would be undue. Citing responses like this would be both disproportionate, and needlessly confusing to readers. We would need to find reliable, independent sources to explain why the story was more than just a blogstorm. It IS just a blogstorm, but it might be a significant one. Once context is evaluated, we can consider borderline sources like Reason (although I'm still very dubious). Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've been keeping an eye out for actual RS discussion of the NYT article, and was disappointed the WaPo piece was just a passing mention - David Gerard (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WaPo gives a passing mention, so we should too. That's exactly my point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Why bother? How will that benefit readers? Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't need to include a passing mention just because it exists, nor is it obvious how we would do this. Grayfell (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Trying to get Reason labeled as not reliable is never going to fly. The overwhelming consensus is that it is reliable on factual claims, pretty much 100% opinion (opinions that sometimes contain factual claims, which are usually accurate), highly biased, and should always be attributed. Reason freely admits to being biased: "Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law."[232] Reason also has an excellent reputation for getting the facts straight and for printing retractions when they get them wrong.

That being said, just because something is reliable doesn't mean that it should be included. I am 100% with Aquillion on that. I am also a bit concerned about certain comments above being about other editors and not about article content, and about certain other comments relying on WP:OR and not on accurately reporting what is in reliable sources without undue weight. More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why I'm approaching this particular piece as a bad source for facts (its factual claims are bad and sloppy) and so a particular piece that I think is not up to standard to use - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Since when do editors get to argue that factual claims in sources that are deemed to be WP:RS are incorrect? Aapjes (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

David's behaviour on this matter is already the subject of a discussion at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#David Gerard and Scott Siskind. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that we can use these sources as long as we make proper attribution, and making it clear that the WP wrote about unspecified issues. Btw I found another article criticising the NYT piece and Scott Alexander at the same time: [233] by UnHerd. Alaexis_¿question? 10:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unherd is a group opinion blog, I thought, not a WP:NEWSORG - though the general question of Unherd as an RS hasn't come up on RSN - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Unherd claims to have a staff, but they do seem to traffic in opinions more than anything else; I have seen them suggested as links very occasionally, but never for points of fact or non-opinion reporting. I'm doubtful that anything published there would be due the weight unless discussed by high-profile, high-quality secondary sources first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Reason source is acceptable for attributed criticism of this NYT article. As noted above, this isn't an OpEd with limited/no editorial oversight. It is analysis. I'm not sure why we would consider analysis from Reason to be "opinion" but analysis from say NYT to be factual. That this NYT article was criticized by a source like Reason is notable and if we are to use the NYT article for aspects that Reason said were wrong then we should note that. Basically when RS A says another RS B made a mistake that means we should treat that particular article as questioned. It doesn't mean we say it's wrong but we don't treat it as rock solid either. Remember that RSP rankings are generalized and do not apply to every article. Each article can be questioned individually. Some editors are quick to dismiss Reason as "biased" or "just opinions" but that isn't true. Reason is analysis with editorial oversight, not a collection of personal opinion articles. As for bias, they are right leaning overall but Adfonts shows they are on the same level as sources we rarely question like the Washington Post. If "bias" is a problem then the WashPo needs to be treated the same way. Of course, that isn't how policy says we handle bias. Springee (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Re: "As for bias, they are right leaning overall", that isn't true. They are libertarian leaning. People who lean left see Reason advocating free markets, capitalism, gun rights, and reduced power of government agencies and falsely conclude that they are right leaning. People who lean right see Reason advocating open borders, legalization of prostitution and drugs, gay marriage, no mandated prayers in schools, and reduced power of police and falsely conclude that they are left leaning. They are neither. They are strongly libertarian. See Nolan Chart and The Political Compass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Late to the show, lot of material here, but my take is that Reason and National Review should never be used to ref statements of fact, period. It's not a left-right thing, the same applies to The Nation and People's World. They're not there to report facts. That's not their business model! That's the business model of Reuters and France 24 and the Time. Different thing altogether. It is true that many facts in Reason or The Nation are correct. Some aren't, but most are. Just making everything up doesn't fit their business model either. However, the well is entirely poisoned by who and what they are. Are they going to cherry-pick facts? Are they going to spin facts? Are they going to elide exculpatory data that doesn't fit their narrative? Is their fact-checking going to -- either by conscious decision, or unconscious bias -- going to err on the side of favor of material that support their ideology? Of course. That is what they are there to do. It's just not possible for us to dip into these poisoned wells without transferring some of the poison into our work.

D'ya think that the editors and writers of Reason or National Review (or the People's Daily) sit down and say "Well, I'm going to report on the news here, without fear or favor. Whatever personal ideologies I may or may not have are not involved here. If my investigation and reporting of this story places happens to show up my personal ideology as toxic or laughable, well, it is what it it; that won't influence my reporting at all."

If you do think that, well... if you're going to use the People's Daily or Reason to support assertions of fact, then... we can't even agree to disagree since we don't agree on basic facts. But if you don't think that, well why are using them. Don't. If you have a statement of fact that is only supported by (say) The Nation, you have to ask yourself "If this fact is so trivial that no non-polemical source has bothered to report it, why I am even including it?" You shouldn't be. Ever, basically. I don't think I've ever used The Nation or the People's Daily or Reason or National Review to source a single statement of fact in any article ever, and I don't expect to. Ever. Be like me. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus, I think I basically agree with everything you've said here. However, the content I proposed is not reporting the criticism themselves as facts, but just noting that they exist: This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. Are you saying you think the WaPo and Reason pieces together are not RS for this very minimal content I'm proposing? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think thats what everyone is saying... Note that you leaving “opinion” out of “opinion pieces” makes your statement rather misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have enough background to have an opinion on that. Certainly National Review and probably Reason have standing -- that is, circulation, intellectual heft, and popularity with important people -- to have their opinions on issues of the day reported, if it's appropriate. I don't know if it is here. If it is, I'd prefer "This piece has been criticized by Reason..."; give the source so the reader can, according each to their own, roll their eyes or clap enthusiastically. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Those are both opinion pieces/personal analysis. Some of what Reason publishes is usable but don’t touch the "MEDIA CRITICISM” section without gloves, eye protection, and a ten foot pole. That right there is toxic waste. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm

• On what grounds are people suggesting Reason is not a usable source? If the argument is the bulk of their work is analysis rather than pure factual reporting that's fine. However, if that is the standard then why would we accept the analysis of facts from say the Wash Po or HuffPo but not Reason? For example, if a HuffPo article comes out and says "Here is how the GOP uses dog whistle politics" and then cites external research, that is basically pure factual reporting (ie Group X really did say the these are examples of GOP dog whistles). However, if the HuffPo instead finds their own list of examples and uses their own assessment to say "Senator X was using a dog whistle here", that is analysis. So why would we accept HuffPo (or WashPo or NYT) analysis as factual or DUE while not accepting the same from a well established source like Reason? Springee (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Two reasons: First, Reason doesn't draw a clear line between fact and opinion, and second, it openly exists for the purpose of advocacy. Neither of those make it unusable (people aren't saying it can't be used at all - it clearly passes WP:RSOPINION), but, like any other stridently WP:BIASED source, it always requires attribution when talking about stuff that falls inside its bias, which is almost all it talks about and generally the only thing people want to cite it for. And even when used in that way, it has to be considered in terms of weight - "cheerleaders for Team Green disagree with Team Orange" is obviously not going to be automatically notable; if we listed every time Reason disagreed with mainstream coverage we'd have to cover their response to almost every controversial topic, which would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. None of this is true for HuffPo or WashPo or the NYT - no source is completely neutral, but they don't primarily exist to support a particular position the way Reason exists to fire endless culture-war fusillades in the service of right-libertarianism and free markets. And, more importantly, those sources generally maintain a more clear divide between opinion and news, whereas everything published by Reason is essentially part of a direct, continuous ideological argument and makes no attempt to be anything else. If the article requires the right-libertarian / American-libertarian perspective, then Reason is an excellent source for it, but "Reason wrote a piece on this" is never sufficient reason for inclusion in and of itself. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I opened this discussion not taking it for granted that everyone would agree that Reason is WP:RSOPINION. Even though RSP basically says that, and even though it's basically obvious in my view, I think that some parties to this dispute have denied it. So that was one thing I wanted to establish in this context; I'm glad you and I agree that it's clearly WP:RSOPINION. It seems to me that your view is that the Reason piece in this case isn't DUE, right? This is why I thought the WaPo mention of criticism, and their highlighting of several notable people who have criticized NYT's piece for inaccuracy (etc), would help to establish that the point I wanted to make was DUE. So if Reason is RSOPINION, and you think it still isn't DUE even though it expresses a perspective that WaPo found worthy of (admittedly passing) mention, I guess at that point I wonder if you think the whole section of the article about this fued between Alexander and NYT is itself UNDUE. I could be convinced of that. But what seems implausible to me is to claim "sure, this topic deserves a section-long discussion, and we should mention the NYT article attacking Alexander, but not mention that the NYT article has been criticized." That seems like a implausible combination of views to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained my position in detail above; first, we would obviously have to use in-line attribution if we cited an opinion from Reason, and second, it makes no sense to bring up Reason's opinion on what the NYT piece says when we don't say anything about what the NYT piece says aside from noting its existence and the fact that it used Alexander's name. If we had a paragraph going into depth on each point the NYT piece makes, then it might make sense to include notable responses to those points, but it makes no sense to include the responses and not the claims being responded to - while Reason is WP:RSOPINION, the NYT is obviously due more weight than Reason here, both in terms of being a higher-profile source and in terms of this particular piece having far more coverage than a single reply to it. And I don't think we should go into the level of depth on the NYT piece that would render that reply WP:DUE, since the article is on Slate Star Codex, not on the NYT piece, while the section (and the vast majority of its sources) are focused on the use of Alexander's name. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• So ... if I understand what’s going on here, the basic reason people want to cite the WaPo and Reason articles is that they critique the NYT article. But perhaps we need to take a step back... and ask how much WEIGHT we should be giving the NYT article? If we don’t give NYT much weight in the first place, we may not NEED the WaPo and Reason critiques. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's a good point — tempest, teapot, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: There is currently a whole sub-section in the article on the dispute between Alexander and NYT. I think the position you're considering here would quickly lead to the conclusion that the whole topic is UNDUE. Not sure if that's plausible, given that it has received a decent amount of attention, and in my opinion anyone who is interested in the (now defunct) blog will be interested to know how it came to an end: it was ended by the NYT and their attempt to dox Alexander. That means we have to mention their eventual article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • But that subsection does not include any of the purportedly inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. If you want to include criticism of what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions, we cannot do so without saying what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Whew! Made it to the bottom of the thread! And I think Aquillion's comment up at the top is generally right. Saying that the New York Times piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions is making a claim of fact, with only the tiniest of qualifications separating the assertion that the Times was inaccurate and misleading from being made in straight-up Wiki Voice. Both the Reason and WaPo sources are opinion pieces, and the WaPo item gives this topic barely a passing mention, fobbing off the work of criticism. There have been days when I, too, found the Times doing a frustratingly shallow job, but the cure for shallowness isn't piling on more of it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• OK FWIW right here is article (Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media; How a controversial rationalist blogger became a mascot and martyr in a struggle against the New York Times.) July 2020 in the New Yorker about the who thing. (It is paywalled tho.) Three things about the New Yorker:

• It certainly has standing to be used. It's mass-circulation, has intellectual heft, and is influential. FWIW it pins Reason to mat on that level.
• It is, probably, the most rigorously fact-checked publican in America (outside some peer-reviewed journals.) I'll spare the details, but I have them. If the New Yorker makes a statement of fact, you can take it to the bank as much as you can take anything to the bank. (Unless things have changed in the last decade or two, which I doubt.)
• On the other hand, they're certainly biased. Their bias is a little bit different that you're going to find for Reason, it's more bubble-world thing than a direct polemic agenda. ("I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon" said the New Yorker film critic once, and that holds true still.) But they do try to be thorough and proper; but still, bias, whether unconscious or not.
• But it's a bourgeois liberal bias, so that kind of balances Reason I guess.

A statement of fact that is supported by the New Yorker is going to be true to the highest level of credibility. That's facts. It doesn't mean they don't cherry-pick and spin, I'm sure they do. So you want to drink from that well vey very judiciously.

Ideally, if you can find a statement of fact that is supported by both the New Yorker and Reason, you've hit the sweet spot because you greatly reduce any charges of bias. I'd much prefer that only facts that meet that criteria be used here. Thus the reader can be more trusting. (But if they actively disagree on a statement of fact, my money's like 30-1 on the New Yorker.)

So allow me an example: Early on, the New Yorker says

“ Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that his real name, which can be ascertained with minimal investigation, be left out of the paper of record. ”

It is true that his real name could be ascertained with minimal investigation. Believe me, that was thoroughly checked by an independent person who is well-paid and has a journalism career path, not an intern or drone. If she got it wrong, she'll be dressed down, warned, and probably fired if she messes up like that again, I guess. (If it comes to attention of an editor.)

But that doesn't mean they don't cherry-pick which facts they present. They could just have easily dispensed with what could reasonably be characterized as snark and just said

“ Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that his real name be left out of the paper of record. ”

That would also be true. So if the New Yorker has poisoned the well here, and if we pick up their cherry-picked fact, are we not drinking the poison. (And IMO, sure his real name could be ascertained with minimal investigation, but so what? If say 100 people knew it before the New York Times printed it, 100,000 would know it after, and some of them would be patients and colleagues etc. and that would matter. So... true fact yes, but be very careful.

(To be fair to the New Yorker, it does immediately point this out right below. They are thorough and try to be kinda-sorta disinterested. Their business model is selling magazines to high-minded toffs who like to believe they see and think above mere partisan polemics, after all. They're a whole lot better than Reason. What I'm saying is I can see a tendency for editors to, on purpose, or due to unconscious bias, or by simple mistake, to pick up on the one fact only. I just... can we use Time magazine, or the Los Angeles Times or the BBC or Associated Press?) Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• If we're going to explore criticism of the NYT piece, we obviously can't avoid exploring what the NYT piece actually says. Simply declaring that This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions is begging the question - what are those purportedly-inaccurate statements? But it appears that there's consensus that it would be UNDUE to explore statements about Alexander's political positions in an article about his blog. If that's the case, then it's also UNDUE to explore criticisms of those statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Vague statements in the "somebody was unhappy somewhere about something in it" genre aren't informative. XOR'easter (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable The arguments against including the Reason piece come down to "I don't like what it says, so we can not include it, even though Reason is generally reliable." The Reason article is generally correct in the fact that The New York Times did do some sloppy journalism and quoting of Scott Alexander out of context to make him look as bad as possible; just because it has some minor errors doesn't derive from the Reason's article main thrust. SkylabField (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Military Today

I first came across this website at Blowpipe (missile), where it is used as one of the principal sources. This uses this article written by the anonymous writer "blacktail". This seems to be raising a lot of red flags; anonymous author, unverifiable expertise. On the face of it, precisely the type of source we shouldn't be using.

Bringing it here for further discussion. WCM_email 01:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable Military-today.com is self-published by enthusiast Andrius Genys, who also self-publishes books.[234] The rest of the editorial team are: two anonymous contributors, one journalist, and Miguel Miranda, who runs 21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com, another military hobbyist website.[235] The authors are the five editors plus whoever wants to send in an article. Articles don't disclose their sources. Editorial oversight? "Articles that are poorly written, too short, with gramatical mistakes, biased ..., with inaccurate information or inaccurate specifications with [sic] be rejected."[236] If the articles are based on reputable sources that the site's editors can check for accuracy, then Wikipedia should find and cite those sources, not this website.

High-quality reliable sources rarely cite the website. I find only 4 citations from such sources in its 14 years of operations. Low use by others indicates that Genys is not generally considered a subject matter expert with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable - self published fansite. There are plenty of actual reliable sources (like various iterations of Jane's books) that can be used to source articles like Blowpipe (missile). There is no real justification for using self published internet sites as sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The bias of Blender magazine does not reflect legitimate criticism

The magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" list commonly cited here does not explain why the songs are bad, it just complains about them. The part of it about "We Built This City" is just the writer bashing "evil corporate rock", and the rule for the list that only allowed songs that were popular hits practically reflects the magazine's bias towards indie music and hatred of pop music. And judging by interviews, the writer of the list, Craig Marks, does not know the meaning of the song (he doesn't know who Guglielmo Marconi is) and takes misheard lyrics too seriously, something the average music critic wouldn't do.

Bringing here for discussion and potential removal of Blender from the reliable source list. I'd like users to check Blender archives for potential complaining, and sort out which reviews contain complaining and which reviews contain legitimate criticism. --2601:199:4181:E00:79CF:C6:51DE:1DB3 (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Being that what is being cited is an opinion, then Blender would indeed be a reliable source for their own opinion (or for reporting the opinion of the writer.) Reliability is not in question there. (And becomes even less of a factor when their opinion is correct, as in this case, as "We Built This City" is a weak and annoying piece from a once worthwhile band.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

JP Sears and McGill University's Office for Science and Society

Hi, this section JP_Sears#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories is entirely from this source . Is this even an RS for this BLP, or is it a blog post by a university employee? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of a rather heated discussion on the reliability of The Georgetown University Bridge Initiative to support a contentious claim to a BLP. I'm gonna say it's the same deal here where a few academics decided to create a group blog/research project. This is not one of McGill's academic journals and there does not appear to be any editorial oversight so it does seem that it qualifies as a WP:SPS. Considering the author is an expert, this source would probably be fine in other articles--but certainly not in a BLP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Office provides its staff and approach here. These appear to all be experts in their field. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• RationalWiki is often useful in these cases, not as a source but (like Wikipedia) a good place to look for sources. They make a good case[237] for him being a Covid-19 conspiracy theorist but if you look closely they do it using primary sources. Here on Wikipedia just pointing to him acting like a conspiracy theorist as opposed to a comedian doing a parody doesn't cut it. We would need reliable secondary sources that call him that and I am not seeing them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• See Talk:JP Sears#2021 report from Vice Also see [238][239][240], Interesting articles, but do they support the label in the lead? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely reliable, and not the only one handling this topic, despite the poster's framing (recent Vice report). The source the poster is repeatedly disparaging (for example, referring to it as "laughable") is a piece by McGill University's Office for Science and Society, and the author is a scholar, Jonathan Jarry. The Office for Science and Society is transparent about its staff and methods. This is an outreach effort by academics at McGill University consisting of experts in their field. McGill's piece is also cited by the Vice report above. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it is reliable, but I disagree that we should include such a statement in a BLP without multiple reliable sources to support it. See WP:UNDUE. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Vice article is a second reliable source. They do mention the McGill piece, but also report on Sears themselves. --GRuban (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tyndale House

Is Tyndale House a reliable source? When searching past discussion regarding Tyndale when searching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, all I found was: "Tyndale House (publisher) is an unrelated conservative US religious publisher, one of good reputation, but not remotely in the same academic league [as Tyndale House (Cambridge)]". Is a good reputation enough? Wanted to check with y'all. Their website is: https://www.tyndale.com

Thanks for the help everyone 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please let us know what publication you are talking about? They may be reliable for conservative US religious topics, but probably not for other topics. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes here is a link to the book they published that I was hoping to refer to for the cusper wikipedia page: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sticking_Points/PDTUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sticking+points:+how+to+get+5+generations&printsec=frontcover I checked out their website and wikipedia page, and while it looks like they started out with Bibles & Christian literature, their website shows that they publish a variety of material: fiction & non-fiction. Under non-fiction, it looks like they have published books with a variety of topics: parenting, dating, business, career, finance, counseling, education, fitness, politics, etc. 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on their website, they also publish children's books and romance novels. Their self-description informs us that: "Today, we’re one of the largest independently owned Christian publishers in the world. But our mission is the same: to open God’s Word to as many as possible in language they can relate to and understand." They are not exactly a reputable academic publisher, but I don't see reasons to summary dismiss their publications. Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Depends on the topic I would not cite this source on the Armenian Genocide article, for example. Academic sources are usually available for theology and are preferable to this source, but it's probably a reliable source on conservative Christianity and the cusper article isn't anything that would require a higher standard of sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfinished draft of the author's dictionary by Źmicier Saŭka

Dear colleagues, I'd like to ask you about reliability of the following source: www.slounik.org/rbSauka. That's an unfinished draft of the author's dictionary by Źmicier Saŭka (be-tarask:Зьміцер Саўка) placed on the online platform of Belarusian dictionaries Slounik.org. Unfortunately this Belarusian linguist passed away in 2016, so the dictionary was never finished (and properly published) by its creator including any kind of reviewing with checking obvious errors. There is also no information about creation time and author's original intentions to finish and to publish this draft as a dictionary. Anyway, a local administrator User:Ymblanter seriously believes [241] that this dictionary is a reliable source in the question whether the Belarusian word "Maskal" (related to Moskal) is a slur or not in Belarusian language. The dictionary draft says [242] that the word Russian can be translated to Belarusian as маскаль if it is Wiktionary:en:ругательство. There are no more Belarusian dictionaries with such statements. Therefore, I ask you to express your opinion about this source. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the article Moskal this word is a slur both in Ukrainian and Belarusian, and there is a source for it there. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Trends in journals

this edit introduced a reference to Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism at Long COVID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think I should revert because the name sounds too much like Frontiers in … not to ring alarm bells. This isn't MEDRS right? GPinkerton (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a complete nonsense argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, that's why I'm asking and have not taken any action. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The paper in question is Sex and COVID-19: A Protective Role for Reproductive Steroids. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism is a Cell Press publication, so it's probably reliable. As for whether its relevant or due is a different question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Investopedia

[243] Could we revisit the reliability of Investopedia? They appear to have editorial oversight. Reading the previous discussions, I don't see much reason for doubt. Benjamin (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

MercoPress

What do you think about the reliability of MercoPress? [244] Firestar464 (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's cited a decent amount on Google Scholar[245] (t · c) buidhe 12:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)