Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is a defence and strategic policy think tank established by the Australian Department of Defence. Reports from ASPI are increasingly being used as sources on WP both with and without in-text attribution.

Which of the following best describe the work of ASPI:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting;
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply;
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting; or
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Vladimir.copic: The ordinary 4-option RfC for source reliability would allow for WP:BIASED sources to also be WP:GREL, which is in line with the reliable sources guideline. The current format doesn't really allow for that, since "neutrality disputed" would be mutually exclusive with "generally reliable". I'd recommend changing option 2 into the standard Unclear or additional considerations apply or the alternative marginally reliable or additional considerations apply. Otherwise, this is a Bad RfC.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (Seeing as the format for the RfC has been updated, I am striking this comment so as to not confuse people who decide to participate in the RfC below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC))

  Thanks Mikehawk10. I originally had this format but I thought option 4 was unnecessary for this source and might make me look biased. Fixed it up now. Vladimir.copic (talk)

• Option 2. Certainly they seem to have expertise in their field, but some serious concerns have been raised regarding their objectivity and I can't find any indication that what they published is substantially fact checked or peer reviewed. So, might be usable in some cases, but with case by case evaluation, and almost certainly with attribution (if at all) if other reliable sources don't corroborate what they're saying. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 As an ex-ADF member with an abiding interest in defence matters, I read ASPI papers and listen to their podcasts, but almost all of what they put out is opinion, although there are often some solid facts included in what they say. Founded by government and supported by defence industry, they are proponents to government of particular policies in the defence and defence industry area, and a pseudo lobby group, and they rarely compare and contrast ideas that clash with their own. Their work needs to be in-text attributed in most cases when it might be appropriate to use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 They're frequently cited as authoritative by many clearly established WP:RS, so they at least pass the WP:USEBYOTHERS criterion. For example:
  • New York Times: [1] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Thursday challenged those claims with an investigation"),
  • New York Times: [2] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "according to new estimates by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which analyzed satellite imagery"),
  • New York Times: [3] (article heavily cites ASPI, "This approach reached an all-time high last year, according to a report published last week by researchers at the International Cyber Policy Center of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI.").
  • Guardian: [4] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The revelations are contained in an expansive data project by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which used satellite imagery and on-the-ground reporting to map...")
  • Guardian: [5] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...according to analysts from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).")
  • Guardian: [6] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...an Australian thinktank has found....according to the latest satellite imaging obtained by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute....In total ASPI identified")
  • Deutsche Welle: [7] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "In a new report, Uighurs for sale, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) identified at least 27 factories across China where detainees from camps in the western region of Xinjiang had been relocated since 2017.)
  • Deutsche Welle: [8] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report last week...)
  • Deutsche Welle: [9] (cites ASPI, "Fergus Hanson at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) thinks...")
  • The above list is by no means exhaustive, and was quickly and easily compiled by searching "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute" on the news outlet websites and looking at the first few links returned. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Looking at the above comments I think this source should only be used with in-text attribution or when the information is independently verified by another reliable source. There seem to be reasonable concerns around the independence of ASPI's work even though it is probably quite rigorous. Some of their work (like the unitracker) would be a stretch to describe as "factual reporting". Because ASPI's work is mainly on contentious topics, I think it is prudent to be explicit when using their work. The above argument of WP:USEBYOTHERS is compelling but the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source. Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([10] [11]). Sources explicitly attribute the work to ASPI and I think we should do the same. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Re: "the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source": that's to be expected, because my list was compiled by explicitly looking for those pointers in WP:RS media. It's impossible (or at least extremely impractical) to find instances where a source is used by a WP:RS without being attributed at all. Also it should be noted that newspapers and Wikipedia have different attribution practices: newspapers typically only do attribution in-text since they don't use footnotes and you can't hyperlink newsprint, so a newspaper doing an in-text attribution doesn't imply that Wikipedia should follow the same practice. However, I think the key point is that ASPI wasn't just cited as credible in a larger story, but in many cases its reports are credible enough for high-quality WP:RS to base the factual content of whole stories off of them directly. Re: "Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([10] [11]).": I can't read the first link due to paywall/adblocker nonsense, but the second article actually supports the independence of ASPI, showing that it is not subject to government interference and it frequently takes positions different from its government (e.g. Iraq war is a bad idea), etc. I put zero weight in the opinions of any politician on the reliability of any source (it's likely that for every well known WP:RS you can think of, you can dig up some politician strongly denouncing it). The stuff about funding coming from places like Western governments, NATO, etc. has been a perennial controversy for all kinds of sources, but in every case I'm aware it's actually been irrelevant. Where they get their funding doesn't matter to Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  I managed to read the first link you listed that I had trouble with earlier. It's an opinion piece and a rather tendentious one at that. As part of its argument it minimizes the re-education camps in Xinjiang. It said "There is no proof of the genocide of the Uighur people. There is proof of the detention of some for political purposes, and there is proof of the intimidation and repression of many others." I think the absolute lowest credible estimates of people detained in reeducation camps in Xinjiang is in the hundreds of thousands, and the main estimates here are all more than a million, which is definitely more than "some." That opinion piece seems to represent a view towards the fringes rather than a mainstream one. It's worth noting that the ASPI is one of the main bugbears for the Chinese government and Western fringe sources with an interest in denying or minimizing what's happening in Xinjiang. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 and attribute. A look at WP:USEBYOTHERS makes a convincing case that the Australian Strategic Policy institute is a highly-respected think tank that is relied on for facts by reliable sources. Academic sources that have cited it as a source for facts include numerous peer-reviewed papers across a variety of subjects, some of which are listed below in the collapsed section below (though this list is by no means exhaustive and probably could be expanded upon widely):

Some peer-reviewed academic sources using ASPI

Schreer, Benjamin; Lee, Sheryn (19 October 2012). "The Willing Ally? Australian Strategic Policy in a Contested Asia". RUSI Journal. 157: 78–84. Wallis, Joanne (3 February 2015). "The South Pacific: 'arc of instability' or 'arc of opportunity'?". Global Change, Peace & Security. 27 (1): 39–53. Carr, Andrew (15 October 2018). "It's about time: Strategy and temporal phenomena". Journal of Strategic Studies. 44 (3): 303–324. Lockyer, Adam (29 September 2015). "An Australian Defence Policy for a Multipolar Asia". Defence Studies. 15 (3): 273–289. Moore, Clive (13 August 2007). "Helpem Fren: The Solomon Islands, 2003–2007". Journal of Pacific History. 42 (2): 141–164. Riikonen, Ainikki (Winter 2019). "Decide, Disrupt, Destroy: Information Systems in Great Power Competition with China". Strategic Studies Quarterly. 13 (4): 122–145. Sergi, Anna (13 June 2016). "Countering the Australian 'ndrangheta: The criminalisation of mafia behaviour in Australia between national and comparative criminal law". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 50 (3): 321–340.

• More recently, there's been widespread use of ASPI's investigative reporting in news media, particularly with reference to Uyghurs and Xinjiang. When the ASPI report Uyghurs for Sale described Uyghurs being sold en masse, Los Angeles Times stated in its own voice that [i]t's the latest step in a campaign of forced assimilation into Han Chinese culture through mass detention, reeducation and labor that Beijing has implemented in Xinjiang since 2017 — one that now reaches global supply chains and U.S. consumers. China Digital Times stated that the report documented likely forced Uyghur labor in factories providing exports for global brands. Maclean's called it a major investigative report. Reporting from Coda Story seems to use ASPI for a source of facts, and put in their own voice that [a] series of advertisements on Baidu — China’s answer to Google — suggest that this incentivized market for cheap Uyghur labor has thrived throughout the pandemic. One advert, from April, offered “Xinjiang Uyghur workers, all female, 18-35 years old, proficient in Chinese, obey arrangements. Coda Story has commented positively on ASPI's research elsewhere, as well. The Times backs up its statement that Some have been put to work for companies that human rights campaigners claim supply parts to global brands with this very ASPI report. In general, there seems to be a lot of positive use of ASPI by reputable sources with respect to Uyghur forced labor transfers.

  But it's not just the one report that's being widely cited; ASPI is viewed as a credible organization that researches Chinese disinformation networks, and Xinjiang more broadly, as well. The Wall Street Journal supports its statement that [t]he Chinese government’s activity on Twitter and Facebook over its policies toward ethnic minorities in Xinjiang reached an all-time high last year, as Beijing sought to portray its approach, including use of widespread internment camps and surveillance, as beneficial to the remote northwestern region with an ASPI report. The Times cites an ASPI report to assert, in its own voice, that China has 380 detention facilities built or under construction in the far west region of Xinjiang, contradicting claims by Beijing that all “students” in its “education and vocational training centres” had “graduated”. USA Today seems to use them to identify a lower bar on the number of newly built detention camps in Xinjiang since 2017. And, as SupChina notes, the New York Times draws extensively on ASPI reporting in its own multimedia news reports on the destruction of mosques in Xinjiang.

• Overall, ASPI seems to be a highly respected think tank, and one that's generally reliable for claims of fact that proceed from its investigative reporting. And, its analyses seems to be cited by peer-reviewed journals. Being a think tank, however, its analysis framework of defensive neorealism is going to lead towards some bias in its policy recommendations and its forecasts of things along the lines of various opportunity costs. But, it does not appear that this affects the reliability of its investigative reporting, as evidenced by extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS in that realm, and I do believe the think tank is generally reliable for accurately reporting facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Eltham and Burns' paper is worth quoting here as I think it nicely shows the reservations on independence of the think-tank that exist:

  Key think-tanks such as the Lowy Institute and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute are part of this academic-policymaker network and provide public contestability of policymaking. However, this network is defined, relatively insular, and possibly self-selective.

  And speaking of the institute's reaction to Australian government defence papers says: The Howard-created Australian Strategic Policy Institute has provided limited contestability, and has focused on budget and doctrine analysis. (My emphasis.)

  I hope I'm not too annoying here but I am a bit of a "read your sources" editor. Just because an academic source cites ASPI does not mean it is an endorsement of the think-tank's reputation or reliability. For example Wallis' paper mainly cites ASPI publications to explain the point-of-view of Australia or Australian government decisions. This is similar in the Moore paper and Schreer and Lee paper and, more importantly, Schreer has worked/written for ASPI so doesn't really count. As has Adam Lockyer (obviously must be a small pool of Australian academics in this field). Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here as we seem to be on the same page: use with attribution. Just think it's important to dig into and consider sources sometimes. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Isn't the fact that Australian academics publishing in reputable journals have previously worked or written for ASPI a point in its favour re reliability, not a point against it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2, they are reliable within their field of expertise (geopolitics, security, info-pacific happenings) but I would not consider them generally reliable. I categorically do not consider think tanks and the like to be generally reliable, even the best ones (of which this is one) need to be handled with additional considerations and extreme care should be used when using them outside of their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good Option 2, significant opinions, usable with attribution. Their stuff is well-researched, solid and informative - but tends to reflect the opinions of their funders, e.g. this piece on China's DC/EP central bank digital currency strongly reflects Facebook's marketing pitch for its Libra (as it was called then) digital currency, and whoops, there's "Funding statement: Funding for this report was partly provided by Facebook Inc."! So I take their stuff seriously, but with a grain of salt; they may best be mined for their sources in turn - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 Definitely a top-tier think tank. Their work on the Uighur genocide has been corroborated by the Associated Press and other sources. However, they seem to be largely agenda-driven and some of their research has been criticized by other government-affiliated institutions [12]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As usual with many think tanks, it's heavily partisan in some geopolitical arenas. And it's definitely not independent, so the usual WP:INTEXT attribution considerations apply. MarioGom (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: The frequency at which it has been cited and referenced means that for us to consider it unreliable would require exceptional evidence, evidence that I do not see presented here. However, reliable doesn't mean unbiased, and it seems to me that they have a relatively high degree of bias; this is something that I feel Vladimir.copic's Wallis' source speaks to. As such, while I believe the source is reliable, I believe it should be used with attribution. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 While they have produced some good content, and are generally at least factual (if not objective), they don't really do factual reporting. Rather, they are a think-tank and lobbying group with a very clear objective that can be gleaned pretty easily from their name and the kind of content they produce. I would recommend avoiding citing them directly for matters directly relating to the Australian government/military (and it's areas of interest i.e. China and the Pacific) and instead follow through to the sources they use for their reports. Additionally, if cited directly, they should always be used with in-text attribution. BSMRD (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  You said "they don't really do factual reporting," but I'd dispute that assessment. Pretty much every time I've come into contact with them has been through reports they've made based on detailed analysis of satellite photos, Chinese documents, etc. and that's pretty clearly original "factual reporting" (and is doubly clear when those reports are re-reported in-depth by prestigious traditional media outlets). Also it doesn't make much sense to avoid using them for their areas of expertise because of any affiliation they have. We've been through that before for many, many sources: what matters is they accurately report facts to a reasonable standard, not who funds them. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You're arguing below (in the Caixin section) that we should have some sort of blanket ban on Chinese sources because they're possibly subject to the Chinese government, but here, you're arguing that we should take factual claims (mostly about China) made by a group set up by the Australian government and funded by US weapons manufacturers, the US State Department and the Australian Ministry of Defence at face value. I can't square that circle. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• In-text attribution is required for ASPI. ASPI is a think tank created by the Australian government, and funded by the US State Department, the Australian Ministry of Defence, and US weapons manufacturers. In other words, it is very closely linked to the US and Australian military and foreign-policy establishments. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to include any claims sourced to ASPI, and such claims should always have in-text attribution, noting ASPI's connections to the US and Australian governments, if at all relevant (for example, these connections would be relevant when it comes to ASPI's claims about China, given political tensions between China and the US/Australia). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, reliable for facts. In-text attribution should be provided for analysis or opinions. Cavalryman (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC).

Option 2.

I am getting my information from here: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2021-09/ASPI-Funding-2020_2021.pdf?VersionId=tJxiJj2k0UALZCiXY18AOYodZMHFDKHv. 66% of funding comes from the Australian Government (37% from the Dept. of Defence, 25% from other gov agencies, 5% from state governments). 18% comes from other governments (15% from the US government, most of the rest from the U.K). 3% comes from the Defence Industry.

I believe that because of this, they are clearly influenced by the Australian government (and to its allies, to a lesser extent). They should be used with attribution whenever the Government of Australia has a stake in what they are talking about (similar to Xinhua on Perennial sources). However, almost everything they report on involves the Australian government in some way. Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Consensus reached? - This discussion has been open for a while now and has slowed down. I think it is safe to say we have reached consensus on the following: ASPI is a somewhat reliable source within its area of expertise but should only be used with in-text attribution. If no one raises any objections, I would be fine with the discussion being closed with this as the outcome. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

hi Vladimir.Copic given the controversies surrounding the source and what appears to be fairly heated discussions on the article’s talk page, I think that an administrator’s close is necessary here to ensure the validity and integrity of the closure result is ensured and protected. Estnot (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 - this source in my reading meets the two key criteria to be included as a generally reliable source as laid out in WP:GREL. The first is that “editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise.” Nearly all of the votes for option 2 appear to misread this criterion to mean the source must be reliable on all subject matters but nevertheless do not dispute that the source is reliable and usable on subject matters of its own expertise. They also appear to misunderstand the scope of what counts as reliable by limiting it to the production of facts (ie factual reporting) when as per wp:reputable it is much more expansive and extends to include the production of opinion. The second criterion is that the source needs to have a “reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction.” This is confirmed as other editors have pointed out by its widespread usage by other generally reliable sources and the absence of criticism by generally reliable sources of its work (and, arguably, by the abundance of criticism by generally unreliable sources of its work)

The majority of the criticism is directed at the think tank’s funding sources as a reason to downgrade the reliability of the source but there are a few problems I find with this argument:

a) there are many reliable sources on the perennially reliable sources list which are also funded by governments.

b) the fact that the think tank has government donors does not make it a “specific factor unique to the source in question” which is how most editors who object to the source characterize its funding and is a key criterion for a source to be included as a marginally reliable source (WP:MREL)

c) the choice of which funders to focus on is arbitrary and disproportionate

d) no hard evidence of donor influence has been given

e) due weight consideration requirement for generally reliable sources would still be in effect of which consideration of funding issues would naturally be part

Finally I think it would be useful to point out two non-funding related considerations against those who think ASPI qualifies as a marginally reliable source

a) there has been no discussion of which cases the source can be used, apart from a few passing remarks and in what seems to be a contravention of a key requirement for determining whether a source is marginally reliable.

b) arguing that the source requires in-text attribution is neither a substitute for the “case-by-case discussion requirement” of wp:mrel nor grounds for automatic disqualification from inclusion as a generally reliable source as some editors imply. Wp:partisan makes clear that a generally reliable source are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective and that is amply reflected in the great number of partisan sources which are considered as generally reliable on the wp:rsp listEstnot (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate: I think you may have substituted your own opinion for consensus in part of the close, for example the US State Department was mentioned by only one person so doesn’t really seem to belong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's not my own opinion, I didn't know what ASPI was or that it existed before it was brought to this board so I've no real insight into it. There is a general agreement among the participants, regardless of their !votes that it has a strong bias but most comments aren't very clear about what the bias is, so I picked it out of a comment which was uncontested during the discussion and explicitly specified it. Since, you seem to be saying that US State Department shouldn't be in there, I've removed it now. I thought this was a largely uncontroversial discussion since most editors are more or less saying the same thing with minor differences in what they emphasise but apparently not? If anyone wants to contest the close itself, they can open a discussion at WP:AN and ask for a review of the closure per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: I have issues with your close message. You determined that it is "reliable in its area of expertise (defence and strategic issues)," but that is language is far too narrow, because it could be read to exclude its work on Chinese actions in Xinjiang, which is probably the area where it is most reliable (given its original and highly-cited work in that area that is used by the highest-quality WP:RS). Its area of expertise should at least be expanded to include "Asia" or "China." - GretLomborg (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Perennial sources consideration for Caixin?

@WhinyTheYounger:

I'd like to start the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discussion for Caixin.

Which of the following best describe the work of Caixin:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting;
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply;
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting; or
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My view: Caixin based on hearsay seems to be generally reliable but limited by the fact the PRC government has authority over it. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1/2, it's mostly generally reliable, but for anything closely related to the Chinese government I would exercise caution. I assume btw you're referring to both language versions of their news sites, caixin.com and caixinglobal.com? My understanding is that Caixin is broadly independent and free from government co-option; they have for instance criticized the government's censorship and published an investigation questioning the official COVID-19 death count in Wuhan. Western media sources also seem to view them favourably and describe them as reliable, e.g. the NYT described them as an influential and respected news organization, and the (Australian) ABC described them as the most influential financial news outlet in China and is widely regarded as one of the most outspoken and reputable in a tightly-controlled environment, and they have collaborated a lot with other reliable Western media sources (e.g. the BBC, WSJ, CNBC, etc.). I think caution should still be advised for things particularly close to the CPC – their criticism of the government's censorship came off the back of one of their own articles being censored, and as the as the NYT noted: while Caixin has always had more leeway than [state-controlled] organizations, it must still obey increasingly strict rules on what news organizations can publish. I would be particularly wary about WP:DUE concerns as it pertains to the CPC, as while they probably won't publish things that are factually inaccurate, censorship in the country may prevent them from fairly representing all sides of an issue. They would otherwise appear to me to be generally reliable. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: Additional Considerations Apply. Caixin is, unquestionably, one of the most reliable sources based within mainland China. However, it is based within mainland China. As a result, the company is state-affilited and subject to state censorship (though it has also at times publicly told official censors to more or less buzz off, which is exceptionally rare in China). Much like The Straits Times, which is Singapore’s paper of record, we need to be cautious when using Caixin's news reporting within the field of politics or for extraordinary claims. For mainland Chinese media, this would be especially so for coverage of Chinese domestic politics or topics that are politically sensitive in China. For ordinary reporting on the activity of businesses, I think it would be perfectly fine to use with attribution.
• The source has historically engaged in partnerships with a number of highly respected publications, although these partnerships have raised some eyebrows. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  Would they really need attribution for e.g. routine finance/business reporting? I don't think there's reason to generally worry about the factual accuracy of their news, and if it's not an issue they might be censored away from fairly covering both sides of, I wouldn't see a problem using them without attribution. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  If they're the only one providing a fact, I'd generally attribute. I don't see a need to attribute "X business was founded in Y year and launched P product in Q quarter of 2020" or those types of facts that are unlikely to be contested. It's more for the reporting of "X company may have misled consumers and committed fraud" that I'd prefer to see attributed. "Ordinary" was the wrong choice of a word. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Caixin is probably generally reliable for factual accuracy in the facts it does report and general news, but any publications subject to the jurisdiction of totalitarian regimes without free press guarantees should be approached with substantial caution on any matters those regimes may be sensitive about. Since they may in those instances be subject to both self-censorship and in some cases outright censorship, they should not generally be treated as independent or objective on those issues. In this case, any reporting in Caixin about subjects which may be of concern to the Chinese government should be approached with that in mind, and confirmation looked for by reliable sources not subject to Chinese jurisdiction. If Caixin is the only source reporting something it should generally be attributed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• High end of Option 2 - I find it very useful in practice as a financial paper, but with considerations and attribution above - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 For factual reporting, not opinion or perspective. It does seem a shame to reduce the credibility of an outlet without an exact article or documented trend of reporting in mind. However the Chinese government has made no secret of the restrictions it places on the media. If Caixin is the only place we could get the information I would be happy for us to use it. My problem is more with what they don't say, then what they do. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Unless editors can provide actual specific evidence of the Chinese government manipulating content produced by Caixin, that they are based in China is not inherently enough to downgrade them. They produce reliable, factually accurate content by all accounts. Obviously the normal considerations apply for opinion pieces and such. BSMRD (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  The government has deleted an article of theirs previously. It would be incorrect to say that they "manipulate" content that Caixin produces, but censorship of their work has occurred, though I do think some of the participants in this discussion have overstated the degree to which censorship does/will happen. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  An article being deleted after publication doesn't necessarily affect reliability. Articles are pulled off in many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, often following a Court order, and I never heard about that action being used to discredit the reliability of the affected media outlet. MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  That really depends on the reason of the pulling off. When a court order found that the material in question was defamatory, that rather weighs against the source. If an article is pulled because of govt/business interference against media criticising the institutions in question, it means it hasn't got complete editorial independence, which is also a reason to be more cautious*. It doesn't matter if there was an outcry after that.

  *what is meant here is not interference due to exposure of state secrets, which is not covered by the freedom of press, but rather pre-emptory censorship or govt interference in matters which are not normally sensitive/classified. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 Caixin is the gold standard for business news in China, something like FT. It's obviously constrained by the Chinese govt censorship, and that is something that has to be kept in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2: It is unfortunate, but on occasion when considering a sources reliability we need to consider the context that they operate in, and in the case of Caixin, that means we need to consider them in the context of the fact that they operate in China, and the environment in China is, to put it mildly extremely problematic. The primary consequence of this is that Caixin will have gaps in their reporting; and while this does cause issues in regards to due weight, I feel that these issues are too nebulous for us to consider and rule on.
• What we do need to consider is the chance that they have to alter the stories they do issue in such a manner to comply with Chinese censorship, though it is important to balance this with the fact that no outright inaccuracies have been identified.
• Considering all of this, I believe the our best option is to consider them compromised on topics broadly relating to China or Chinese interests; on these topics, if a less compromised source cannot be found, they should be used only with attribution. Further, if other reliable sources conflict with them on these topics, weight should be given to these other sources. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 with the only caveats being for obviously sensitive issues like the The Three Ts etc., which are unlikely to be covered in depth anyways. Particularly for matters of finance, Caixin is a gold standard. The concerns of censorship and Party influence, of course, are warranted, but those concerns are materially different than they would be for a fully state- or Party-operated outlet like Xinhua or People’s Daily—the primary worry here is of omission, it seems, rather than falsification. While serious, this presents much less of a problem in the context of an article where other sources can provide missing context. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 0 Invalid RFC - this should not be listed at all, because WP:RSP is for “sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.” Caixin is not frequently discussed or used, and since it is a Chinese language site behind a paywall it will not see use as a cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 0 Not appropriate for listing at RSP (as the reliability of this source is not a perennial issue). That said, I have no problem with continuing to discuss the source’s reliability/unreliability in a non-RSP focused way. (No opinion on that). Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 (updated) and Inappropriate RfC: RSP has gotten completely out of control, and we're being asked to override context-based reliability and essentially give entire publications thumbs up or thumbs down. I can understand using RSP to flag the most egregious of sources that make up stories out of whole cloth, but these threads long ago descended into discussions about whether editors like a particular source, typically based on the overall political tone of its reporting. That being said, if Caixin is going to be added to RSP (which would be inappropriate, in my opinion), I would say that it is one of the highest-quality newspapers covering China today. When it comes to Chinese topics, I would trust its reporting above that of the NY Times, for example. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Note: I've updated my !vote, because though this is a completely inappropriate RfC, editors are still !voting. Caixin is one of the best sources for domestic issues in China, and the fact that editors are arguing that it should be discounted for the sole fact that it is Chinese, without any evidence that it is unreliable, is very concerning. In the thread below, I've actually detailed a situation in which Caixin's accurate reporting on a domestic Chinese issue was subsequently misused and spun into an absurd conspiracy theory by other (largely well respected American) media outlets. This demonstrates the absurdity of discounting Caixin and relying solely on non-Chinese sources for coverage of China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like the consensus here is Option 2, which isn't giving this publication a thumbs up/down, and fits well with giving consideration to context. LondonIP (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's the default for any publication, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, etc. (all of which have inferior - both in terms of quantity and quality - reporting than Caixin when it comes to China). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Some editors may argue that additional considerations should apply to Caixin in the context of domestic issues subject to Censorship in China. For example, the issue of COVID-19 origins is heavily censored in Chinese domestic media, including Caixin, so some editors may say we can't use them in that context. According to some RS, the Chinese government is reportedly promoting a narrative of having contained the virus, claiming to have only a few or zero cases with a population of over a billion, while other RSs like The Economist say the real figures may exceed 1.5m. This is an example of how additional considerations may apply, so I think this is a good RfC. LondonIP (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  the Chinese government is reportedly promoting a narrative of having contained the virus: It is an indisputable fact that the virus has been almost completely contained in China since mid-2020. Anyone with any basic level of familiarity with / connections in the country is aware of this (the medical journal The Lancet has an article on this, if you're interested). Frankly, the fact that many people doubt this or are unaware of it in the US and Europe speaks to the very poor state of news coverage on China in those regions. The most accurate coverage in the US on this particular point probably comes from the business news, believe it or not, because they care about what the actual situation in China is, as it affects business operations. Bloomberg regularly promot[es] a narrative of [China] having contained the virus, because it's true and it affects how businesses operate in China (e.g. this article). Throughout the pandemic, Caixin has had some of the very best reporting on CoVID-19 in China. Caixin reported quite critically on the early response in Wuhan, and is the main reason that we know so much detail about how the first patients were identified in late December 2019. I have not seen reporting on the pandemic in China of comparable quality in any American or European news outlet.

  On the other hand, many American and European sources have at times humored various conspiracy theories about the pandemic in China. One example that is particularly relevant here is about the death toll in Wuhan. This story began with an accurate report by Caixin about people collecting urns of their deceased loved ones in Wuhan after the end of the lockdown. In a city of 11 million people, several tens of thousands of people die in any given two months, so after the strict 76-day lockdown ended, there was a backlog of funerals and burials. Caixin reported on this - in particular, people lining up to pick up urns. Radio Free Asia, which is run by the US government, picked up this Caixin story, combined it with speculation from social media, and claimed that tens of thousands of people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan. This was then picked up and uncritically repeated (with some hedging language) by various outlets around the world: [13][14][15][16]. Coincidentally, this happened right at the time when the US was surpassing China in its total case count, and when Trump was beginning to claim that China was hiding its true figures. Radio Free Asia has since gone on to make the even more outlandish claim that 150 thousand people died in Wuhan, which is essentially impossible, given what is known about the infection fatality rate of the virus. Again, this all began with accurate reporting by Caixin that was then spun into a conspiracy theory by other outlets. Since Radio Free Asia made its first claims (but before it made its even more outlandish claims of 150 thousand deaths), several scientific studies have estimated the death toll and number of infections in Wuhan. They come to the conclusion that about 4500 people died of the virus in Wuhan (slightly more than the official count, but 10x less than Radio Free Asia's first claim, and 50x less than RFA's subsequent claim), and that only a few percent of the population of the city was infected: NatureThe Lancet.

  The knee-jerk reaction that Chinese outlets must automatically be less reliable than their American or European counterparts is not necessarily correct, as this example shows. Downgrading Caixin merely because it is Chinese would be misguided. We would actually be losing one of the most reliable sources on events in China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  China’s reportly low COVID-19 cases and fatalities are not indisputable fact, as you put it. You have an article in the Lancet from a health journalist and I have several articles in The Economist and other RS, also from health journalists, and we can present both for WP:BALANCE. Frankly, the fact that you are want to present the CCP’s narrative of events as fact, demonstrates the need for this RfC. I agree that Caixin does good reporting, but my !vote will be to apply additional considerations on domestic issues that are subject to censorship. This is a very narrow restriction that sensible editors can apply on a case by case basis. LondonIP (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  On the one hand, there is a peer-reviewed study of excess pneumonia mortality published in The BMJ and peer-reviewed serological studies published in Nature and The Lancet. On the other hand, there is an article in a popular economics magazine. This is WP:FALSEBALANCE. China's mortality figure is fairly well understood now, and the fact that there has been virtually no community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 since the end of the first wave is - as I said - not something one can dispute. The fact that you're calling basic facts about the pandemic in China the "CCP's narrative" is incredibly concerning, because it suggests that politics is creeping into and distorting this subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1.5, but also Bad RFC, as others have mentioned there isn't reason behind this other than "why not?", but I don't see any problems with this source other than the usual considerations for media based out of mainland China. It might be better to consolidate the consensus of mainland Chinese media (and possibly other countries where state has heavy thumb on the scale) when not otherwise stated into a "don't use this to cite three T's/Xinjiang stuff, otherwise OK for domestic", so discussions can be focused on the true garbage (Global Times, open wikis like Baike, maybe some of the Chinese SPS blog platforms if it becomes a problem...) Jumpytoo Talk 09:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Re: "It might be better to consolidate the consensus of mainland Chinese media...when not otherwise stated into a don't use this to cite three T's/Xinjiang stuff, otherwise OK for domestic": that might be a good idea, but a blanket pass for domestic news would be problematic given that could be politically sensitive and centrally-managed. I think language like that used at WP:XINHUA would be better. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• There have been relevant developments since the opening of this discussion, see yesterday’s piece in The Diplomat: "In a bid to further concentrate state control over public messaging, China released draft regulations on Friday that would ban “non-public capital” from funding “news gathering, editing and broadcasting.” The proposal is contained in the Market Access Negative List (2021), released by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country’s main economic planning agency. If adopted, the Negative List would deal a significant blow to Caixin, a print and online financial news service revered for investigative journalism, including into the death toll of COVID-19 in Wuhan last year... The draft Negative List is comprehensive in banning “non-public” money from funding “broadcasts relating to politics, economics, the military, diplomacy, society, culture, technology, health, education, sports and other activities or events relating to governance.” It is not official yet but under “public consultation,” and stakeholders are invited to submit comments to the NDRC before a revised draft is approved and enacted. However, most regulations in China are passed with little modification following the “public consultation” period."[17] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Options 1 and 2: Reliable source, but additional considerations apply to domestic issues subject to the PRC’s censorship policies. LondonIP (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that Caixin's reporting is unreliable? In my experience, Caixin is one of the most reliable and knowledgeable sources for domestic issues in China. Other news agencies outside of China often rely heavily on Caixin for basic reporting on issues in China (a small sampling: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]). I've actually given an example in our above discussion in which Caixin accurately reported on an issue in Wuhan, only for Radio Free Asia (and subsequently various sources we generally consider reliable) to spin an absurd conspiracy theory about CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan (which was disproven by later peer-reviewed scientific research into mortality and serology in Wuhan). In that instance, Caixin was reliable, while the likes of Bloomberg and Times Magazine were not. Yet if we follow your suggestion, we'll discount Caixin for this sort of Chinese domestic issue and rely solely on the sorts of sources that in this case pushed a false conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Do you have any reliable sources which talks about this conspiracy theory using the language and fact pattern which you do here? If what you say is true then we should be deprecating RFA, Bloomberg, Times Magazine, and many more. Those are very serious assertions to bring to RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Above, I've cited the peer-reviewed studies on mortality (The BMJ) and serology (The Lancet and Nature) in Wuhan, indicating that the death toll in Wuhan was approximately 4500 and that a few percent of the people in the city were infected (note that these are numbers consistent with one another). I've also cited Radio Free Asia's claims of more than 40,000 deaths and 150,000 deaths (9x and 150x the scientific estimate, respectively). I've also showed that various other sources, including Bloomberg and Time Magazine, uncritically repeated RFA's massive exaggerations of the death toll in Wuhan. You can look at RFA's claims about mortality (repeated uncritically by other outlets) and then look at the scientific studies, and draw your own conclusions. I think reliability should be evaluated in context and I strongly dislike deprecation as a tool for dealing with most sources, so I do not think that Bloomberg and Time Magazine should be deprecated for spreading this particular conspiracy theory. But I do think that this example shows how absurd it would be to deprecate Caixin solely because it is Chinese, and instead relying solely on media like Bloomberg, Time Magazine (or even worse, RFA) for domestic issues in China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see it called a conspiracy theory in those links nor do I see the criticism of media coverage you say should be there. Also note that nobody so far has argued to deprecate Caixin solely because it is Chinese, or on any other grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We're allowed to use our own brains here and see that RFA published claims about the death toll in Wuhan (which it drew from social media) that are 9x to 50x the true figure, as found by scientific studies, and that a whole number of media outlets that we normally consider reliable humored these wild exaggerations. You yourself have suggested that if this is true, we should be deprecating RFA and a host of other sources. Well, I've demonstrated above that it's true, and you haven't disputed this or given any contrary evidence.

Also note that nobody so far has argued to deprecate Caixin solely because it is Chinese. The arguments above for downgrading Caixin are based purely on the fact that it is Chinese, even though many acknowledge that Caixin's reporting is of excellent quality. Caixin's reporting on Chinese domestic issues is generally of higher quality than that of most American and European media outlets (and as I've shown above, non-Chinese news media often relies on Caixin's reporting), so it would be a real shame for Wikipedia to downgrade Caixin, based purely on the fact that it is Chinese. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You haven’t presented any evidence, none of your sources talk about a conspiracy theory propagated by the sources you claim prorated it. If what you say is true then yes we do need to seriously reconsider whether those sources are WP:RS, this is getting a little off track so with your grace I will open a dedicated discussion of it (we are in the right forum after all). Downgrade=/=Deprecate and that does not appear to be the argument above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You haven’t presented any evidence: That's simply false, as anyone who looks at the above thread can see. I've demonstrated that RFA has exaggerated the death toll in Wuhan by 10-50x, and that other outlets have uncritically humored RFA's claims. Just repeating that I haven't presented evidence, when I clearly have, is not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You haven’t demonstrated that a conspiracy theory exists, you also haven’t demonstrated that RFA is the originator of said conspiracy theory. You also appear to be overstating the conclusions of those papers, those are estimates not definitive figures and are presented as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by the position you're taking here. You're essentially saying that it doesn't matter if RFA and other outlets massively exaggerate (by 9-50x) the death toll in Wuhan, relative to the numbers that have been scientifically established. As long as no other source subsequently writes an article specifically about RFA's propagation of CoVID-19 misinformation, you're essentially saying we should look the other way and pretend that RFA is still reliable for this subject area. Yet at the same time, you're arguing that Caixin should be downgraded, not because it has actually been shown to be unreliable in any way, but merely because it operates in China. I can't reconcile these two positions you're taking. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m saying it would matter, if we had a source other than Thucydides411 saying thats what happened. I’m arguing that Caixin should be downgraded? This is news to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please show some good faith. I've shown you what RFA claimed, and what scientific studies in The BMJ, The Lancet and Nature say. Claiming that this could all be my invention is bad faith. Unless you're disputing that 150,000 is more than 50x as much as 4,500, it's indisputable that RFA has pushed wildly exaggerated claims about the death toll in Wuhan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I am showing good faith, you have yet to show me a source other than yourself which supports the assertion that there is a conspiracy theory here. That sources publish different estimates at different times based on different information isn’t the same thing. On the topic of good faith do you want to maybe address the position in the "two positions” that doesn’t exist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Republic TV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been running over a month, and there is a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Should Republic TV (republicworld.com) be deprecated? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Republic TV)

• Deprecate - For an example of nonsense peddled by this channeled, check this news. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate Despite being a possibility of genuine news related to entertainment, including but not limited to films, the blatant hoaxes, fake news, fabricated misinformation, and what not, that the organization publishes is quite rampant that makes it dangerous for us here — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation, I think that “generally unreliable” is still appropriate. Much like similar news orgs most of the blatant stuff seems to be contained within talk shows not within hard news segments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Horse Eye's Back, I don't think that's accurate. All sorts of claims are made on their talk shows but the same claims are replicated all across their website and well within their "hard news". See for example, a search on Alt News produces pages after pages on fabrications and includes both talk shows and news stories. I'll try to tabulate a more comprehensive list on them, along with secondary sourcing once I get bit more time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  I see coverage of errors in that link, what I don’t really see is fabrications... Being wrong and making a lot of mistakes makes you unreliable, being purposefully wrong makes you deprecatable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Horse Eye's Back, there are numerous fabrications in there? I don't know how this, this or this can be explained as anything else. Demonstrably false and completely invented stories, these don't even originate on social media but from them though not sure what difference it would make. Beyond this they are also persistently pushing conspiracy theories such as Love Jihad [25], Corona Jihad [26], how Sushant Singh Rajput was murdered [27], etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  It does seem likely that there are fabrications there, but again thats not the same thing as a source actually saying that they knowingly fabricated a story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  If I were fabricating something, I wouldn't publicly agree or give a hint of it that I'm fabricating. It is upto other to fact check and investigate if I did it this time or if there's a pattern. If there's a pattern, then that would mean I intentionally do it, even if the fact checkers don't say so? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  How does one unknowingly fabricate stories? That too repeatedly and consistently in favor of a particular position. By the way, Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means (pp. 226–239) which is linked above for Love Jihad, does say that they are deliberately pushing the conspiracy theory. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate, considering its history of fabrications including multiple conspiracy theories, it'd be irresponsible to allow citations to this outlet to persist. In my mind, its equivalent to sources like Brietbart and Swarajya. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Theres nothing magical about deprecation, we don’t auto remove deprecated sources... Citations to this outlet will still exist if we deprecate, someone is still going to have to go through one by one and evaluate whether its appropriate. Theres also no need for the source to be deprecated to start doing that, generally unreliable is enough to remove a source in >90% of use cases. If you’re concerned about the persistence of citations to this outlet then get at it dog! You’ve got no-one to blame but yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  I know what deprecation is and I'd prefer that a stronger consensus exists for removing them en masse before doing so, considering the number of articles they are cited on. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Deprecation is *not* consensus for removing them en-mass, each one would still need to be done individually and with due care. I have begun assessing our use cases, no need to wait when we already have a clear consensus of unreliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sure exceptional circumstances may exist so each case needs to be considered individually but otherwise it is de facto that. Most questionable sources don't have widespread use so this doesn't really matter but that's not the case here. The edit filter would also be useful to discourage future cites to it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate Known purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories. There's really no point in ever using this source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation (keep Unreliable). No sources provided that this outlet knowingly publishes fake news a la Daily Mail. The initiator should explain why the current status (unreliable) is problematic (not just that this source is used 1000s of times). Happy to change my vote if a proper case is made for deprecation. Alaexis_¿question? 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Alaexis, if you are asking for examples which show that they deliberately publish fake news a la Daily Mail, then I did link them in my discussion with HEB above. I probably should have provided some examples in the discussion section below but anyways I will bring up some new ones, for example this where they took Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi's objection against a rule mandating the national anthem to be played before every film in cinema halls and turned it into them claiming that people shouldn't stand up for the national anthem, or this where they took an old photo, appropriated it as their own and claimed that they are bringing exclusive pictures from the Kashmir conflict. I don't know these can be regarded as being simple mistakes. This is just the tip of iceberg as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, it does look like a trash source. And why is the current designation (unreliable, meaning that "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.") not sufficient to remove contentious information sourced to it? Alaexis_¿question? 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Alaexis, the misinformation extends beyond contentious topics (through churnalism and sensationalism without any regard for fact checking) as well, there is no real way for us to tell whether something that can only be sourced to them is reliable information so an across the board removal is needed while it's also being continuously added as a citation and there is no strong consensus (i.e, in the form of an RfC) on it at present. Deprecation through a formal RfC would help us make the process easier, as in prevent it from getting bogged down in multiple individual disputes and improve awareness. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Again, unreliable sources should not be used normally, so it should be an easy to remove it. I see that now most of references to it are in articles about various media personalities. Is it unreliable there too? Is there really a widespread problem with this source? Alaexis_¿question? 05:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well, it is an unreliable source being used normally and deprecation as a process exists to discourage continued use like this. Most of the references aren't solely in articles about media personalities, they include all kinds of topics from sports and films to protests and conflicts. And yes it certainly should not be used for articles on media personalities or for any BLP. For instance after Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide, the channel (along with Times Now) pushed a conspiracy theory that he was murdered and went after people like Deepika Padukone, Rhea Chakraborty and various others throwing accusations of drug abuse, conspiracy to murder, etc against them. (see [28], [29], [30], [31]) Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate, and purge citations. Demonstrating that there's knowing fabrication requires access to internal deliberations that we do not have; what we do have is evidence that RW has stuck to its fabricated stories even after obvious evidence of their being false became public [32], [33], not to mention numerous instances of egregious fake news with massive real-world impacts [34], [35]. If RW is used for contentious information, it obviously should not be; if it's used for uncontentious information, should be possible to replace it with a superior source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate, and purge citations. Known to give communal twist to regular news, conduct Trial by media, harass people based on speculation.--coolk (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The evidence presented for deprecation is convincing and so far undisputed. Of particular note is that this unreliability is broad, and not limited to a definable area, and as such I believe deprecation is our only option. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate, full of conspiracy theories.Nyx86 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate as the evidence above is convincing for deprecation showing wide areas of unreliability. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation - there seems no actual issue here, no actual need for an extreme step of deprecation. It is being productively used at a few thousand points and has not been part of many RSN or local debates, and no bad content is shown as under debate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Full of political bias, fake news, conspiracy theories, etc etc etc. Peter Ormond 💬 14:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate, and purge citations. Spreads ridiculous conspiracy theories that sound like copypastas (remember when they accused insects of being Pakistani terrorists?), and thrives on sensationalism, hyper-nationalism and communal conflict. Cipher21 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion (Republic TV)

I am starting this RfC on the basis of a query at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Republic TV currently has an entry at RSP, which marks it as generally unreliable with the summary, "Republic TV was criticized for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, and other fabrications and factually incorrect information." Despite this it is still being used as a citation in over 1,800 articles   at present. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: GNIS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.
• Option 5: The source is:
  • Generally reliable for Place Names and Locations/Coordinates
  • Generally unreliable for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place"
  • Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Background (GNIS)

Thousands of US geography articles cite GNIS, and a decade ago it was common practice for editors to mass-create "Unincorporated community" stubs for anything marked as a "Populated place" in the database. The problem is that the database entries were created by USGS employees who manually copied names from topo maps. Names and coordinates were straightforward, but they had to use their judgement to apply a Feature class to each entry. Since map labels are often ambiguous, in many cases railroad junctions, park headquarters, random windmills, etc were mislabeled as "populated places" and eventually were found their way into Wikipedia as "unincorporated communities". Please note that according to GNIS' Principles, policies and procedures, feature classes "have no status as standards" and are intended to be used for search and retrieval purposes. See WP:GNIS for more information.

In addition to the standard four options, I'm including a 5th which I believe reflects our current practices. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (GNIS)

Discussion (GNIS)

• Option 5, with the standard objection to creation of mass numbers of non-notable permastubs on "populated places" to start with; these should be on lists, not in permastubs. That aside, clearly this is not a vetted and fact-checked source for this purpose, nor in any way legally binding in order to create "legal recognition". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5, concur with OP and above. GNIS is filled with "populated places" that aren't. MB 22:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5. In my experience, the coordinates are correct, but GNIS alone cannot establish whether a feature is a "legally recognized" place. Yilloslime (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5. The coordinates are typically correct, though sometimes vague. The categorization is sometimes wrong and many, many articles have been created citing only the GNIS. It would be nice to identify articles that cite only the GNIS and *.hometownlocator.com (which seems to be derived from the GNIS) and consider them for deletion. Having only a GNIS ref (and *.hometownlocator.com) means that the subject probably existed at one time and that's about it. Cxbrx (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5. GHIS is a coordinate dumpster of various databases and gazetteers, often obsolete, not verified by experts. Several years ago I remember an absolutely stupid discussion about some misspelled Armenin location. Lembit Staan (talk)
• Any such overall characterization is an overgeneralization (invited by the bot) This important choice was omitted from the RFC. Certainly, the limitations of the source should be recognized. If there is a question or concern expressed about the content in an article (not just a challenge based only on the source) a cite to this source should not be considered enough to keep the material in. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• As a nuanced answer, maybe "option 6", it should be considered "generally reliable for information about place names of any kind, but cannot be used to determine notability for stand-alone articles in any way, even if it calls a place a "populated place"." The issue is not that the GNIS is unreliable for information, it is that it is not a sufficiently in-depth source that would pass WP:GNG. It notes the existence of things, it does not contain source text we can use to write prose and build an article with. That should be the only consideration when considering whether or not to write a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  We have actually run into reliability issues with GNIS: The "feature class" designations (railroad siding, crossroads, populated place, church, stream, locale, etc) are often factually incorrect, causing errors to be propagated into our articles. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  I mean, that's a glitch in a computer database (which, I'll note, is currently being rebuilt). It's perfectly reasonable for reliable sources to have errors in them sometimes: if I read an OCR copy of a New York Times article talking about "Richard NLxon", it would not be grounds to request that Richard Nixon be moved to that title. At the same time, this would not be grounds to say that the New York Times was an unreliable source. jp×g 07:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 - I've had quite a bit of a experience with this source. The issues with this source are that we've used this in ways that it isn't intended to. It's meant to be a definitive database of names and coordinates, which is generally correct on. "Feature class" appears to only be an approximation and generally contrasts with other sources. I've found it telling that older 1980s USGS print gazetteers are generally much more accurate on feature class than the GNIS. And as a database, it shouldn't be used to determine notability. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 - I concur with many of the opinions already expressed. GNIS is a database for names and coordinates, and citations that are looking to explain more than this should not rely upon GNIS. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5, it accurately shows that a "place" exists, but it can't accurately show if a place is populated or passes geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5; I have had some experience with this topic at AfD, in particular in regards to "unincorporated community", and there is clearly a significant issue with its reliability on this matter and as such we should not rely on its feature assessments, but as the issue is limited to that area there is no need for a broader classification of unreliability. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Silly RfC. While it's clear there there are lots of shitty GNIS stubs from 2006 (and I !vote to delete them often at AfD), it's not clear to me that formal deprecation (even if partial) is an appropriate response to the situation, or that it will address the problem in a meaningful way. There is already a functioning solution to the issue of shitty GNIS stubs: they end up at AfD, and either sources are found and they're kept or sources aren't found and they're deleted. Perhaps we could add some language to WP:NGEO clarifying that GNIS often has stupid things listed as "populated places". What would putting GNIS on RSP accomplish -- would additional (or different) actions be taken at AfD? jp×g 07:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 as it is great for coordinate information, but for place that may or may not have been populated it is not a definitive source as it mostly focuses on the where the location is. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 The number of errors in the GNIS classes – and the number of users who blindly created articles from it without bothering to look at a map or other sources – is astonishing. Reywas92^Talk 04:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: The Daily Wire

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, the community re-considers the reliability of the Daily Wire. The discussion has lasted for the requisite period of 30 days. Some editors below opine that useful discussion is still continuing, and they are mistaken. This has been a very long discussion containing many words, particularly from a few editors who are very passionate on this subject, and both sides have exhautively made their case.

The community does not reach consensus to deprecate the Daily Wire. But the community is, very clearly, of the view that the Daily Wire should only be used with great caution. In this discussion editors demonstrate that it is a biased source. Editors show that it selects the stories it covers, it chooses not to mention key points that disfavour its preferred politics, and it blatantly panders to a US conservative agenda. Although this discussion unearths evidence that the Daily Wire has sometimes shown a minimum regard for the truth by printing retractions where these are warranted, the status quo is that the Daily Wire is seen as generally unreliable, and this discussion does not change that. Like any "generally unreliable" source, it should not be used as the sole source for a point of fact, but it can be used with attribution for statements about someone's opinion.

As there is no consensus, I will not change our current wording at WP:RSP. I hope this helps. Questions, comments and feedback about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Question: Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed from Generally unreliable to Deprecated? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No

Valjean (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey, The Daily Wire

• Yes. It is so unreliable, pushes views contrary to many facts of great importance, and lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, that it deserves deprecation with this one exception: can only be used in its own article, and then only if it's not unduly self-serving (per WP:ABOUTSELF). -- Valjean (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. I'm sure other editors will post sources, so I won't bother. When I was doing research on the Palmer Report, academic sources I found frequently labeled the Daily Wire as a junk news source or a fake news source. Daily Wire is a pretty popular source so deprecation is probably a good idea in case an editor mistakenly believes it's a RS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I’m confused, is the Palmer Report unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Use google please (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Use google please: I modified your indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Palmer Report is a fake news website as per our article. I assume this is why User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d came across discussions of Daily Wire being a fake news website, since they were looking at sources discussing fake news websites which gave Palmer Report and Daily Wire as examples. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Daily Wire has their own journalists division, Palmer Report just post op-eds of Twitter feeds. Use google please (talk) 07:54, September 29, 2021‎ (UTC)

• No I'll go by what this NPR piece from July explains well. "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to 'truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.' But as Settle explains, by only covering specific stories that bolster the conservative agenda (such as negative reports about socialist countries and polarizing ones about race and sexuality issues) and only including certain facts, readers still come away from The Daily Wire's content with the impression that Republican politicians can do little wrong and cancel culture is among the nation's greatest threats." Add that its aim is towards Facebook engagement and clickbait-style attention grabbers, and that makes it generally unreliable, but not to the point where deprecation seems required. --Masem (t) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• No and more appropriately None of the above/Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics. This shouldn't be an RfC in this manner as it's a False dilemma. Many others have requested an upgrade to the source on WP:RSPSOURCES. To frame this statement as such is an attempt to game the system. The same would be appropriately said if someone phrased the initial question as

  Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed to Generally Reliable Source or Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable, and may be usable depending on context? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire

  • Option 1 Generally Reliable Source
  • Option 2 Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable

  Buffs (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Example of misleading summaries Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ In fact, click the source and you'll find it is actually "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". Given the breadth of such responses, I question whether these opinions based on sources are mistakes, just highly biased interpretations, or intentionally misleading summaries. Buffs (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Noted for publishing blatant falsehoods and medical misinformation about COVID-19, along with rank homophobia and scaremongering worthy of the gay panic defense era. No one has cited any content of redeeming value which would be lost by deprecation. It's a partisan clickbait factory and we can and should demand far more from our sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is indicative of the kind of issue we're running into. People are citing links (or making a claim without any justification) and/or then giving misleading descriptions of said links:

  • blatant falsehoods
  • medical misinformation about COVID-19 No where in this article do they allege any misinformation about COVID-19 by Daily Wire.

  Please read such links before commenting (yes, even mine!). Such arguments are nothing more than guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  An NPR review of stories on The Daily Wire about the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two months found numerous stories about potential side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, but none that portrayed the scientifically demonstrated efficacy of the vaccines or that focused explicitly on the hesitancy that has slowed the U.S. rollout. Disinformation by omission is disinformation just the same. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I would suggest that NPR didn't look very hard then. Ben Shapiro mentioned the vaccine frequently on his podcast and encouraged people to go and get it frequently for ~the first 6 months of the year. Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, who has been a vocal proponent of vaccination all along, also told his followers today on Twitter, “Get vaxxed. I did. My wife did. My parents did." and has been doing so since late 2020 once vaccines were available. My quick scan of available show notes shows he mentioned it on nearly every show after Jan 22 through 9 Mar and then 2-4 times a week until July. If they didn't find it, it's because they aren't looking. Ex: 2/5 "the vaccine is ninety one percent effective seven days or more after the second injection". Feel free to browse yourself if you don't believe me (not the best transcript, but you can CTRL+F "vaccine" pretty quickly) Buffs (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Forgive my ignorance here, and I know the Daily Wire is largely Shapiro's outlet, but they are distinct voices, yes? Thus, proof that Shapiro is himself staunchly pro-vaccine is not the same as saying the Daily Wire is? Or am I mistaken about that? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Valid question. Ben Shapiro used to be editor-in-chief of DW. He is now listed as Editor-Emeritus. The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production. Buffs (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  That being the case, it strikes me that both what you say and the NPR story may be entirely true and not in contradiction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm tired of hearing people repeatedly assert on this RSN/RfC that Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine) because Shapiro and DW are just giving lip service while using the vaccine issue as a launch-point to their other agendas; this is a classic DW tactic. Ben Shapiro posted a YouTube of himself launching his #DoNotComply campaign. That video appears to have been removed, and in its place is his organization spokesman, Jeremy Boreing ("co-founder, Co-CEO and god-king of The Daily Wire."); so that covers both the man and his organization. Shapiro and Boreing have directed their company DW to openly and publicly refuse the OSHA mandate and are encouraging other businesses to do the same. They have stated in interviews that they have built up a legal machine, and are ready for a legal war on this point — "we're prepared to go to battle", "we're going to use every method and resource at our disposal to defy" and "we are staffing up right now on the legal side". When they speak of the mandate they brush aside the point where the mandate doesn't actually require everyone get the vaccine, but employees could instead be tested weekly (which nowadays is usually a simple saliva swab). In other words, their actions speak louder than their words. If you listen carefully to their wording, the two men say they are "pro-vaccine" while letting the listener dub in that they meant pro-COVID vaccine. In one breath they give accolades to the Covid vaccine (an object), while a minute later issue subtle snide remarks about those who get it (people). Under their breath they give 2 seconds to briefly mention the 'opt-out with testing' as an option while spending the next 5 minutes ranting about how no one should be required to get a vaccine. Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine, despite what one thinks they heard, so it is time to quit asserting it. Such covert and ubiquitous misdirection is one of the main reasons why DW has earned itself 'generally unreliable' status here on Wikipedia. It should be deprecated at this time. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  The specifics of such a mandate have not been made public, so your assessment is based on speculation. The rest is accusations with no real evidence to back it up + WP:OR. Weekly testing (even if it is part of the mandate) is still an additional cost with the threat of a $14K fine if they don't. I'm not saying Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine), I'm saying he's outright pro-Covid vaccine and has been since the vaccine was released. There is a wide chasm between saying "I think something is good and you should do it" and "I think the government should force everyone to do what I think is good". If you think Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine because they don't support Biden's mandates, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: My assessment is based on my evaluation, as is everyone else's. WP:OR doesn't apply because we are discussing DW's status on RSP, not discussing DW, and (most importantly) not editing content in wiki articles. "We" are not trying to have a "reasonable discussion" because WP:NOTFORUM. While I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view. Again... WP:NOTFORUM. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  You accuse me of gaslighting then say I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view? Look one post above where you specifically point out what Shapiro is claiming/doing. Your logic appears to be that you should be able to make such claims, but I can't respond as to how your claim is misleading and/or outright false. Lastly, yes, I am trying to have a reasonable discussion per WP:TALK. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I cannot believe you just posted that what I wrote on Oct 5th came before what I wrote on Sept 29th. That sort of deliberate chronological distortion is described in Wikipedia's behavioral guideline WP:GASLIGHTING, which is part of Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process: "Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord." Cease and desist! Platonk (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's clear we cannot have a reasonable discussion without you tossing out ad hominems. I'm done with this. Buffs (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  That specific article mentions nothing about medical misinfo about COVID-19 - the specific note to Daily Wire is in reference to the situation during the presidential campaign when Texas citizens had followed a Biden bus out of state, and that article discusses how DW described the situation -- which falls in line with the biased side of presenting the news per the NPR article. Also, having a homophobic stance is not a reason to deprecate a source, though still a very good reason to consider it unreliable. --Masem (t) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Prim. per NBSB. It won't take long to find out rank garbage they publish on a regular basis. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• No First, Buffs is correct that this is not a good RfC question. Second, deprecation should really be a last resort. It came about because some were concerned that a widely used source was unreliable. Is this source widely used? Third, the only meaningful evidence presented thus far is Masem's NPR article. NPR supports the current ranking of the source and does not support a deprecation. Deprecation is something that really needs to be reviewed as a blunt tool used far too often in cases where there isn't a problem (source was rarely ever used, source was already acknowledged to be poor etc). Springee (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Unreliable for basically any and all matters of fact. It has been known to publish blatant falsehoods. It should be reliable only for matters of completely undisputed facts in its own article, as with other extremely partisan and possible disingenuous sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I would reinforce that it's a generally unreliable source, and mention criticism by climate experts in Climate Feedback, per this RSN discussion, of the Daily Wire's climate change coverage. That was more or less what I had to say at RSP talk, and I guess I'll restate it here for visibility. I mentioned it there because it wasn't present on the source's entry. The conversation there is worth reviewing, as Aquillon seemed to bring a lot more receipts. --Chillabit (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• No in the absence of specific information concerning the deliberate biasing of the source. We need to be wary of the use of the source, but we also need to be wary in assuming that a source contains lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for the reasons I gave at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (and per others there). Should not be cited for any statement of fact and shouldn't carry weight except when reported on by other, reliable sources. As for deprecation: meh. Abstain (in part per what I wrote below). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Mostly copying-and-pasting my comment from the WP:RSP discussion, but: It does no original reporting and has repeatedly spread misinformation, especially about COVID ([36]) but also eg. the election ([37]), Greta Thunberg ([38]), climate change ([39]), and the George Floyd protests ([40]); academic sources describe it as a low-quality source ([41]) and as unreliable ([42]) and have used it as an example of misinformation and junk news ([43][44][45][46]). The issue isn't simply that it is partisan, the issue is that its purpose is to publish intentionally false stories in order to advance its partisan goals. Academic coverage largely describes it as publishing intentional misinformation, which is the sort of thing that requires depreciation if it seems like there are people still trying to use it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Robert McClenon, ^^THIS^^ comment by Aquillion is relevant to your comment above. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire for other comments with documentation from RS. I hope you will reconsider your "no". We must "assume" that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be "a source contains lies." They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • You keep making the claim "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump..." You need to provide evidence that they "fully back Trump" first. From 2016 to 2021, Daily Wire spoke out against Trump's excesses: Donald Trump is a liar (2016) up to Trump is deeply irresponsible 2021. Your remarks are full of assumptions that aren't backed by the facts. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, are you normally in the habit of citing undergrad papers that aren't peer reviewed? Springee (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As noted below, these particular sources are a perfect example of how such accusations, despite being sourced, are not grounded in the content of the sources:
    • It does no original reporting demonstrably false. The NPR article above states "produces little original reporting", so, by definition, it produces at least some. It largely produces analysis. Likewise, lots of publications don't produce "original reporting".
    • This article is an ungraded undergraduate paper/advocacy piece that equates criticism of the media (regardless of how valid/invalid) as tantamount to blindly supporting Trump, equates asking about the origins of COVID-19 as "COVID misinformation", and speculating/guessing as to what the future impact the virus may have on economics as disinformation. Likewise, more criticism of the media's portrayal of COVID in a negative light with Trump and a positive light with Biden isn't COVID denial/misinformation. It's criticism of the media, which has a known leftward slant.
    • misinformation (about) the election: No where in this article is there any misinformation about the election. They criticized Wallace and Biden. Daily Wire also reported how others called it a "****-show" and that both sides lost calling both sides "a new low" in debate performance. Shapiro himself called it a "[bleep]-show". That's HARDLY misinformation in ANY way.
    • misinformation about Greta Thunberg: One host called her "mentally ill" in an interview and Daily Wire apologized for the comment (as noted). Calling political opponents mentally ill, while distasteful, is not uncommon
    • "misinformation on the climate" from another ungraded undergraduate thesis: In fact, the only thing this paper cites is criticism of the most extreme predictions (example, Al Gore's claim that Miami would be underwater by 2016) Criticizing the extremes is hardly criticizing the core science.
    • misinformation about George Floyd protests There's no misinformation even cited in the article, only criticisms (example, making people in public wear masks, but protestors in closer proximity are not required to do so).
    • one source describes as a low-quality source The same source put it on-par with Daily Kos and labeled it "hyperpartisan" and not "Fake News".
    • one source describes as unreliable Given that you've cited this source now twice despite criticism, I'm forced to believe that you're being misleading intentionally (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me). No where in this entire article do they use the word "unreliable". Daily Wire is only mentioned once as a pejorative without documentation to back it up: "Relying on nationwide panels of internet users who donate their feeds to the project, it was found that after the Capitol rampage progressive Facebook users were routinely fed mainstream media such as CNN and NPR, whilst conservative users sources considered rather less reliable (such as The Daily Wire and Breitbart most salient)". They do not categorize anything in the article as "unreliable".
    • misinformation and junk news 1 Subscription only; unable to view
    • misinformation and junk news 2 There are two criticisms of Daily Wire. The first criticism is that they wrote an article about tweets of "media figures" who threatened violence. Indeed, members of the media threatened to "burn this place to the ground" and "Burn the entire f***ing thing down". There is nothing inaccurate about this report. The second, verbatim, is "Finally, junk news outlets have also promoted unsubstantiated claims that Democratic Party leaders were pushing conspiracy theories. A Daily Wire article with over 162,000 engagements claimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had asserted that the Republican party were involved a conspiracy to “come after your children" But if you look at the source material and her full remarks, it's clear that the quotation is completely accurate. Saying "a group is coming after your children!" is or isn't a "conspiracy" is really splitting hairs or is, at a bare minimum, subjective.
    • misinformation and junk news 3 The actual quote: "Friday June 5th, that initially showed a significant drop in unemployment rate from 14.7% in April to 13.3% in May. This was soon corrected by the Department of Labor to 16.3%, and accompanied by a statement that the inaccuracy stemmed from incorrect labelling during interviews...A Daily Wire article with over 87,000 engagements...celebrated Trumps false claims of success...The Daily Wire published a correction article the next day. So the basis for the "junk news" rating is that they reported on the same information and that it was good for Trump, DoL printed a correction, and DW printed a correction. I'm hard pressed to know what a competent news organization should have done otherwise (especially considering every news outlet had to do the same thing). 
    • misinformation and junk news 4 Whitmer indeed threatened and extension of "safety measures" and blamed the protesters as the reason she had to do it. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate.
  • Your significant over reliance on COMPROP is misguided. First, their definition of "junk news" is "whether their content is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, or commentary masked as news". Daily Wire openly admits they are a conservative news organization and that they do analysis of news from a conservative perspective...that hardly fits the category of "sensationalist", especially looking at the articles you chose to cite. Second, you seem to assume that commentary here equates to evidence that they are "junk news" rather than simply an analysis of what was said on a source they call junk news (two separate categories). Buffs (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

    @Buffs: Regarding the paper in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism you were unable to view, the relevant quote (p. 9) is here: "Besides these organizations-specific Facebook pages and groups, Facebook also hosts open groups that are not related to a specific organization, ranging from “news” groups that share and discuss articles containing misinformation from outlets such as Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, to groups dedicated to the sharing of right-wing extremist memes". --Chillabit (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

    Chillabit Thanks. So...that's the "proof" it's misinformation? Facebook, the company, hosts open groups and just calls it "misinformation". That's pretty weak. Any reference with that? Who wrote it? Buffs (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

    As far as this (and most of your other) complaints go, the point is that, on the whole, high-quality secondary sources classify its output as misinformation, to the point where it is broadly and widely used as an example of a source of that nature. Your personal belief otherwise and your personal arguments that you believe them to be right has no weight or relevance; our evaluation of sources is based on how they are covered - their broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    Are you saying that an undergrad report or even a masters thesis is something Wikipedia counts as a high quality source? Buffs correctly points out flaws in the sources you provided and notes that they don't prove things like DW was inventing claims. If you were using those sources to prove that the DW shouldn't be "reliable" or "considerations apply" I would totally agree. However, you are arguing they are sufficient to deprecate the source. So what standard do you think is needed to rise (or sink) to the level of deprecation and can you show that DW has passed that line? Springee (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    can you show that DW has passed that line? This question has been answered by multiple people already. At this point you come across like you haven't read the extensive detail already in this discussion section - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    When arguments for deprecation rely solely on disparaging terms, their arguments are no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• No. I originally declined to comment on this particular topic but I've since rethought that decision in light of the evidence presented for depreciation. In particular, while I haven't reviewed every source, those I have reviewed do not say quite what the person citing them believes to say. For instance, this source is presented as saying they present "medical misinformation about COVID". It doesn't do that; instead, it says this "Another article from The Daily Wire with over 150,000 engagements similarly celebrated the intimidation, endorsing the view that these cars were “just showing support”, and derided the Biden campaign’s statements on the issue as having “ripped [into]” the drivers.". This is a statement showing bias and hyper-partisanship, but we do not depreciate solely on those grounds, and we certainly don't interpret this line as stating that DW presents "medical misinformation about COVID" - indeed, the context that it is in is related to the election, not COVID. Meanwhile, the post I am replying to has similar misconceptions; for instance, it presents this source as stating that the Daily Wire is "low-quality", and while it does exactly that, the commenter didn't notice that it classified sources under three headers; "Reliable", "Hyper-partisan", and "Fake News", and that the Daily Wire is classified as "Hyper-partisan" not "Fake News". (Note: This is an argument against using this source for depreciation, not arguing for its use as a source against depreciation, as I have serious concerns about how accurate their classification system is)

  Meanwhile, this source which was interpreted as saying that the Daily Wire "spread misinformation about ... Greta Thunburg" states that the Daily Wire also retracted that misinformation; retractions are typically not considered when assessing a sources reliability, as retractions are typically evidence of some sort of functioning editorial process, and thus we can't consider this incident when assessing whether to depreciate or not.

  I also looked at this source, which was interpreted as describing the Daily Wire as "unreliable"; what it states is "considered rather less reliable", and makes no statement on its own about reliability. Instead, it sources to this article on The Markup, which also makes no claim about reliability, and instead describes it as "conservative news coverage".

  As such, I have no choice but to !vote "No"; as the evidence presented in supported of depreciation does not actually say what those citing it believe it says; if I have misinterpreted a given source, or if there is a particular source that I have not looked into that I should, please let me know, but as matters currently stand I see additional restrictions on the use of this source as unwarranted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. The Daily Wire knows slightly better than to push conspiracy theories itself directly; instead, it promotes the promoters of the conspiracy theories rather than stating them in editorial voice. e.g. vaccine refusers [47][48][49], promoting ivermectin for COVID [50], and election recount conspiracies [51]. I found these in a few minutes just by typing common conspiracy subjects into the search box; that Daily Wire's promotion of nonsense showed itself so rapidly strongly suggests a deeper dive would only find more. It pitches itself to the audience keen for discredited nonsense; its purpose is to promote false stories to advance partisan goals. Aquillion nails it also. Any newsworthy content on the Daily Wire is a reblog - most of the articles are reblogs of more credible sources. There is no gain whatsoever in using Daily Wire as a source in Wikipedia, beyond the most basic sparing WP:ABOUTSELF appropriate to a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Literally all of your summaries are misleading (which is a problem throughout this discussion). Every single thing you find wrong here is simply a statement of fact, not advocacy. They aren't "promoting false stories to advance partisan goals." If it is, the media are all doing the same thing:

  [Nikki Minaj is anti-vax? everyone reported that. Founder of DW Ben Shaprio encourages people to get vaccinated on a nearly daily basis on his podcast and has done so since they became available

  [Some in GOP oppose women in the draft? This was widely reported too

  BLM opposes 'racist' vaccines? This was widely reported too

  this does not promote ivermectin it only reports that Joe Rogan used it. NPR did the exact same thing. Both articles pointed out that the FDA discourages this use.

  promoting election recount conspiracies? Hmm, it seems that many reputable sites also reported what happened. DW opposed Trump's election shenanigans almost from the beginning

  Any newsworthy content on the Daily Wire is a reblog Literally every article you cited was written by a DW staff member, not reblogged.

  In short, what you've written is completely misleading. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate Daily Wire has fallen over the cliff into outright conspiracy and disinformation. No respect and no reputation for fact-checking, the exact opposite in fact... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Please provide sources for such an accusation. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate Nothing reliable about it these days. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. According to the NPR article cited by Masem it's biased but doesn't normally include falsehoods. I looked at the purported misinformation examples provided by Aquillion and I'm not convinced. The George Floyd-related examples are "one Daily Wire article ... disparaged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for for allowing public gatherings to protest but not allowing businesses to open or religious gatherings to occur" and "a Daily Wire opinion piece even defended the US record on race, stating that it was “the only civilization in history to oppose racism and for one reason only: Christianity”". The Covid-related misinformation is DW hosts' opinions from February 2020. In the hindsight we can definitely say that there were wrong but it doesn't make it misinformation. Just to remind, "unreliable" status means that "the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person," it's not clear at all why the deprecation is necessary. Alaexis_¿question? 19:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  See Buffs's review of evidence provided by Aquillion. Unlike me he's looked at every claim and none of them constitutes misimformation. It's either mistakes that are promptly corrected or opinions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. I was engaged in a project to evaluate the use the Daily Wire citations in Wikipedia, locating them using this search tool [52]. At the start, there were about 125 articles containing a link to dailywire.com. Today, there are 41. In my work, I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). In others, I found that the DW article itself contained links to other articles published by those not on RSP which could serve just as well (I would replace the DW citation with the better source). After reading many DW articles, I found DW to be very opinionated (bad), partisan (not necessarily bad), and it had a hardcore agenda (very bad) in most of its articles. Often, the author would take some minor point from an entire scene/incident/issue and rag on just that one point to the detriment of coverage. Under no circumstances could one view these articles as "news" or "news coverage". It was pure editorializing. Sure, some of those articles weren't "technically" wrong for the precise reason that the author was quoting someone else (often of marginal reliability), however by forwarding false or mostly false or heavily skewed viewpoints, then adding its own opinions, I agree that Daily Wire should be treated with no more value than any other non-subject matter expert's personal opinion... which we consider a primary self-published source with very limited use as a citation in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are those editors on Wikipedia that don't understand the meaning of GUNREL and think that leaves open a door to using Daily Wire (and other GUNREL sources) as citations as long as they use inline attribution. I support deprecating. Platonk (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). So, the DW citation was accurate? When you eliminate all examples where DW was completely accurate, you're going to be left with any/all instances where they are either appropriate or questionable. Effectively, you've created the logic to support your own circular argument: "References from DW aren't accurate, so I eliminated references. This shows they aren't accurate." Buffs (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Your logic is faulty. RSP said Daily Wire was a "generally unreliable source" (GUNREL), therefore replacing a Daily Wire citation with a different reliable source citation is quite appropriate. Per REFBOMB it is neither appropriate nor desirable to have multiple citations following a simple statement in an article. With multiple citations after a single sentence (one of which was a GUNREL), I wouldn't even need to read the GUNREL article to see if it was accurate or not. I would only need to read one other citation to ensure that it was an appropriate source to support the content, and then I could delete the GUNREL citation without any further evaluation of it. An editor "improving citations" in an article per Wikipedia guidelines is not proof of anything you assert here, nor earlier. And your statements that my removing GUNREL citations out of Wikipedia amounts to a 'war against conservatives' is ludicrous and a personal attack. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  The only person using the word "war" here (repeatedly) is you. Likewise, I didn't say removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate in any way. I said citing your own actions to support those actions is a circular rationale. Buffs (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, yes indeed, you repeatedly asserted that "removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate". You've asserted that numerous times over the last several weeks. Here are merely three of the diffs I found on this, but I recall reading much more: (1) "Your "project" appears to be a personal vendetta." (You were referring to my project to remove GUNREL refs), (2) "When ALL conservative opinions are labeled “unreliable”, you’ve completely lost neutrality." (Part of your debate that RSP labels as 'generally unreliable' more conservative outlets than liberal ones, thus skewing Wikipedia's NPOV), and (3) "You don't get to suppress conservative views" (as you reverted one of my edits). On top of those were the edit wars over swapping out or removing GUNREL cites. Platonk (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is again getting rather personal and off-topic. You are (intentionally?) misconstruing my remarks. I stand by my assertion that "I didn't say removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate in any way" as a general statement. Removing citations or any sort of edit can be appropriate or inappropriate. My statement was intending to show that I never made such a blanket assertion that "removing citations is inappropriate". My issue was not so much that you removed the citation, but that you removed the content as well; that's what my edit summary addressed. It wasn't just remarks cited on DW either (pretending otherwise is disingenuous). Your "project" was self-appointed and you not only removed citations, but you assigned a claim of being false to such assertions and removed not only the citation, but the content as well. Calling your desired goals a "project" doesn't make them any more/less correct and to choose to do so is a personal choice. Yes, I reverted your citation removal to replace the content, which was inappropriately removed. Lastly, your baseless accusations are not appreciated. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate, for the reasons stated by Aquillion and Platonk. John M Baker (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• No but with a caveat: The Daily Wire grossly quotes without appropriate context “Lawn Boy” by Johnathan Evison. Here is The Daily Wire Quote: “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d***? What if I told you I sucked it? I was ten years old, but it’s true. I sucked Doug Goble’s d***, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” (redaction of words in source), along with a more full quote. Now, here’s the bit that’s deceptive: They do not clarify that both the kid and Dick Goble were young at the time (another quote from the book they neglected to mention: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), and the part they quoted, in isolation, certainly strongly implies that the book shows an adult (“Real estate guy”) having oral sex with a 10-year-old kid. While the quote from the book was accurate, quoting just the passage without a more full context makes things look worse than they are. That said, since they did accurately (albeit without enough context) quote the book, it was not a bald face lie. I reserve deprecation for straight up dishonest or fabricated content (for example, Rolling Stone is merely “Generally unreliable” even though they allowed two out right fabricated stories to be published in the last seven years). Samboy (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  But it's worse than that. The source starts off with "found that books graphically depicting pedophilia" which is in Daily Wire's voice. They then go on to quote someone who appeared before the board "Both of these books include pedophilia, sex between men and boys". While they only presented the latter as a quote rather than their own voice, they do not clarify that the person they're quoting was simply wrong at least about one of the books. Indeed when taken together with the earlier bit, it's quite likely most readers will think that according to the Daily Wire, the book includes "sex between men and boys" even before they see the bit from the book they quote latter. They then go on to quote parts in a way which further re-enforces this view. As you've acknowledged no where do they make it clear that the scene they're discussing involved a recollection of something that happened between two children. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Didn't really catch this until now, but they mention other books...and a quote of that book. Perhaps it's in those. Without clear context, it's hard to know. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  For the record, “generally unreliable” means that we almost never use the source, and that claims which only come from the source can be deleted or marked “citation needed” (with very few limited exceptions). I recently deleted a contentious BLP-violating claim sourced from Rolling Stone; now that Rolling Stone is “generally unreliable” for political and WP:BLP claims, no one contested my removal of the questionable claim. Samboy (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• NO - Deprecation is overkill. Usage should continue to be limited, but not deprecated. The Daily Wire is an opinion source, not a news outlet. As such, it is reliable as a primary source for attributed statements as to the opinions of its contributors, but not for unattributed statements of fact. Whether a specific opinion should be included in a specific article is a function of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. Usage is subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, deprecate, per resources provided above. Too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion, not enough news. Anything worth covering would be covered by much better sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecating a source for having "too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion" is a rather extreme and hostile position to be taken, and begs the question that other sources including those on the left with extreme opinion pieces should simply be removed too (which I don't think we want). Tagging the source as "generally unreliable" and using WP:UNDUE to consider if TDW's opinion is worth inclusion (which given its stance likely never would be in most cases) is sufficient and avoids having the same question of deprecation on this basis of being a bad opinion being used to question other sources. Deprecation should only be used when we know the source fundamentally misreports/falsifies information to be completely unusable like Daily Mail. --Masem (t) 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not worth it having DUE / UNDUE discussions as suggested, about a fundamentally unsuitable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I can absolutely see TDW being used in an RSOPINION manner alongside other conservative sources (Fox, etc.) if there is a section on a controversial topic that is weighing liberal press opinions against conservative press opinions - though in the larger picture of things, such sections heavily weighing press commentary from either side would likely be a problem under RECENTISM. But as Blueboar states, deprecation should only be used for fundamental flawed sources that are known for outright fabrication of news to the point of being flat out unusable in any context. --Masem (t) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Who are the Daily Wire authors who may fall under RSOPINION in your view? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I'll let Masem answer for himself, but, to throw my opinion in, Shapiro would probably be the most prominent example. His podcast is top ten on Apple podcasts and has significant exposure. He'd be on par with Hannity (whom I despise). Buffs (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Ooooh! That doesn't help. In a list of "people as sources", Hannity and Shapiro would be near the top of those we can only use in their own articles. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
              • I am absolutely not saying this must be used, I'm only pulling an example that is an opinion but not Shapiro but that would fit the type of RSOPINION that TDW would be suitable for potential inclusion in discussion of one side of the views related to cancel culture via these series of opinions [53] at TWD (Parts 1, 5, and 6 specifically marked "Opinion", the others would be unusable under the current "generally unreliable"). There are of course many other "Opinion" authors at TDW that aren't Shapiro on other topics. But there are also a lot of other factors that have to be considered in context of where they would be used, what other sources are used in support of the same viewpoint as well as those in counter-points, etc; just being an opinion piece in TDW absolutely does not mean we should include it because of all the complicating factors that an UNDUE analysis would have to consider. --Masem (t) 18:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
                • That's pretty much all I'm looking for for such usage. Perhaps "The View" would have been a better comparison. Both shows are highly opinionated. But they are notable for the reach they have and the general points of view that are discussed as part of the public political dialogue in America. Citing them for what they said should not be controversial. It serves as both a primary source ("yeah, Ben said that" or "yeah, Whoopi said that") as well as evidence that their dialogue was widely disseminated (both shows have a substantial base viewership) and, in general, is representative of the views of their political persuasion. I'm NOT looking to have any DW article as the source for some wild claim. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
                  • You seriously want to compare Daily Wire to The View? The View is a show that has been running for 25 years on a 73-year-old commercial broadcast television network. DW is merely 6 years old. The View has multiple hosts at any one time, with a mix of people from both sides of the political spectrum in each show and tries to present and discuss all angles. DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint. I'm not promoting The View (I don't like it and don't watch it), but even I know that V and DW are worlds apart. Platonk (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
                    • Yes, seriously. People espousing political views/perspectives...that's pretty much DW in a nutshell too. They invite debates and discussion with all kinds of views on their audio and video programs, for example, the Sunday Special: Vox Founder Matthew Yglesias John Stossel (staunch libertarian) Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic Magazine), as well as tons of debates you can find on YouTube (some under the Daily Wire banner and some are under Turning Point...I'm referring to the former). DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint treating all conservative views as some sort of monotone monolith is part of the problem here. They are not all the same. Ben Shapiro, for example, is highly pro-vaccine, Jewish, and has TONS of criticism of Trump, his policies, and his treatment of the election results. Contrast this with people like Hannity who are practically Trump yes-men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
                      • With due respect, it seems to me there's conflation occurring again here. In response to "the Daily Wire only has one view," you respond "conservative thought is diverse." Both propositions may be true. Perhaps there are diverse views at the Daily Wire, but you're not actually making that argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
                        • Actually, I am making exactly that argument and just pointed out multiple long-form discussions hosted by DW where libertarian, liberal, and other voices were welcomed. Shapiro's positions, as demonstrated, are in stark contrast to remarks above "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be 'a source contains lies.' They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies" which literally being used to support deprecation based on the idea that anyone agreeing with Trump about anything should be deprecated. Others at Daily Wire (Boering, for example) choose not to get vaccinated and have explained that, because they are healthy and are willing to accept the consequences if they get the virus, they shouldn't be required to take it which is in opposition to Shapiro's stance. I can go through dozens of different points where different hosts/components of DW differ. But the point is that they are indeed a diverse group of ideas and do not all subscribe to "one view". Buffs (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
              • Besides Shapiro, who else? I'm trying to understand how WP:RSOPINION applies here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
                • K.e.coffman, I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Masem, but here's my understanding, using some examples.
                • All content (and that is literally ALL!!!) at Wikipedia must be based on RS with only ONE exception, WP:ABOUTSELF. That allows, sometimes in exceptional cases, the use of even blacklisted sources in a bio article about themselves, and nowhere else. (That's how we can document the "sum of all human knowledge" for conspiracy theories, lies, pseudoscience, etc.) IOW, for example, Trump (one of the least reliable people known) cannot be cited anywhere but in his own article, unless RS have quoted him (and they do because he is notable), in which case a RS can be used to cite him in other articles. The RS may be giving that content due weight.
                • If it weren't for WP:ABOUTSELF, we could never cite someone who has no regard for truth, and/or habitually spews lies, and/or misleading propaganda, and/or pseudoscientific nonsense all the time. That applies to people like Trump, Giuliani, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, Jones, Mercola, Tenpenny, and maybe even Shapiro. (I'll let you judge which might apply to each, and RS do have plenty to say about their lack of reliability.) We couldn't use primary sources or an unreliable source like The Daily Wire to cite them. OTOH, we could cite them if a RS cited them because the RS may be used to judge due weight.
                • I obviously disagree with some of what I think (I may be wrong) Masem has said above. If something in The Daily Wire is not found elsewhere in a RS, then it doesn't have enough due weight for mention in any other place than the TDW and/or Shapiro article. Other contributers at TDW should write for reputable sources if they want to get mention here. The fact they write for TDW shows very poor judgement. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, so take the above with a grain of salt. I'm sure someone can come up with some form of exception. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

                  To be clear, if TDW is the only one, or one of a very few number of sources that would fall into the usable RSOPINION class that opine on a minority viewpoint, then yes, per UNDUE, we should not be including them at all. But if TDW is in general broad agreement with a large body of other opinion sources (but with there own specific takes in a few places) - this is why I used cancel culture as an example where a body of opinions that bemoan cancel cancel readily exist that coverage of that view is not UNDUE - then it should be a reason to consider, but that's only a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion of TDW's opinion. A plethera of other factors related to RSOPINION and other factors come into play at that point.

                  What is key towards my argument (in that I support maintaining "generally unreliable" and opposed making it "deprecated") is that none of the evidence above shows the same types of problems that works like The Daily Mail or with state-owned works like RT to make us even doubt the veracity of their opinion pages. We can argue their opinion is very unlikely to be used in any reasonable WP article, and that's a completely fair assessment, as I agree the threshold to include TDW would be rather high. But there's no reason to pre-emptively say we can never use it based on the evidence given - nothing suggests the Daily Mail-type problems, and the sources that try to discuss TDW in depth do speak to its bias problems but attempts to stay factual. All that to me points to treating similar to Fox News, with very delicate hands but not hands off. --Masem (t) 01:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

                  Masem hits the nail on the head. Use of it could be easily used to show a general or notable ATTRIBUTED opinion on a subject. Deprecating it feels spiteful. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate per Aquillion and Platonk above. Cheers, all, and happy Tuesday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 without doubt major conduit for new right disinformation (while masquerading as libertarian source with "objective slant"). Acousmana 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• No The current status is already an over-generalization, and this would make it even worse. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate　ー　The examples provided here are sufficient. The Daily Wire's tabloid language is consistently deceptive. Arguments that it is technically not fake news are either pedantry or sophistry. Any opinions published by this website would almost always require reliable independent sources contextualizing why those opinion are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think Buffs has done a really good job showing that the examples are really poor. They may show extreme opinion but nothing that rises to the level of deprecation. At the same time the generally respected Adfontes media puts three DW is a bucket similar to Salon. There is a serious disconnect between what sources say vs what editors feel. Springee (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting how you present what you "think" as being in a different category from what other editors "feel". Almost like "facts don't care about your feelings"? The examples, and my own eyes, are sufficient for me to conclude that this outlet is extremely misleading. These opinions are not "extreme" in the same way that saying "pop tarts are a sandwich" is extreme, they are extreme in how they ignore very important context that would undermine their own ideological positions, and they are extreme in how they phrase things in an emotive, misleading way while pretending to be dispassionate and "rational". This is a form of fake news, and this set of tactics is a constant from this outlet. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Also, since it's been mentioned twice now, I will mention that Ad Fontes Media is not generally reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP. If you want to make the case that it's "generally respected", you have your work cut out for you, but that's clearly a separate discussion. I don't respect Ad Fontes Media, neither for this discussion, nor in general. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Just a constatation, but I noticed that the position changes depending on the chart version/year. In 2018 it was "extreme/unfair representation of the news", "hyper-partisan right". —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Version 4.0 of the chart —PaleoNeonate – 07:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Literally the majority of Buffs' responses were "nu-UH, I think this source is wrong." Come on. It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search, and I'll grant that there's some stuff in there I wouldn't put in an article, but there's a ton of really solid stuff there, too. "I don't agree with this peer-reviewed paper's definition of misinformation" or "I, personally, think the Daily Wire was right here even if this academic source says it was misinformation" is not a meaningful argument. Overall I presented a solid snapshot showing that academia largely views the Daily Wire as a source of politically-motivated misinformation, and I stand by that assessment. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  • No, I stated that your conclusion was wrong based on faulty analysis of the given information. "It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search" alone sort of proves my point. You created an amalgam of links that didn't support the conclusions you drew. It appears you simply assumed they did (i.e. "this article shows it's fake news" when, in fact, it mentions Daily Wire, also has "fake news", but doesn't connect the two. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Do not deprecate. The DW does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. However, they are making efforts in that direction. They do have a corrections policy[54] and have corrected their articles [55][56][57][58][59][60]. In light of this, deprecation would be going too far at this time. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, deprecate DailyWire aggregates items from other sources, rewriting to fit an agenda. There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items. DW can not be treated as a Reliable Source because the chain of newsgathering editorial control is broken: in other words, as an aggregator, they can not supervise their content creators (unlike, for example, the AP, or CBS, or TBS, or BBC, or WP, or CT, or... <I'm being US centric here, but those are media sources I know>). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  More guilt by accusation? They do original reporting too (note above). Quoting someone and giving analysis/opinion is not the same as "rewriting to fit an agenda". Likewise, There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items? Really? Media bias for DW is assessed as "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". What's your source? Buffs (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  It is "assessed" by an unreliable blog. As I mentioned above, Ad Fontes Media is not reliable, nor is it particularly trustworthy. Its methodology is shallow and inconsistent and the premise itself is simplistic. Taking political compass memes too seriously is a bad idea, for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's hardly an "unreliable blog", but ok. Here's another that labels it as "questionable", but (explicitly) not "Fake News" as described above. [61] Buffs (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  WP:MBFC is Generally Unreliable for Wikipedia. I also urge you to stop WP:BADGERing literally every person in this discussion that doesn't agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd urge you to stop exaggerating to make your points. I've hardly responded to literally every person in this discussion that doesn't agree with [me]. I've been selective. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• No Changing the status does nothing to improve articles. Under the current rating, no article in the publication would be considered reliable unless it was written by an expert, that is, someone who had papers about the topic published in the academic press. It's like killing a cockroach with a cruise missile. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – there can't be any possible reason to use this source, with the WP:ABOUTSELF exception mentioned by Valjean. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The fact that occasional valid content appears is irrelevant. If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. Re "endless pointless discussions"... For two weeks I've been watching this relentless campaigning about Daily Wire initiated by Buffs. I wish he'd give it a break. He started in on it on my User talk page (Sept 15), edit warred on an article (Sept 15-Sept 17), argued more at the article's talk page (Sept 17-Sept 19), on another editor's user talk page, and even more on his own talk page (Sept 17). I watched two editors get temporary blocks, and witnessed one ridiculous marathon ANI (Sept 16-17). After 48 hours of watching the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed, I made an about-face and walked away from all the drama. I have ignored him since then, until I noticed Buffs tried three times in under 24 hours to unilaterally remove Daily Wire from WP:RSP on Sept 26-27 (1st, 2nd, 3rd removals). And so here we are. Platonk (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  We should avoid tying issues related to behavior of a single editor to the assessment of reliability of a website. Just because one bad seed pushed a specific website in an inappropriate manner does not necessarily make that website a bad website - though it is possible that a separate evaluation of that website not tied to that editor will reveal faults. --Masem (t) 12:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well, when you slant it like that. How about "A few people had a disagreement. Buffs tried multiple options (including attempting one-on-one discussions as required in a collegial discussion until it was clear that nothing was going to be gained. After having insults hurled at him and removing them from his talk page and despite CLEAR guidance that it was allowed, he was blocked, so he reached out for help. He also noticed that a summary on WP:RSP was placed unilaterally by an IP address and reverted it. Another editor who swore he wouldn't interact with me ever again, then proceeded to simply undo anything I'd done and then placed a rigged RFC here (both options get what he wants and doesn't address anything I brought up...and refused to add any more options/allow a different RfC)?" Reasonable people can disagree. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm a problem. You don't have to be here if you don't want to be.

  If y'all are going to disparage/badmouth me on a public page, the least you could do is tag me. Calling discussions and disagreements "ridiculous" is absurd. So is calling me "one bad seed". Buffs (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I was merely responding to SPECIFICO's remark ("If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication.") with an example of such endlessness which was actually related to this discussion. There is no need to go into long defenses and extend said endlessness. This RSN/RfC is quite enough, and I hope it's the last I see of this topic. Platonk (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  You were not "merely responding" and you know it. You took a chance to have one more jab at me/chance to needle me when it wasn't warranted in the slightest. If you don't want to see this topic, you don't have to look. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Knock it off! Your style of writing towards me on this topic has not been merely uncivil, but has been dismissive, overbearing, bullying... and ongoing. That's the umpteenth time you've told me I could walk away instead of dealing with your tendentious behavior. Knock off the BATTLE and PA and stick to the subject matter. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Let me see if I can summarize how I see this portion going:

  • SPECIFICO !votes "yes" and cites his reason as "If not, we'll have endless pointless discussions"
  • You respond with, effectively, yes, "Buffs is a terrible editor and here's why" (paraphrased) with a lengthy list of gripes/exaggerations about me including descriptors like "relentless campaigning", "I wish he'd give it a break", "he started it on my talk page", "edit warred", "argued more", "the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed", "[argued] even more on his own talk page". You then say you "walked away from all the drama", disparaged my edits (which I think reasonable and hardly "unilateral" any more than the previous addition in the first place by an IP who was clearly trying to hide their real identity) and attempts at a compromise, and lastly tried to frame that as "here we are...[this is all his fault]"

  None of that was necessary and was pretty much a repeat of what you tried to (unsuccessfully) bring up at WP:ANI. It doesn't have any bearing on this RfC and you made it highly personal for no reason. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: This RfC is not a war against you even though you keep framing it as one. See WP:USTHEM. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Only one person here keeps referring to this as a "war against <anything>" here and it isn't me. Buffs (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. Per Aquillion and David Gerard. Any content from DailyWire is better sourced elsewhere. Cedar777 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Sometimes when I'm bored I listen to the various Daily Wire podcasts. Even though they word things differently, it would be completely wrong to say they have differing opinions. 99% of the time it's all just the same disinformation but re-packaged for a different audience depending on the podcast. In the 1% of cases where it isn't there's better sources to get the information anyway. So no big lose. That said, people could probably make the same argument for MSNBC and them endlessly repeating "the walls are closing in" on Trump over the Russia thing, but whatever. This isn't an RfC about MSNBC. If it was, I'd probably vote the same way. In the meantime though, DW should clearly not be used as a reference for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment WP:Deprecated sources seems to be at odds with the general direction of this RfC. Reading that information page i get the impression that Daily Wire would be de facto deprecated and the question would be ...often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki... vs. instruction creep. SPECIFICO and Platonk's arguments would then be most relevant. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The Daily Mail deprecation RFC came about because it was a clearly terrible source, but some editors insisted it was excellent and insisted on using it anyway; this meant there was a genuine dispute over the matter. This is the same reason this RFC exists: an editor insisting at length, in multiple venues, over weeks, that it's a quality source in the face of the evidence it isn't. This could be treated as an editor issue - the dispute did make it to the admin noticeboards - but it's arguably useful to weigh it up as a sourcing issue - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • True, @David Gerard:. I'm exhausted from all that 'insisting' even though I wasn't even participating in all those discussions. Was there an ANI I missed? I'm only familiar with two that the 'insister' filed on other editors who had been trying to set them straight on the GUNREL status of Daily Wire. Platonk (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
      • And in the meantime this has sat for two weeks without response? deprecate fiveby(zero) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Fiveby: I'd forgotten all about that one. BTW, you might want to change your 'comment' to a !vote, if you want it counted (from within this wall-of-text RfC). Platonk (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• No: there is a lot of reaching and exaggeration in the comments above, unfortunately. I was perfectly willing to be convinced that the source should be deprecated, but no-one has actually presented concerns strong enough for this very severe outcome. Note that my comment is not a comment either way about whether the Daily Wire should be categorised as "Generally unreliable" or recategorised, just opposition to deprecation. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Now some administrators are interpreting "deprecate" as "can be added to spam-blacklist" so all RfCs with this word can be used for more than deprecating. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Peter Gulutzan, who is doing that? Please provide the diff. Regardless, we do not make decisions based on abuse, misuse, or misunderstandings. The exceptional misuse should not affect our decisions or this process, so please strike or reword your comment. -- Valjean (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Valjean: here, here, and I think I'm allowed to disagree with you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Update: I edited my original comment to strike out quote marks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Peter Gulutzan, I need actual diff(s) to the single edit(s), not to the whole thread. Those are to threads about ancient-origins.net, so I don't understand what's going on or how it relates to The Daily Wire. (BTW, of course you're allowed to disagree with me!! No problemo. My point still stands, that rare exceptions shouldn't dictate general actions. -- Valjean (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

        Valjean: One has to read more than one post in the thread to see that the request was deprecation and the result was spam-blacklist. You choose to believe the administrators' actions were exceptional, that's not how I interpreted their remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

        Hi Peter. I only searched for mention of The Daily Wire and didn't fiind it, so didn't read any further. So, if I understand you correctly, some admin(s) responded to a request for deprecation of some source with blacklisting it? Is that what happened? Was that website comparable to TDW? -- Valjean (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

        Also, I see no indication anywhere that there is any danger that TDW would be blacklisted. There is no cause for concern. -- Valjean (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

        It is correct that the suggestion was deprecation and the result was adding to the spam blacklist. The administrators gave no advance indication. So I will regard pro-deprecation RfCs as causes for concern. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Is there any recent deprecation RFC that you've participated in and not claimed is a "bad RFC"? You may be opposed to deprecation in general, but RFCs for such were validated by an RFC on that topic on this page. Your continuing claims that clearly valid RFCs are bad is getting tendentious, and don't appear to have convinced anyone - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, October 3, 2021‎ (UTC)

    David Gerard: As far as I can see in WP:RFC, there is nothing that obliges me to comment on this RfC in a way that you prescribe. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

    David Gerard, that was an unnecessarily personal remark that really has no place on WP discussions. I, for one, don't find the argument to be having this RfC in this manner to be very convincing and several others have expressed similar concerns below. Buffs (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. Not reliable on facts. Gerntrash (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• No This is a pointless question which has wasted a lot of editor effort. If it's generally unreliable we can quote people for their opinions or in the remote event an expert writes an article for facts. If it's deprecated, we can't. Can someone explain how making this change improves the encyclopedia? TFD (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on your comment and others it seems what's really unreliable is WP:Deprecated sources. If i can't rely on that page for help as to Acceptable uses of deprecated sources and What deprecation is and isn't what should i be looking at? fiveby(zero) 14:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• No. The assessments of the highest quality secondary sources that have been cited in this discussion (e.g. NPR, Adfontes' Interactive Media Bias Chart) are not consistent with deprecation. Colin M (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Since Ad Fontes is unreliable per WP:RSP, it is not accurate to list it as one of the highest quality sources. As for NPR, it also says But The Daily Wire has turned anger into an art form and recycled content into a business model.[62] That shows that this outlet has a negative reputation from its journalistic peers. If this content is at best repackaged from elsewhere with an unreliable political slant, then there is no reason to cite this outlet instead of the more reliable original source. This matches other deceptive or clickbait outlets which have already been deprecated. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  The most recent RSN discussion on Ad Fontes seems to suggest that people consider it useful for assessing sources (i.e. what we're doing right now) but not appropriate to cite in mainspace articles for the purposes of supporting claims about the bias/reliability of publications. Colin M (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I get what that discussion is aiming at, but it appears to be an attempt at a compromise. Ad Fontes's presentation is more glossy and respectible-seeming than some alternatives, but the underlying content is opaque, subjective, and pseudoscientific. It lacks a positive reputation as a source itself. If it's not reliable for articles, why, exactly is it supposed to be useful for us here? Is it do as we say, not as we do? Regardless, if it's not even reliable, than it's definitely not a high quality source, even for evaluating other sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate. Aquillon and David Gerard give ample sourcing of the DW lying, and nobody on the no side since appears to be able to offer anyone but their opinion that lying is not lying or doesn't count somehow. Even some of the sources given to counter that the DW was lying prove that they were lying: for example, when the DW says BLM activists led a protest on Monday at Carmine’s Italian Restaurant in New York City after a hostess denied entry to three black women last week because they would not provide proof of vaccination, Buffs cites to bolster this story a story by Newsweek (itself a marginal source) which said in a story published the same day It later emerged that the three women had provided documentation of COVID-19 vaccinations. This detail fundamentally changes the story, and this all happened weeks ago, ample time to correct the article. Loki (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. As stated at WP:DEPS, "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." As shown in previous discussions and above, this is not a reliable source. I am persuaded by evidence of their dishonest reporting, and unpersuaded by defenses of the same. No one denies that the majority of their conent is, as a matter of their practice, easily sourcable in other places. We should deprecate to save editor time, raise awareness, and better inform our readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  By that logic, we could deprecate most media as virtually every story is rebroadcast multiple times. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  You got me! I am indeed advocating for the deprecation of all media. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• No As demonstrated my others yes it is unreliable but not to the extent that deprecation is required. Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• No per Masem and Buffs above. The cited NPR source, for instance, demonstrates that if anything, TDW ought to be upgraded: "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods". Sure, NPR follows up with all kinds of opinionated fear, uncertainty, and doubt, as is its wont, but the stark assessment remains: the source is as reliable as any other media. XavierItzm (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• No per adoring Nanny. This fits in the "generally unreliable" category, but as noted above, they do see to publish corrections, but I would still consider them a mostly inappropriate source. I am fine with our standard being "generally unreliable" here. --Jayron32 11:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Programme on Democracy & Technology at the Oxford Internet Institute treats The Daily Wire as "junk news" alongside outlets such as The Daily Caller and The Blaze (eg. [63]). A "research note" from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review classifies the DW's YouTube channel as part of the "Alternative Influence Network" along with The Joe Rogan Experience.[64] A case study from the German Marshall Fund links the DW with spreading misinformation.[65] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should use only the best sources, and the DW isn't one. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes deprecation is appropriate. I won't spend time repeating what others have said. In short, there is no good reason to use this source if the content can be cited elsewhere. If there is no other source, then the claim should probably not be in an article at all. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes deprecate. I don't think I've ever felt so exhausted reading through an RfC before. And it's not often I've found unreliable sources being used to defend an unreliable source. However at least for me the burden of the evidence provided above is clear - this is a source we should never be using except in its own article, and the only practical way to prevent its misuse is be deprecating and blacklisting. (Yes, I know it's not spam, but blacklisting is the only way to enforce deprecation, and it's not worth going through the effort to deprecate and still let editors use it). Doug Weller talk 09:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate Came here to check/start this on the back of [66]. Literally taking facebook postings as true facts and writing them in the publication's voice makes this a "never ever ever use" source. Corrected errors are one thing, this is something else. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The story has a correction already. Elsewhere on this page it has been claimed that this is something that testifies to the working editorial processes. Alaexis_¿question? 18:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Working editorial process"? You just don't publish reports on unverified crap like that unless you are irresponsible in the first place. No real journalist would do that, and no editor worth his salt would allow such an article to publish in the first place. It's as if DW is using their website like it's social media and toss out whatever is on their mind with no thought. The damage has already been done when someone publishes lies like that. Retractions are important, but rarely amend the damage they have caused in the first place. Retractions should be rare. This points further to DW being generally unreliable as a source at best, and dangerous at worst. Wikipedia should have no part in forwarding the knee-jerk utterances of such writers. Platonk (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that the retraction of a 100% false story sourced to random people on twitter saying something (but stated as if an official arm of a government said such a thing) based on completely fabricated documents posted on random facebook groups demonstrates "working editorial processes" lacks the competence to edit here - anyone that believes this should have their editing closely monitored for acts that will bring the project into disrepute. Luckily, even you don't believe this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Does it have a "reputation for fact-checking"? No, it has a history of occasionally issuing corrections after OTHERS have caught them with their hand in the cookie jar. That shows a disturbing pattern that warrants deprecation. -- Valjean (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

1) Wasn't a "random person on Twitter". He runs a think tank. 2) Anyone who believes that the retraction of a 100% false story...demonstrates "working editorial processes" lacks the competence to edit here is an unnecessarily personal remark. 3) They admit mistakes and openly post corrections at the top of the story unlike the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-stealth-edits-aoc-iron-dome-israel NY Times which is (allegedly) above reproach. Can't we all just agree that the various news outlets get stories wrong and they should clearly post corrections...exactly like DW did? Buffs (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, I changed the indentation level of your comment immediately above as it's obviously a response to Hipocrite. -- Valjean (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, my response was to all of you. Buffs (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh. My mistake. Sorry about that. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, deprecate For many of the reasons above: repackages material, omits certain facts to push a narrative, "turns anger into an art form", and, the best thing I've seen pointed out: a score of 57/100 and headered with the warning "Proceed with caution" on news guard [67]. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  This source also states DW "Does not repeatedly publish false content" "avoids deceptive headlines". "Use caution" would be status quo, not "deprecate", no? Buffs (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• No. Absolutely not deprecated, and quite frankly, Id vote for either a non-consensus or generally reliable in its area of expertise. Most of the reasons above like "repackaged material", "disregarding facts", "pushing a narrative" are all silly reasons that are being used to judge DW harsher than others because they don't agree with their politics; do the people who vote yes actually watch a significant chunk of their services through their own publishing, or only soundbites lifted from somewhere else? It is a partisan news service now with multiple field reporters and independent stories. It's very clear here that no-consensus needs to be the minimum here just from this message board; this doesn't mean that you can use the source as free reign, but it is a good source for all conservative opinions about any United States political issue. I don't think I have a strong case for generally reliable, but the Daily Wire has set a scope, most if not all contentious topics are backed up by either original sources, linking someone else's discovery (If NYT ran a survey for example and DW linked to that source) or from a government source. I've watched Ben's stuff extensively, I've watched Matt Walsh to a degree, I have watched some, but not too much of Candace Owens or Michael Knowles and hardly anything by Andrew Klavan or anyone else. To sum up, I would like No Consensus with additional considerations applying (such as limited topics for free reign or having a progressive source either providing a contrasing view). P.S. this is the first time I've seen this message board. If I was pinged earlier, I would have replied earlier. Titaniumman23 (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hi. Your quotes "repackaged material," "disregarding facts," and "pushing a narrative," don't appear anywhere in the text above. Are you replying to something else? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello. I’m not trying to reply to someone directly. I saw someone earlier use the same terms to sum up what has already been said and I figured I could reuse the same terms for the same meanings. I believe the terms are self explanatory but I can write a definition for each if you’d like. Titaniumman23 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Those terms do not appear on this page apart from this discussion right here. Who are you quoting, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  They are (accurately) paraphrased, not quoted, from the remarks that immediately precede this one. The word "like" indicates "approximately similar to". Buffs (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• No per Titaniumman23 above. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Malformed survey

A solid percentage of people reviewing this have voiced that this is a partisan source, but is generally reliable for facts (I think it would be reasonable to say that climate issues should use caution). Few have argued for deprecation. Framing this discussion as if this is nexus of the dispute is absurd/hyperpartisan and inappropriate for the guidelines of an RfC (it is not a neutral statement). It is inappropriately framed as a False dilemma: the options should be more broad than this as the result is "Yes: get rid of it all" or "No: it's just not a reliable source". Likewise, many statements in prior discussions have been based on sources that don't say what the authors claim. Claiming "I don't need sources because others will provide it and I'll retroactively agree" is absurd. Establisher of this RfC has not pinged users who were previously involved. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The following options should be added:

Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics

Option 4: Treat as a generally reliable source for information

Buffs (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options.

The discussion at RS/P produced such excellent and strong criticism from many good reliable and scholarly sources that I was tempted to go for full blacklisting, but decided to go for what was suggested there, which was deprecation. -- Valjean (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options. When the conclusion prevents such a discussion? Yeah right. Like I said, this is an attempt to game the system. Buffs (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we use the same format as Metalmaidens.com listed below for this RfC? Oh, right, it would prevent you from getting the exact result you want and prevents me (or others) from offering any alternatives. Yep: WP:GAME. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I chose this because the rules for RfCs allow several different formats, and, based on the direction and recommendations in the previous discussion, this seemed to be the logical choice. All the arguments and sources presented there undercut your attempts to get TDW rated as a good source when it's actually a horrible source. -- Valjean (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a neutral statement, therefore it fails RfC criteria. Sources used as a rationale for such options in the past are misleadingly summarized; Example: "Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/" when in fact it states ""Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content" As such, neither option is an appropriate choice, but you've excluded those options and ignored other discussions on that page as well as other discussions in the past. So, no, that isn't a faithful summary of the previous discussions on the subject. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nor did you invite the previous people in those discussions to this RfC... Buffs (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: The RfC nom did, actually. I direct you to WP:Canvassing. The RfC nom correctly used appropriate notification to notify participants in several other threads. If he/she omitted any by mistake (since you've buttered this topic all over Wikipedia, and who can keep track of it all), you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he only mentioned this RfC in one of the two on that page and did not invite any previous participants. If he's made more efforts, he should publish them. You're the one who's claiming he did so. Where else has this been published? Why hasn't it been marked at the top of the discussion per Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions? Why haven't other editors been informed? Buffs (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: I see notices and invitations/pings at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire [68] [69] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please restore RfC remarks [70]. Where else do you think editors should have been notified? Who wasn't notified that you think should have been? Platonk (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How about all the people who were involved in the previous 3 discussions 1 2 3 and other discussions I've mentioned above? How about the talk page of the subject? Instead, he chose one specific thread and one barely tangentially related ANI page where opinion was in his favor and posted links/tagged those people only. So, no, that's not a neutral notification. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll happily tag all those people and invite them here (assuming they haven't already been invited), but I'm also not going to be accused of WP:CANVASSING if there are. The originator has already said "nah" to including anyone else. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, I placed a prominent notice at the end of the discussion, as noted above. Everyone in that thread, especially yourself, as the starter of the thread, had a chance to read it. The RfC process automatically alerted two different topic areas, so even more people would notice this RfC. So those who had been involved in your WP:RS/P discussion noticed it, as well as many who didn't know anything about what was going on. My edit summaries, which are read by many people who don't participate, were also clear about the new RfC here. I tried to do the right thing. I don't start RfCs very often.

Also, I don't recall saying anything like that above about "anyone else" ("The originator has already said "nah" to including anyone else."). What I said was "Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options." That was at 05:13, 27 September 2021. -- Valjean (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, see Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions#Best_pracitces:

• If you do post notices, also post a comment at the discussion talk page that such notices have been made.
• Best practice include making a note of where the discussion has been publicised

Dozens of people participated in previous discussions. The only way they'd know about this one is if they regularly follow the page. Those people should be contacted/tagged, IMHO. If there is no objection, I'll try to contact them in a few days. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This line of discussion is disruptive. There is no constructive reason for you to beat this dead horse and repeatedly harangue an editor over your days-old accusation of an omission that you yourself could have remedied if it were true. If putting a generic notice on a particular talk page isn't canvassing, then do it and quit complaining that someone else didn't do it. If notifying individual editors who were involved in discussions that took place in 2018, 2019 and 2020 is canvassing, then don't do that. If you are uncertain about the scope or details of the WP:Canvassing guidelines, then try asking your questions on its talk page or on a noticeboard with the purpose of discussing/clarifying policies. See also WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you think this is disruptive, then stop asking questions. You can't ask repeated questions/ask for clarification and then use that as evidence of alleged disruption when a person responds. I can't possibly ask some talk page to see what your opinion is or seek clarification of your intent (if I do so, couldn't that be considered canvassing when I ask about the situation?). Asking for clarification is what a talk page is for; it's not disruption. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: Don't twist this around to pretend your hands are clean and your disruptive comments are all my fault. I asked questions once [71] and it was rhetorical — to suggest you do it yourself. And that was after I told you to handle alleged omissions yourself [72]. But instead of doing that, you have continued this line of badgering by posting five more comments [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. This noticeboard is not a talk page and your contributions here should be focused on improving the encyclopedia. Your pattern of pettifogging comments suggests you are not trying to resolve anything, but instead are being POINTY to the brink of exasperation. So if anyone has been making this subthread continue, it sure as day wasn't my questions 7 posts back! Stop gaslighting me! Platonk (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I asked the originator of this RfC for clarification, not you (a request that has been ignored). This noticeboard is effectively a talk page just like any other notice board and a place to discuss differences and reach a consensus (thereby improving WP). Discussing behavioral standards is part of that. To categorize dissent from your personal views/collegial discussion as "disruption" is inherently uncivil. You are the one who is slinging accusations left and right here, not me, and I ask that you stop. Buffs (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs if there is one piece of advice I could give you, it is that replying endlessly to all of these threads and comments with "citation needed" and repetitions of previously answered arguments.... all of it is detrimental to your goal. Reading this thread, uninvolved users are less likely to side with you as a result, not more. My advice overall is to step back from this and take a breather. If your criticisms are indeed valid, it is very likely someone else will respond. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your advice. I've not replied to "all these threads" and exaggerations like these are part of the problem here. Comments like "it's garbage propaganda" need a citation as they are feeding a negative image that is being formed via guilt-by-accusation. Others have responded. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Referring to 67 replies by a single user on just one RfC is not 'an exaggeration'. Platonk (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Platonk without making any statement on right/wrong/otherwise of these opinions etc. I think this is a very clear case of WP:IDHT. In general, my advice to you is to also stop responding. Uninvolved editors can very easily see and understand the situation here. It's not rocket science. Indeed, this is actually often used as a shorthand to understand how lopsided the consensus is. Seeing intense "badgerers" (for lack of a better term) in a discussion.

I admit, I myself have been guilty of this. I would bet most of us have been at one point or another! But the important thing is recognizing it. It's difficult to recognize in oneself, but very easy to recognize in others. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to get blocked for personal attacks and assuming bad faith, you should strike your GAME and other personalizing comments. -- Valjean (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I see your actions as an attempt to game the system. I asked for you to include options I want and you've refused. Given that you've also stated you control the conversation now and that I can't start an RfC until this one is over, I stand by my assessment. This isn't the place for such discussion. If you want to discuss it further, you know the proper venues. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

collapsed per WP:OFFTOPIC— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed a lengthy, tendentious section inserted by Buffs which makes wholly-unsupported and unsupportable accusations of connections to pedophilia. If Buffs believes a mass-market novel published in the United States by reputable mainstream publishers and favorably reviewed by a number of mainstream sources is "pedophilia," Wikipedia is not the place to promote their (wrong) beliefs. This insinuation borders on a personal attack and is wildly inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC) I think you are confusing Lawn Boy and Lawn Boy. My comments are that WP has the exact same standards as DW and the mother in question. Restore my comments. Buffs (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Wrong. You know nothing about books and nothing about the First Amendment. As evidenced by the book's Amazon entry, Jonathan Evison's coming-of-age novel Lawn Boy was published by Algonquin Books, favorably reviewed by the NYT, the Washington Post, and a variety of other mainstream outlets, given starred reviews by Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, and named a 2018 Editors Choice pick of Booklist. The novel is factually and legally not "pedophilia" and for you to suggest or state that it is, is frankly outright libelous toward the author. You may not use this platform to smear Jonathan Evison, a living person and a noted novelist, as a purported advocate of pedophilia - or to smear me for defending the work as being of literary merit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Off-topic, but I am reminded of Cuties. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC) "Wrong. You know nothing about books..." is hardly a WP:CIVIL comment. Furthermore, I very clearly did not "smear" you and went so far as to clarify it. As for this particular passage, I was pointing out what the person who was talking to the school board was presenting. If she was inaccurate, that's on her. There's a vast difference. The point here (and that I very clearly repeated before you deleted it) was that such passages, as described, fell under pedophilia and that WP has the same standards. In case there was any misconception, let me be crystal clear: I am NOT in any way accusing you of posting or defending pedophilia at this time. Reasonable people can disagree about content and whether it is appropriate for a school to have. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Buffs' assessment of the Daily Wire, but can understand their frustration by this RfC. There was a discussion opened about whether to [effectively] upgrade the Daily Wire at RSP, and while that was ongoing an RfC opened about whether to downgrade it. If the opposite were the case: if we were talking about deprecation and Buffs opened an RfC proposing to upgrade it to no consensus, that would be roundly seen as disruptive. There is a key difference, of course, is that the source clearly is unreliable for statements of fact. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to adding other options. I considered not !voting, but since I guess we haven't had a real RfC on this source before... meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

So, procedurally disruptive, but because you agree with him it's ok? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Buffs (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No, and no. I highlighted a key difference in the hypothetical, but it's a hypothetical. If you read my !vote, I didn't support (or oppose) deprecation. We could use an RfC on it, I suppose, so while this one isn't ideal, I figured I'd respond as though it were a more typical source reliability RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Consulting the Media Bias Chart: Disclaimer, I know Adfontes isn't the infinite oracle of wisdom here but I think it's interesting to compare how a source scored there vs how Wikipedia treats them. The Daily Wire is rated as 34.41 and 14.43 for reliability and bias (positive bias = right, negative = left). What sources have similar scores (looking at absolute bias), Salon is 33.72, -18.08 so less reliable and more biased. New Republic is basically the same reliability but a bias of -18 vs 14.4. The Week is again about the same reliability but bias of 12. Vanity Fair is 36.15 and about the same bias. The Daily Beast and MSNBC are both about 2pts better in reliability and about the same for bias. None of this says Daily Wire is good but it does suggest our attempt to deprecate are overkill. These are all sites that fall into the "Analysis or High Variation in Reliability" bucket. Aquillion has listed a number of references but are they good? The first one I clicked on was a masters thesis [78]. Is that our standard now? This paper doesn't make a strong case for depreciation [79]. It basically says the DW criticized another news source for bias. If that was our standard then CNN would have to do away for their fixation on talking about "what Fox News just did". No question it isn't quality reporting but it's not the sort of thing that justifies depreciation nor is it something none of our acceptable sources would engage in. This one is an undergrad thesis [80]. The strongest material in here is a group that seems to repeatedly use the Daily Wire as part of their misinformation briefs but they don't provide examples of why the articles are wrong rather they are looking at web engagement. When the Daily Mail was deprecated, if I'm not mistaken, there were concrete examples of where they did something wrong. In the recent Rolling Stone discussion again there were clear examples of the source getting things wrong, refusing to correct etc. Here we have a lot of editor opinion (and undergrad opinions) but little in the way of true substance. Absent that true substance we shouldn't deprecate. Springee (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Internet Institute's Programme on Democracy & Technology does have a FAQ for what they consider "junk news". Very much a guess here, but it appears that their newsletter is based on their aggregator results, with the methodology possibly described in this preprint. However, I can't find any specific discussion of Daily Wire on the site. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ooops, missed the listing in the preprint, Daily Wire is coded 'RB', 'S', 'Cr': "Right-wing bias", "Style", and "Credibility". fiveby(zero) 15:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is still a problematic source on several grounds. 1. This is a pre-print. Did this paper get published and where? 2. They don't provide evidence. That may not be important for what they are trying to do with the paper but it is important if we are going to deprecate a source based on their unsubstantiated claims. This is really the big problem with this whole discussion. The evidence used to deprecate is basically editor opinion or flaky mentions. Compare that to what was used to move Rolling Stone down in the recent RfC. In that case we had clear examples of problems and stories that were all but invented etc. The fact that academic sources think so little of DW is a good reason to keep them in the generally unreliable camp but not to deprecate them. Springee (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT seems to often rule this noticeboard. Just taking a closer look at the strongest material in here. fiveby(zero) 16:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification Given that there have been no objections voiced and multiple requests to include everyone who was involved in previous discussions, I'm going to ping all from those discussions I could find in the archives who have not yet voiced an opinion here. If you find someone who was not included, please feel free to ping them...I assure you it was an unintentional oversight (those who did not voice an opinion were not included...if you feel they should be included, please add them to the list):

@Sangdeboeuf, E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz, Titaniumman23, Patapsco913, Wumbolo, Lionel~enwiki, XavierItzm, Jayron32, Guy, MastCell, Valereee, Muboshgu, François Robere, Newslinger, MrX, GaɱingFørFuɲ, and Snooganssnoogans:

See #RfC: The Daily Wire Buffs (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That's only a fraction of involved people. For example from the Ben Shapiro article alone I see editors added cites to Daily Wire here here here here. Maybe if they were informed they'd agree their edits should be reverted, but WP:RSN pro-deprecate campaigns don't inform them by pinging, they don't even put notices on relevant talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I've only stumbled upon this RfC but there may be valid reasons why some users above weren't pinged before – E.M. Gregory was found guilty of sockpuppetry and banned, Icewhiz was TOU banned and Wumbolo is permanently blocked. A number of editors have also stopped editing Wikipedia regularly(User:Lionel~enwiki, User:Newslinger, User:MrX.) The original opener of the RfC may have seen this in their pages and activity log and decided to refrain from pinging them, extending WP:GF to them. BeReasonabl (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeReasonabl: Appropriate non-canvassing notices were posted by the RfC nominator. I suspect the reason no one was individually pinged was probably because Buffs wanted to notify editors who participated in RSNs in 2018, 2019 and 2020, which is unrealistically far back in time. Also, pinging individual editors is frowned upon, which is why I pointed that out earlier and discouraged it. But now that he's done it anyway — though only part way, thus risking a charge of votestacking because, instead of notifying everyone, Buffs omitted several he felt "didn't express an opinion" — I will ping the omitted participants (those who are not-blocked and who have edited within the last month or so): Bahb the Illuminated (2018 RSN), Doug Weller (2019 RSN), Emir of Wikipedia (2018 RSN), FreeMediaKid! (2020 RSN), Narky Blert (2020 RSN), Neutrality (2018 RSN), and Robertgombos (2018 RSN). Apologies to anyone who doesn't want to get re-involved after several years have passed, but I felt I needed to complete the list. Evaluating previous participants and only notifying some would be exactly why VOTESTACKING was written in the first place, Buffs. Platonk (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I decided to review The Daily Wire, using the New York Post, another source identified as generally unreliable, for comparison along the way. After briefly scanning their front pages and some of their articles, I have to admit that I did not find The Daily Wire to be as bad as I thought. Rather, it is roughly on par with the New York Post in terms of reliability, and the two do at least try to stay in contact with reality. That does not necessarily make either source highly useful, however. As was noted by the NPR, there is little original reporting by The Daily Wire. The two sources are definitely Foxier than Fox News, but not to the extent of InfoWars, although, while unimportant for this discussion, the vast majority of coverage on The Daily Wire seems to be solely about politics. Remarkably, its articles do cite sources, however imperfect, but that is where one should use those citations instead, and the lack of original reporting leads me to believe that we would not lose much to simply deprecate the source. FreeMediaKid$ 22:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you just made the case for not deprecating. I agree that as a "generally not reliable source" we lose little in the way of good content by going the extra step to depreciation but why is that an argument for it? The Daily Mail was deprecated precisely because it was so widely used. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Additionally, your review suggests the source may actually be trying to improve. We can put that in terms of Wikipedia's own editor blocking policy. We block to protect Wikipedia, not to punish. If a generally unreliable source isn't widely used we aren't protecting Wikipedia by blocking it. Instead we would be, essentially punishing the source because editors don't like it. Anyway, deprecation should be a last resort, not a preemptive measure which seems to be how some editors would like to use it here. Springee (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Your logic leaves me shaking my head. First, I and a few others already removed most of the uses of dailywire.com from Wikipedia, which is why you don't see it broadly used. And editors keep adding DW citations in new ways, despite DW being labeled generally unreliable, which means constant patroling efforts. Second, FreeMediaKid! expressed "briefly scanning [DW's] front pages and some of their articles", which is hardly an evaluation from which anyone could conclude "[DW] may actually be trying to improve". Third, if DW hasn't sufficiently improved after RSNs spanning three years such that consensus says to finally blacklist it, "its" efforts to improve are irrelevant; we're not talking about a child who needs nurturing and guidance. The staff at DW aren't listening to a bunch of Wikipedia editors' opinions on their 'reliability'. Fourth, "punish" is something you do to a sentient being, not an inanimate thing; blacklisting a website isn't 'punishing' it, and you cannot correlate Wikipedia editor behavioral sanctions to reliable source policies. Well... that is unless... unless you have some super secret special plan up your sleeve to go over to DW offices and tell them authoritatively to get their reliability ducks in a row "OR ELSE!" we'll cut them off here at Wikipedia. Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm! Platonk (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The logic is sound. Your implication of some sort of super secret plan certainly has myself and likely others doing a facepalm. No one has shown that DW is used to the point of abuse or that generally unreliable just isn't enough. Deprecation should be a last resort, not just a "we don't like it" vote. Springee (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If I had caused any confusion in how I reviewed the DW, I apologize. To be fair, I was rather graceful in my language, so let me rephrase the review. I evaluated that although it was not surreal like InfoWars or some other fringe website, it was not better than other generally unreliable sources like the NYPost either. I thus do not endorse the DW as a reliable or situational source due to its history of publishing false information as explained by other editors, nor do I consider it to be improving anytime soon. However, I did not explicitly rule out the possibility of using it to attribute the authors' opinions, but even then, I cannot understand how that would benefit us since other, better sources would likely both quote them and link to their pages. At least the NYPost has some use, even if it is still mostly useless. The point is that if someone can demonstrate that the DW is not outright useless, I may vote in favor of keeping the source as generally unreliable. FreeMediaKid$ 18:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Injecting my reply to "Evaluating previous participants and only notifying some would be exactly why VOTESTACKING was written in the first place, Buffs". I asked for weeks for the OP to notify previous participants. I literally notified everyone who expressed a !vote, not just an opinion AND I specifically asked for anyone who feels I've missed someone to add them! To bitch about it after I've done my absolute best and accuse me of votestacking is completely WP:GASLIGHTING. At this point it's clear you aren't editing in good faith and you're only taking bits and pieces in order to malign my character. It's grossly WP:UNCIVIL. Buffs (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No one notifies people from three years back; that was your idea, and your idea alone. Objections to your plan were expressed, but you didn't hear them and so you did it anyway. No one else pinged those people, because no one else thought it was an appropriate action. And no one should have had to wade through three years of discussions to figure out if you missed anyone. I waded, you missed, I called you on it. You omitted 30% of the participants! Did you expect a participation award for violating policy? It's not like you missed one or two who were hidden (like Doug Weller's comment was, because it wasn't signed.) I corrected your "absolute best" with a groan, considering I don't think you should have pinged anyone in the first place, and I wrestled with whether or not I should ping the omitted ones I identified — to potentially balance your error. I shouldn't have had to do the work to identify who you missed. Neither should anyone else. Platonk (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's compare your remarks, shall we?

Objections to your plan were expressed, but you didn't hear them and so you did it anyway.

Really? I could have sworn you said the exact opposite. OH! It's because you did...

"If he/she omitted any by mistake...you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself."

Then after I did it, you changed your opinion pretending you warned me all along not to do that and that it was a violation of WP:Canvass and WP:VOTESTACKing. Pretending you just had to notify all the people I "missed" is just your way of trying to belittle me and classify it as an error/point it out. You could just as easily said "I'm going to go ahead and ping those who didn't express a !vote too" and pinged 'em, but instead you used it as a platform to harangue me personally. I openly stated (those who did not voice an opinion were not included...if you feel they should be included, please add them to the list). I wasn't hiding anything and I explained my rationale and repeatedly explained why. I invited you to ping anyone else you felt should be part of the conversation. Those informed were about 11:9 for:against DW. For all practical purposes, it was a complete wash. When you throw out people who are banned, it was a net loss of !votes for DW. If you think this is a violation of canvassing guidelines, you're absolutely certifiable.

You think 2018-2020 is too far back? He didn't even notify people from a few weeks prior. Yes, I'd rather have a complete discussion. If you think more should be included, then I welcome it. But don't sit here and say that I'm doing something you warned against when you explicitly requested otherwise.

Canvassing and votestacking are done "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". I haven't. I did so in a neutral/slightly biased against me manner. If you have evidence I've done that, present it at the appropriate boards. Otherwise, knock it off. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You're shuffling the timeline. The full quote: "The RfC nom did, actually. I direct you to WP:Canvassing. The RfC nom correctly used appropriate notification to notify participants in several other threads. If he/she omitted any by mistake (since you've buttered this topic all over Wikipedia, and who can keep track of it all), you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself.". I thought you had been referring to recent topic participants, since you'd buttered the topic all over Wikipedia in the previous two weeks — not three years. By buttering all over I mean: my talk page, RfC nom's talk page, two other editors' talk pages, edit-war 'conversations' in edit summaries of several articles (1 2 3 4), lengthy discussions on an article talk page, two WP:ANI threads (1 2), and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire. And all that was between September 15 and 27 (when this RSN was started). And those are just the ones I know about. All of those were related to your defense of dailywire.com citations and relevant to this RfC. At no time was I referring to three-year-old threads because I wasn't even aware of them until you mentioned them with links a day and a half later. You've cherry-picked sound bites and twisted the timeline to try to make some point. If you had put together a cogent argument that had events correctly placed chronologically, one could perhaps take those arguments seriously. As it is, one must discard them as contrived. Platonk (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not shuffling any timeline. These comments are completely in chronological order. I wasn't even aware of them until you mentioned them with links a day and a half later You repeatedly referred to WP:GUNREL across numerous discussions/condescending diatribes specifically referring to the Daily Wire entry. If you were really unaware of prior discussions, that's really your own ignorance because it was part of your rationale. Your transparent intent here is to introduce confusion, plead ignorance, and vilify me with heaping piles of unsubstantiated accusations. Now knock it off. Buffs (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

I would like to respectfully suggest that this topic has long since passed the point at which it created more heat than light. I don't know that I see a consensus, but as I !voted, I'll leave that to others to judge. Still, for the good of all, I think it's time to close this survey. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur that it's reached the going in circles stage. I asked at WP:RFCC for a close - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Multiple people have weighed in including 3 in the last 24 hours. The originator hasn't even pinged those in discussions who opposed his point of view. Buffs (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, your third sentence here is an example of why I think we have hit the "drama for drama's sake" phase of the proceedings. Reasonable minds may disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very respectful. Dismissing my concerns as "drama" is not collegial. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Collegiality does not demand that you and I agree on everything, or indeed, anything at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Collegiality means we can agree to disagree and discuss matters without belittling the opinions or sincerely held beliefs of others. I never said it required agreement. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the notification problem it's inappropriate to close now. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug. A bit of context... There is no real notification problem. It's a straw man that has been debunked above by several editors, yet it keeps getting repeated by the objector. I placed notifications in the proper places, and those who were currently discussing the issue were notified or had the opportunity to see the notifications. We don't have a requirement or habit of going through the entire history of a subject and all archives for old discussions and then notifying all those people, so the notification objection is rather dubious and just an example of poisoning the well against me. (Consider the source of the objection and their history of adding links to TDW and stubbornly defending those links against the objections of multiple editors.) I did nothing wrong or unusual, and the repeated raising of this dubious objection is the real problem and a form of persistent and repeated personal attack. OTOH, now that more people have been notified, I have no objection to waiting a bit longer. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Valjean. I agree with everything you say. It's a rare occasion when we should not just use the regular channels, and this isn't one of them. It was the new notification of editors that I was thinking of. But "longer" shouldn't be more than 2 or 3 days and if they all respond sooner, then. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully ask you keep this open until the end of October. I was not notified until someone pinged me about this, which was more than a week afterwards. I feel that the new pings who took the time out of their lives to comment but not know about this page should not be disadvantaged but rather catered towards. Thanks for your time. Titaniumman23 (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment—(my second post in this thread & I was notified by the bot (picked at random))—No matter how reasonable an argument is, posting & replying again & again & again is burdensome. This is a discussion worth having because it is an edge case. The faults in The Daily Wire lie in its reframing of news material from sources that may be more or less reliable. The within the original organization, any reframing is under editorial control—the original reporters are there to check changes and discuss changes. Most news organizations have codes of ethics and conduct. When there is a disconnection, shit happens. The deprecation of TDW only means that citations should be made from the original publication (in the broad sense). And that is what should happen now, even without deprecation. Use the best sources; don't take the easy way out. What deprecation will do is to short-circuit some of the repetitive post post post we see here. For me, it makes no difference what we call it. Think of our common project. Use the best sources available. Save the endless back-and-forth in articles. Save editors time for productive work. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Also notified the talk page of The Daily Wire. Given that it's the subject, it seems like an appropriate location to notify. Other Wikiprojects may also be a solid source. Can't figure out how to add it to the top. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been a month now, I don't see a need to keep delaying as one editor keeps thinking of new groups to notify outside general RFC notification convention - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I only asked for them to be added for 3+ weeks. The argument that we should close it now that they've been finally added is absurd. "Keeps thinking of new groups"? You mean 2 groups of people in 24 hours? Boy...when will it ever end... Buffs (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You are behaving as if out-of-process notifications are a good reason to delay; they are not - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the urgency? There is no deadline (in general, and for RfCs specifically). I see both ayes and nays in the last few comments btw. Alaexis_¿question? 19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:Requests for comment § Duration: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. That's 4 hours from now. The discussion has run its course; there are a few stragglers, but not really much discussion going on. Two weeks ago, a few editors called for a close. I, for one, would like to see a close soon, and from a non-involved editor who is willing to wade through such a lengthy discussion and give an honest assessment of community consensus or non-consensus. If there is anyone participating in this thread who didn't WP:!VOTE, but meant to, they should consider marking their preferences soon. Platonk (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The next sentence in WP:Requests for comment § Duration, which you haven't quoted, is: Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action.. Alaexis_¿question? 05:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputing RFC close on Daily Wire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

S Marshall There's a super=majority to deprecate, with strong arguments. How on earth do you get from that that there isn't? You need to explain this - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

While I !voted for deprecation (and still think it appropriate), I tend to agree with S Marshall here--though there might be a super majority, I don't see what I would call "consensus." But reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagreed with Dumuzid but I concur with the user's above assessment: there is not a consensus to deprecate. Please keep in mind there is no clear definition for a "supermajority" and it isn't just counting !votes, but the quality of the arguments which are at least highly in dispute as to their quality. Consensus is not about a majority vote. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'm with David Gerard here. An RfC is decided based on "rough consensus" which is notably *not* unanimity. (It's also not decided purely by !votes, so a supermajority is not necessarily relevant, but it is definitely a factor I'd consider if I was closing.) By a very quick and dirty count, I count 29 deprecate votes to 19 no votes, with three abstainers. That sure sounds like enough for a "rough consensus" to me. (Obviously, since I voted to deprecate, I also think the arguments to deprecate are stronger, but I'm obviously not an unbiased observer there.) Loki (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with David Gerard's premise that this is a case where so many people have contributed to the debate that the vote count is persuasive evidence of consensus, and I will of course be delighted to go into more detail on my reasoning.
  I noted that we describe The Daily Wire as unreliable already, and in this debate nobody at all tried to make the case that The Daily Wire is a reliable source. On this basis I evaluated all the evidence that the Daily Wire is unreliable --- and there was definitely a lot of evidence on that point --- as accurate, but not germane. The decision was purely whether to deprecate.
  I subtracted Rhododendrite's !vote from the raw numbers on the basis that he abstained from the only substantive question. I evaluated Peter Gulutzan's contribution to the debate as a "do not deprecate" (and if I was wrong on this point then my conclusion may be unsafe depending on where you place the threshold of consensus). I then gave standard weight to those who repeated arguments that had already been made, and slightly greater weight to those who introduced new thoughts and new sources or who engaged in useful debate about them. I then halved the weight I gave to a user on the "do not deprecate" side who I felt was seriously bludgeoning. After performing this exercise I totted up my weighted outcome as 58% deprecate, 42% don't deprecate, and I take the view that this falls slightly short of an actionable consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think your reasoning that a strong majority with policy-based arguments is insufficient consensus to deprecate is completely out of line with how we've ever done these. This may need an admin close, or a group of admins close - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really don't think that dismissing the evidence that the Daily Wire is unreliable as accurate, but not germane is a good move, considering the standard for deprecating a source is that it almost always falls below Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Arguably, *only* evidence as to whether the DW is unreliable is germane. Loki (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It was legitimate to evaluate my contribution as "do not deprecate". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I did not participate in this one. Having read it through, it looks like a reasonable close. I will declare a bias, I think we are a bit too quick to deprecate these days, if I had participated I would not have advocated for that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • • Well, I've been asked to explain, and I've explained. The venue that could overturn this close is the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I suggest that David Gerard considers opening a close review there. I look forward to its conclusions with interest.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• I think this was a reasonable close. I count 27 (or 29) vs 19. Two of the "29" said unreliable but didn't make it clear if they want deprecation. There were certainly arguments on both sides regarding why it should/shouldn't be deprecated and both sides made reasoned arguments that can't be dismissed out of hand. Going by pure numbers I've used 2/3rds (66%) as the consensus by the numbers line. This one was either 59% or 60% depending on 27 or 29. So this isn't a clear consensus by numbers nor by strength of argument. This looks like a good, careful close. - disclaimer, I argued against deprecation/for status quo. Springee (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• S Marshall, I have to agree with David Gerard. A super=majority exists for deprecation, and if you were to examine the history, and even more what's happening right now, you'd see we actually need this deprecation to protect Wikipedia, because the site's biggest fan here is still trying to defend it. Let's look at the pattern and history:

1. Buffs has a history of adding/defending The Daily Wire as a source in several articles, and even strongly defending their removal by Platonk and other editors. Strong defense of generally unreliable sources is problematic. All editors should seek to diminish, not defend or increase, the usage of such sources, which should be extremely limited and rare, and edit warring is never the right way to defend a source, yet that's what happened/happens.
2. Then, on September 26, 2021, they tried to completely delete the entry at RS/P without ANY discussion on the talk page. That content had been there since February 8, 2020 (about 20 months!). Only after meeting strong resistance did they start a discussion.
3. That discussion did not provide any support for them changing the entry, and in fact was so strongly negative that I saw it as evidence that deprecation might be best, so I started this RfC. If being classified as generally unreliable (caution sign) isn't enough to prevent editors from adding and defending the use of TDW as a source, then we need to protect Wikipedia from such attempts, and deprecation (stop sign) is the next step toward achieving that end. That move is evidently necessary. Just see what's happening.
4. Now, immediately after you closed this RfC, they still try to whitewash it. This RfC hasn't taught them anything, so either we deprecate it or a topic ban is needed.

I understand your view that the !vote count "falls slightly short of an actionable consensus", but, even if that view were legitimate (and I have my doubts), we can see that current actions to defend TDW show an urgent need to tip the scales in favor of actual deprecation. We need deprecation to prevent more disruption. This is not punitive, but to protect Wikipedia from tendentious attempts to defend unreliable sources, and a caution sign is quite evidently not enough. We need a full sign or a topic ban. -- Valjean (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Whether or not we need it, imv we don't have consensus for it at the moment. I'm not minded to self-overturn here. However, you are welcome to bring it to the Administrator's Noticeboard where closes are reviewed.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I find the weighted outcome here to be arbitrary in how it assigns value to comments (somebody making a new but non-policy compliant argument is given extra weight????) and unsupported by any reading of WP:CON. nableezy - 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I missed the ping before the deadline, but I see the horse is being beaten further here. Daily Wire is clearly partisan, and less than reliable, but not to the point of full depreciation. They are much better used as a source for other news articles- the Daily Wire is pretty fastidious about that particular bit. But on the rare occasion they do their own original or derivative work that should be allowed inclusion directly. Probably not for use on B:LP but otherwise, don't depreciate it. Just an opinionBahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin close, preferably multiple admin close, posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin_close_needed_on_deprecation_RFC_at_WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is a fact that the closer didn't seem to factor in when they made their tally. Many of those who opposed deprecation argued that all RS make corrections as soon as they are known and can be published. Those who used that argument should have been discounted as using faulty reasoning. In the various discussions leading up to this RfC about the reliability of TDW, evidence from professional and academic sources was presented by participants. Those sources exposed fatal flaws in TDW's coverage of certain types of politically-charged facts, and that documentation didn't seem to factor into the tallying decision. So that's two major facts that were not factored into the tallying.

There is a big difference between what RS do when they make a correction and what TDW does. TDW has a de facto position of denying the scientific consensus on climate change (and several other topics) because that is their position, and they will always shade their wording to deny or undermine that consensus. They are thus ALWAYS an unreliable source for that topic, as well as some others where their bias is so strong that they deny or undermine facts. This is what happens when sources are extremely biased; their bias gets in the way of accurately reporting the facts. They do not believe the facts.

TDW's track record reveals that lack of fact-checking isn't the real problem, but deliberate opposition to the facts is the problem, and then they dare to write their misleading opinions as facts. Later corrections, always because they've been called out, are just smoke and mirrors as they will do it again. They don't learn from that experience because learning the facts and then applying them to their editorial decisions is not their modus operandi. They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'll endorse S Marshall's close. I don't think that Buffs' defence of TDW as partisan but not careless of truth was adequately addressed by many on the pro-deprecate side, and the discussion could be regarded as ongoing after 30 days. We really need to get the deprecate case right before changing RS/P, so closing as 'no consensus' can be seen as asking for the pro-deprecate side to get someone to put together the case for deprecation properly this time, which seems like the right step to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Chalst, this discussion has moved and the close review is now taking place on WP:AN. May I paste your review there?—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll do this myself, in fact. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Metalmaidens.com

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalmaidens.com?

Note: The site is currently used as a reference on 37 articles

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Metalmaidens)

• Option 2 if I am expected to provide any answer. In the absence of any background information about the source, I have no information to assess the source. If the Original Poster meant to provide us with background information, it is not available. If the Original Poster is sending us on a scavenger hunt to research the source, I won't do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: To me it seems more like an unprofessional fan site akin to WP:METALEXPERIENCE than anything but clearly others have previously felt differently. I don’t appreciate the aspersion talking of scavanger hunts; that wasn’t my intention in the slightest. In an effort to make a neutral RfC question, I didn’t include my personal opinions in the question posed. It wasn’t to make you do my work as was stated. I have included a comment now in the discussion section down below, which I apparently missed when posting last night. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Did some research and it seems like at one time they certainly put in the effort to cover the topic, provide editorial oversight, work with independent writers, print and distribute, etc., but without more information, for example, seeing the masthead of the print magazine, learning the backgrounds of the owners and contributors, and other details it is unclear if they are a reliable source. For interview quotes, perhaps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 makes the most sense with the given information. Buffs (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Metalmaidens)

• The source seems more like a fan made zine of questionable quality. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the "about us" section, it appears to be a husband and wife team with a small group (half a dozen) occasional guest contributors, and as such I would consider it no different to a blog. However, I don't believe that it is suitable for an RfC; the use is too limited for the formal process, and would be best discussed on the individual articles should an objection be raised about its removal. Should that discussion fail, then the matter could be brought here as a standard question.
• Perhaps if all those approaches fail, then it would be appropriate for an RfC, but until then I don't think it is worth the collective time and effort it would take to assess this as an RfC. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: I respectfully disagree. WP:METALEXPERIENCE was discussed and passed just fine despite similarly low usage rates and these are rather similar. Basically you'd rather have (up to) 37 RfCs about how this isn't a reliable source probably get no comments and then come back here after wasting time? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  I should have clarified that I meant the elements should be removed WP:BOLDly, and iff there are objection then a local discussion can be have; I will note that I don't believe these discussions need to be an RfC; a casual discussion on the talk page would be more suitable. I have tried removing a couple of the sources (a few others I came across I left, as it seems to be an interview sourcing an about-self fact); lets see how this BOLD action goes. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  I did a little test on this (1, 2, 3) and had only one objection. Incidentally, Lewismaster, you may want to comment here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  My doubt was about the denomination of "magazine" that Metalmaidens had during its printing run from 1995 to 2005. Did the magazine have a publisher and some editorial control? If that is the case, does it make it a reliable source? The magazine's covers on their Facebook page don't reveal the truth [81] and most of the material on Metalmaidens.com comes from those publications. The website is completely unprofessional and managed by only two Dutch people, husband and wife. Anyway, I guess that the interviews could be used as sources in WP, just like interviews taken from any other musical-themed website. Lewismaster (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Ronin

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

• 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

This source from IGN writer Christopher Marc has been previously discussed at my talk page. One editor sites a claim that the source cannot be used because it is run by one person. On my talk page, others say it can be used because Marc has connections to the industry from his work for IGN. I also believe the source is reliable because most of his reports have proven true across several film and television topics. So, I am looking for a consensus. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 because Marc is a topic expert but his website is WP:SELFPUBLISHed so considerations for that apply.--Droid I am (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: I agree with Droid I am. Aside from the self-published aspects, there are possible WP:NPOV concerns. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Droid I am and Otr500: I also wanted to point out that their 'exclusive' reports (of which they have four pages of) have proven true for films and television shows that are or have been in production. In September 2020, they reported John Mathieson would serve as cinematographer for Doctor Strange 2. This was not added to Wikipedia until a writer briefly mentioned it in an interview in June 2021. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reply: While I understand your position the wording "their 'exclusive' reports" is problematic. While I am not arguing the validity of the website or Christopher Marc, Editor-in-Chief, Founder, and apparently sole writer, the last does bring in an issue. Having "connections" to the industry and being an expert, does not resolve the concerns that self-oversight does not bolster reliability. In one instance the writer states: "Ronin has been able to confirm that Skydance/Amazon...", but this "confirmation" rests solely on that writer. If the information came from a reliable source why not print it using that source. If it was confidential then waiting for a time period (this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper or blog) for the information to be verified from official sources, possibly printed by third parties, is not a bad thing. If this information is confidential then this is more of a reason to wait for mainstream coverage.

  That is just a quick summation of my reasoning following areas of WP:What Wikipedia is not ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper", "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site", and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion"), WP:SELFPUBLISH (that also includes blogs), WP:RSSELF (that includes "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.", and includes sources with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 This is just a blog or personal website. I see no evidence that Marc is a subject-matter expert. Working at IGN does not automatically make someone an expert. Does anyone have sources proving Marc is an expert in his field? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 because I am not convinced either that Christopher Marc is a subject-matter expert, in spite of his IGN experience. My Internet search returned information on his career in journalism that seemed scarce at best. If someone can prove that he is indeed one, I will upgrade my assessment to Option 2 for being a self-published source written by an expert. FreeMediaKid$ 00:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Slovenski Narod newspaper

Note: this is the second re-listing.

source: The source in question is an article in the Slovenian newspaper Slovenski Narod from 1904. The full edition is available from the Digital Library of Slovenia here where it can be downloaded as a PDF. For those without a grasp on South Slavic languages, the text can be highlighted, copied, and pasted into a web-translation for a decent idea on what is being stated. The article in question within this newspaper edition is "Položaj v Macedoniji" which is based on a conversation with revolutionary leader Hristo Tatarchev.

article: I added this article as a source to the article of Hristo Tatarchev (and was promptly reverted).

content: I used the source to support two sentences I added: diff. I essentially paraphrase two points explicitly stated in the article, one being that Turkish reforms were insufficient in his view and the other that his organization would never allow Macedonia to join Serbia or Bulgaria.

I look forward to any guidance from uninvolved editors regarding why this source can or cannot be considered reliable for the purposes I had attempted to use it. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other editor involved in this issue. The article in the newspaper is used by User:Local hero in historical context. However per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical scholarship is generally not:

• Journalism
• Opinion pieces by non-scholars
• Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
• Any primary source, etc.

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

• Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
• "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
• Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
• Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography, etc.

That means if somebody want to use such a primary source (newspaper clipping in a language that is unclear to all the readers of the English-language Wikipedia and older then 100 years) it must be supported by recent scholarly books in English, etc. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ll quickly note that the page you reference is not a Wikipedia policy and that this newspaper source is not a “clipping” as the full edition is available. Looking forward to input from uninvolved editors. --Local hero ^talk 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify that the idea backed by this newspaper's article contradicts with a lot of secondary WP:RS cited in the same article (Hristo Tatarchev).Jingiby (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat concur with Jingiby here. Newspapers are hardly a good source about history anyway and such news stories are presented without context (an invitation to OR). We do not know, if this newspaper was reliable sources for this topic even back then (ethno-nationalistic POV pushing was one of the main reasons for existence of such local newspapers). In any case, if the only source for this information is this newspaper, it is certainly an undue information and should not be included in the article. If this information is mentioned in higher quality source (eg. history book), then use that source (discussion about due weight applies here, but that is out of scope of this noticeboard). Note useable sources are not restricted to English language, which is preferred, but not required. Pavlor (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the input, Pavlor. I can't think of a POV that a Slovenian newspaper would have to push in 1904 Ottoman Macedonia. Slovenski Narod was apparently the first daily Slovene newspaper, in print for over seven decades. Another user had originally added this source to the article but was reverted by Jingiby. I took a look and it seems legit, but hoping to get guidance here as to whether it is RS.

With regard to your other point, I am not able to find it in books. I was only able to find it stated in places like the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle's website (link). --Local hero ^talk 00:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Fr24 News, and synonym-spam sites in general

On The Grayzone, an editor recently added a citation to a website under the impression that it was to France 24. I later removed the source because it appears that the website, "https://www.fr24news.com", is not actually France 24 but instead a doppelgänger site. The site appears to have stolen content from reliable news sources and republished them without regards to copyright. I'd ordinarily go straight to the blacklist with this, though I'm seeing a citation of Fr24 News in Newsweek and Ozy (albeit in churnalistic pieces). The source is currently used in 60 articles (including several BLPs) and around two dozen non-article pages. WP:COPYLINK is a concern of mine for non-article pages, though I'm wondering what would be the proper way to proceed more broadly.

Should "Fr24news.com" be added to the blacklist? If not, what is the appropriate action to take regarding the current uses of the source? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right, good catch. I checked all over and couldn't find anywhere that F24 validates this domain as legitimate. They have a lot of affiliated domains, including f24.my (used to link their social media), but that doesn't seem to be one of them. I checked WHOIS information and f24.my + the main France 24 site use Akamai Technologies for domain registration, it seems. Meanwhile, fr24news.com uses Cloudflare for domain registration. Blacklisting may be appropriate, is it possible to give the editor a custom message informing them that an equivalent story likely exists on the legitimate site? --Chillabit (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing the site's use at The Epoch Times, the copied source was from Heavy.com, which is already flimsy, since that site mainly aggregates other sources. It looks like fr24news does a synonym replacement thing on stolen articles. It will make finding the original articles slightly more difficult, assuming they even are worth replacing. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Synonym replacement? Yeah, blacklist immediately - absolutely not an acceptable source. - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I just added it to the blacklist. We have 56 uses as I write this to clean up - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, now that you've done this, could you also add something in RSP so that editors know not to confuse the two sites? It would be less of a rude awakening to have gone to the trouble to do the research (ahem) and think you'd found a reliable source only to have the spam blacklist warning go off when you hit save? Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this kind of thing is very, very common, so it would be unreasonable to list every single spam source on RSP. There are many thousands of these sites, and a significant percentage of the entries in the blacklist could appear reliable to good faith editors. They are scams, so they are designed to trick people. Consider also the massive quantity of these small-to-medium sized spam sites that have yet to be caught, but will need to be blacklisted eventually. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What Grayfell said - these things are an ever-mutating plague. I think a cautionary note would more properly go on WP:RS, if someone wants to write a good draft section warning users. Reporting them should go on Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist, though any admin can add to the spam blacklist without that as long as they log it to Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log so people can find it later - see my logs of the recent entries in the October 2021 section - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thanks! If you need help with that task, just ping me and we can coordinate (I don't want edit conflicts if we work on the same articles). So what's the procedure when we find others? Because I found 3 others when I was looking into this: foxbangor.com, 711web.com, usatribunemedia.com. They all use synonym swapping. These three articles foxbangor.com, 711web.com, usatribunemedia.com show synonym swapping to the first one I randomly picked off of fr24news (link is now blacklisted, so remove the two dashes https://www.fr24--news.com/a/2021/10/kanye-west-performs-runaway-at-wedding-in-venice-italy.html). Can we get those other three blacklisted, too? Platonk (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going through that list any time soon, feel free ;-) Synonym-swapping is something spam sites do so they don't get a Google duplicate content entry; no synonym-swapping site should be in Wikipedia, and if you see them used in Wikipedia then I'd think they were a natural for a report on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I've added 711web.com and usatribunemedia.com to the spam blacklist. 711web is a synonym-swapper, usatribunemedia just seems to be a massive copyright violation. Take care, though - as far as I can tell, foxbangor.com is a real local news site - the whois even shows it as owned by WVII Television in Bangor, Maine, just as it claims. The other two are clearly fake, though - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Ah, maybe that's the site they were copying from (in the sampling I took). And I think I had 'Bangalore' on the brain and thought it was another spam website from India. Oops. Thanks for the correction. Platonk (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

While looking for original sources yesterday, I came across queenscitizen.ca. That one plagiarizes some of the same articles, but isn't cited on Wikipedia. The word replacement is so aggressive that the articles end up incoherent. Unfortunately Finding these plagiarism sites is like playing wack-a-mole, so I didn't bother mentioning it, but this discussion prompted me to look again. Copying some of the boilerplate from that led me to:

presstories.com (which had three cites which I've removed)

technewsinc.com (not cited)

aviationanalysis.net (which has 14 as of now)

expo-magazine.com (two cites)

awanireview.com (7 cites)

nextvame.com (3 cites)

newscollective.co.nz (not cited)

baltimoregaylife.com (17 cites)

sundayvision.co.ug (31 cites)

nasdaqnewsupdates.com (not cited)

thenewsteller.com (67 )

hardware-infos.com (1)

yourdecommissioningnews.com (not cited)

...there are more, and that's merely English language sites. There are just as many or more that are not in English, and those are just as damaging.

All of these use the same garbage-level English, they share boiler plate templates with each other, and these templates are only occasionally updated or changed. Critically, they all all link to the email address "powerhayden58@gmail.com" in an at least one about section.

None of these should be cited, and can be safely blacklisted, but cleanup will be a bigger project. Perhaps the spam blacklist would've been better for this, but it will need some help to clean-up and replace these.

In addition to word-replacement, at least a couple of these articles were stolen from non-English outlets and run through Google translate, and then posted as their own. Sometimes they did not even removing the name of the original outlet in the headline, which is helpful because otherwise it would've taken forever to figure out where this mangled garbage was originating from. That's a bit more tricky that the usual synonym-rolling we've seen before. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'll help. But I'm taking your word for it that these are all copyright vio websites. Platonk (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and it makes sense to be skeptical here. Please double check if you have any doubts. Every article from these outlets I looked at was plagiarized and "translated", but I could only review a tiny percentage of them. I assume the translation process is why the quality is so low, but it's very poor quality regardless of the precise reason. To be honest, my willingness to get methodical decreased pretty sharply the more I looked. Some of these "translation" were so bad it was pretty comical. For one "Tik-Tok Influencer" was replaced with "Dictator". For another, a reference to the bread from the Subway restaurant franchise was replaced with "metro bread". There are hundred or thousands of articles like this, and even with the comedy, going over all of them just doesn't seem worth it to me. I don't see think there's any risk of legitimate journalism being blacklisted. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Yes, I got some jollies out of some of those bizarre translations. I think we need to start adding these to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions to get them handled in the ordinary workload. Right now, these still aren't blacklisted so I hesitate to do my edits and put "Removed blacklisted domain .com" in the edit summary. Second problem, the first one I looked at (hardware-infos.com in this article) was a legitimate 2009 webarchived article; seems the domain was let go then picked up by these copy-vio operators. I'm not sure how we should handle this sort of case. Wouldn't the spam filter catch and refuse any edit as long as that link remains in the article? It's an old German-language webpage that might well source the content on the page. I'd hate to remove it and, worse, cause someone else to make a snap decision about it when they try to fix some typo in the article and the spam-blacklist engine refuses to save their edit until they do something about that link. We have sufficiently run off on a tangent of fixing (after the FR24news RSN). Shall we take this to one of our user talk pages? I'm game to continue working on this. Platonk (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

On an unrelated note to Grayfell's comment, it appears that all "Fr24news.com" citations have been purged from the English Wikipedia's article space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: That was partly me. I purged it from 27 of those articles today until the insource-search showed zero left. Call me "dog with a bone". Platonk (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All my questions have been answered by an admin over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions where I added Grayfell's above list (plus some more I found) into the new section MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Copyvio websites. There's a link in the special format there for doing an insource-search for each domain reported. Turns out we don't actually have to remove all those old links before they blacklist them, and it won't cause a problem to editors making future changes to the articles even if we don't remove those links first. An admin already blacklisted our list of sites, and is encouraging us to report all the others as well. I'm pretty sure we can safely say that any website with powerhayden58@gmail.com on their contact-us page is another one of these content-farms. I will either work removing links to those sites (starting at the bottom of the list and working my way up, since Grayfell had started at the top), or I will do more googling to identify yet more of these 'farms' to blacklist. If anyone wants to join in the fun, please do. Platonk (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm boldly assuming "news-24.fr" is in the same category as this, so I'll begin to remove references to it from the mainspace (as I'm writing this, the URL only seems to be used on 9 articles). Pinging @Grayfell: and @Platonk: to make sure my suspicions are correct (and request it also be added to the blacklist if so). Thanks! —AFreshStart (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: Yes, I took a look, news-24.fr probably fits with the rest. The domain is for sale for $65K; not an indicator of a stable news organization. In my opinion, most news aggregators are clickbait sites with zero original content or editorial oversight, and therefore fail reliable source guidelines. A bonafide news agency might well subscribe to AP News or Reuters to broaden their coverage, but they also have their own staffs of reporters and editors and create their own news reports. These aggregators do not; all of their content comes from somewhere else, and therefore shouldn't be used for citations in Wikipedia. Platonk (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed that they copy and paste a number of articles but then credit them to different authors: See this Independent report on a sex offender in a Hartlepool by-election by Adam Forrest, compared to this News-24.fr source (archived). The News-24 source is credited to "Gaspar Bazinet" and the sports section. Plus, it's unlikely to be the sort of story a genuine French news agency would comment on. There are a number of instances of things like this happening, which is why I've requested it be blacklisted. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com

“ Various parts of Momordica dioica are used as traditional herbal remedies for diabetes mellitus (DM) in India. ”

References

Is Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com a reliable source? (In general)

And more specifically is this paper [82] published there can be used to cite the medical health benefits on the page Momordica dioica?

I am not sure if it is WP:MEDRS. There is no past discussion in the archives on this. [83] (Please ping me when you reply) Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Not sure about phcogres.com, but the paper is about a study in rats, which is not WP:MEDRS. We want review articles and meta-analyses, ideally based on large double-blind trials in humans. Sadly, these are typically non-existent for plants. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anypodetos thanks for taking a look. What is your opinion on the line of the Momordica dioica article. Should it be entirely removed or should a clarification about the study be added. Wikipedia should be careful in including content sourced to poor quality source, so I ask. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I think the source is good enough for the claim that M. dioica is used traditionally. There is no claim about its effects, and I wouldn't add one based on that study. Unrelated to that, the Nutrition section seems to contain errors in the chemical names. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anypodetos Ok, will let it be. Please feel free to correct the nutrition section or raise it on the article talk page for others. Venkat TL (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL, no source is always reliable, and no source is always unreliable. Please look at the top of this page for the instructions. In particular, see the bit that says we need to know "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"."

Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing the one line of the article has already been linked with the section link in my first comment. Please follow the link. It is about uses and the associated ref. Venkat TL (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to click through, and assumed that the article would say far more than just the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The updated Beall's list flags it as predatory. So I doubt it's reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, in that case removing it seems to be right thing to do. Such poorly sourced claims spread quackery. Venkat TL (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

We got this covered (WGTC)

A lot of pages seams to use We got this covered as a source [Here] How accurate it is as a source, I heard many times it not actually accurate

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrLE3VRRHVhWw4AXE90g81Q;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1635103954/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reddit.com%2fr%2fmarvelstudios%2fcomments%2fbzx51y%2fhow_reliable_is_the_website_wegotthiscoveredcom%2f/RK=2/RS=CaTxLyRzs.J6USsCt5Bf64mkCxs-

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrLE3VRRHVhWw4AXU90g81Q;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1635103954/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reddit.com%2fr%2fDC_Cinematic%2fcomments%2fd20dt8%2fdiscussion_we_got_this_covered_isnt_reliable_right%2f/RK=2/RS=2KGc0FG9VjgZfgOen6o1tycLibA-

Does anyone know 92.236.253.249 (talk) 92.236.253.249 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific, I doubt many want to click on links with state/campaign specific IDs. —PaleoNeonate – 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We got this covered (or WGTC) often reports rumours as facts, there are many pages on wikipedia that use WGTC as a source. If WGTC is not that reliable, and it should be classified as a unreliable source. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My first impression is that as an entertainment blog, it's only usable for attributed opinions about entertainment products (films and games) and is not WP:BLPRS about people, or WP:RS for any other topic. Are there instances where you see WGTC cited to support controversial material? —PaleoNeonate – 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Here a couple of articles

• Child of God (film)
• Tremors (franchise)
• The Man from Earth ‘’ Another attempt was made to crowdfund a series, Man From Earth: The Series, based on the film’’

There some many articles I do not know what is and is not making claims, is it possible to stop all future edits for using it as a source. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

UCL Press

UCL Press isn't a vanity press, right? It's entirely open access, which gives me some pause. Appears to be run by University College London and surely UCL would sue UCL Press if the press weren't actually affiliated with it. Lots of its pubs are indexed on JSTOR, which seems a decent sign too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

For context, doi:10.1629/uksg.257 is an article from UKSG which seems like it could be helpful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's unusual for university presses to be open access (the source you link to claims that UCL Press is the first in the UK) but open access is not the same as vanity publishing, and I can't find any reason to believe that this is not a legitimate university press. There are even blog posts on the UCL website referring to UCL Press's books as "our" publications. Though I've never come across them before, unless there's good reason to believe otherwise I would assume that their works are legitimate scholarly publications... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed run by University College London. M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is Crunchbase News (not the Crunchbase database) a reliable news source?

Crunchbase News (https://news.crunchbase.com) has its own editorial and has a disclosure on how their newsroom is independent from the Crunchbase public / user-generated database. Here is their explanation: https://news.crunchbase.com/about-news/ I know that Crunchbase itself is not a reliable source because it is a user-generated database per WP:CRUNCHBASE, but what about the Crunchbase News? Is it reliable for the purpose of verifiability? Z22 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

How should we list it on WP:RSP?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply. For example, do not used to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, only for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Check author is Crunchbase News staff (not a guest author). Check content if it is just pulling a press release.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

I think Option 2 is reasonable. If caution is given, certain contents can be useful knowledge. For example, here is an example that shows a certain level of analysis of Crunchbase News by comparing and contrasting two approaches in attracting companies to New Jersey. We should not just deprecate Crunchbase News in a broad brush. Z22 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Crunchbase News)

This was previously discussed here. It's a business boosterism source. This is similar to its original parent, TechCrunch, which is not regarded as generally reliable either - per WP:RSP, "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." That is, it's business boosterism spam and not a Reliable Source. It may not lie as such, but that doesn't make it WP:DUE, and it has already-noted issues in that regard.

In my experience, Crunchbase at all is an absolutely reliable way to find spam and advert-like editing, whose article subject should often be deleted, and Crunchbase News is no better. If you write an article dependent upon either, you should find actual RSes.

I see absolutely nothing that Wikipedia would have to gain from putting in a special carve-out for the questionably-reliable section of a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Crunchbase and TechCrunch have been separate since 2015. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarified to "its original parent" - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed "RFC" tag - you're conspicuously not bringing up a case you have in mind - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have been an editor for quite some time but still new to initiating an RfC process. Please let me know if I still miss something. Thank you. Z22 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Literally per the top of WP:RSN: Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a good example. Crunchbase News was used to simply source the headquarters and employee count for a company. Pretty uncontroversial stuff, that can easily be verified using other sources, yet the info was removed along with the Crunchbase News source. [[84]] I restored the missing info, and started a discussion on the editor's talk page, with a request to not remove further Crunchbase News sources and accompanying info until consensus is reached. Despite this, the editor removed the info again. [[85]] He also replied that he felt he could ignore consensus, citing WP:BUREAUCRACY. [[86]]. Not wanting to edit war, I moved on. This discussion and its limited participation shows that the community does not unilaterally agree that Crunchbase News sources should be removed. And stating that this isn't a big deal because Crunchbase News isn't used that much ignores the fact that the sources have been removed. Unless we go through the editors' edit history, there's no way to know how many of them were Crunchbase and how many were Crunchbase News. As this mass erasure continues, I'm still waiting to see even a few examples of how even Crunchbase is incorrect. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Crunchbase News)

• No carveout for the news outlet. Churnalism is only a slight laundering of straight-up press releases, presented to readers as being actual journalism rather than a promotional imitation of journalism, and is a net negative to Wikipedia that should not be enabled or encouraged. The content of Crunchbase News is barely-churned press releases (e.g., examples previously used as supposed sources on Wikipedia: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]) with a bit of the sort of "analysis" that's indistinguishable from boosterism (e.g., [92]). You'd have to be really stretching to consider this in any way comparable to independent third-party journalism on the companies. Even if we declare that the "news" site isn't technically deprecated, it's the sort of stuff that's at best a slightly worse version of the primary sources it's based on. If you want verifiability, use the original press releases. Unusable for notability - it's precisely the sort of promotional boosterism that leads to funding rounds having been considered not usable for notability or WP:CORPDEPTH - and barely usable for facts. Even in non-spam articles, Crunchbase or Crunchbase News adds information primarily of interest to the company's boardroom. As far as Wikipedia goes, Crunchbase is in practice a trashy source largely used for puffery, and looking for Crunchbase links is a good way to track down promotional editing. Wikipedia will gain nothing from a special carveout only useful to promotional editors - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• No carveout for the "News" site per the above. It's churnalism/boosterism; if anything they say is worth saying, someone else will say it. The one argument in the prior discussion that I could in principle find persuasive was that they had been linked to by Forbes (and in a staff-written item, not a "contributor" one). But I'd need to see a sustained pattern of multiple reliable sources treating it as reliable and using content from it in a serious, in-depth way, rather than merely giving a link to back up a number. Reliable sources link all the time to things we wouldn't call RS: press releases, social-media statements, etc. We can't just assume that reliability is transitive. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - generally reliable. While the regular Crunchbase site itself is sometimes user contributed, similar to IMDB, there's no indication that it's any more or less accurate that professionally curated databases such as Bloomberg. It is a handy way for different corporate funding announcements to be consolidated to see a company's total funding to date. If any info is incorrect, it can be easily fixed. I encourage anyone writing it off to point to data errors. For the source under question here, Crunchbase News is a separate editorial entity, and while some of its corporate coverage is seeded by press releases, the writers usually provide additional background and info, including interviews. I also encourage those in opposition to the news organization to come up with 2-3 instances of Crunchbase News reporting that has been shown to be inaccurate. As XOR'easter pointed out, there's an example (which I identified) where a Forbes journalist references Crunchbase News' reporting. See the blue link on [[93]]. If it's good enough for a major news organization, volunteer amateur editors striving for accuracy should be afforded the same opportunity. If concrete examples of inaccuracy don't exist to justify removing good information en masse, isn't this just at best WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and at worst disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia? Is it better for editors of company articles to source Crunchbase for a total funding number, or have to hunt down sometimes up to 6 or 7 different funding announcements in sources besides Crunchbase, and source them all, and then do WP:SYNTH to get the total? Over the past year, I've seen many Crunchbase sources removed from the articles I've written or contributed to, and not one has been inaccurate. So in conclusion, we need examples of inaccurate info before either Crunchbase or Crunchbase News can be deprecated. Pinging @David Gerard: as a courtesy, even though I know he'll see this anyway. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or do not list at al1 - go ahead and use it, per prior discussions in Archive 350 and 321 etcetera. This is a different animal than Crunchbase or blog and was noted as having RS qualities. But I have to point out also this seems Option 1 if listed as there seems no reason to ask this question or have any RSP listing let alone restrict it in any way as there seems not to be specific disputes let alone “perennial” questions here, and WP does not have much usage of the news.crunchbase.com to have a discussion *about*. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 They appear to have editorial staff and publish good content. LondonIP (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 as a publication written by professsional staff. General caveats for corporate coverage apply: reliability is not the same as notability (either in the WP:N sense of whether a topic should have a standalone article, or in the sense of whether a piece of information is worth mentioning in an article). feminist (+) 10:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sugar, literature reviews and reviews of reviews

I came across Sugar, which contains this blurb about Alzheimer's disease:

Claims have been made of a sugar–Alzheimer's disease connection, but there is inconclusive evidence that cognitive decline is related to dietary fructose or overall energy intake.

References

I see a literature review that indicates a connection between sugar and Alzheimer's, and I see a "letter to the editor" that thinks this review is flawed. Are these two sources considered to be equal in reliability? If so, how? If not, which is considered more reliable and why? Finally, should this section exist, and if so, is the current text considered appropriate considering the contradicting sources? Thank you. MarshallKe (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. This content for me is not reliable as they are looking at studies mostly done on rats. There are very few human studies ever published on this, we simply do not have enough research so we should not be even making any claims about such associations. I just read through the review paper that focuses on fructose and sucrose it is one of the worst review papers I have read. There is no causal evidence linking fructose with alzheimer's disease. All that exists is speculative animal studies. The review paper even admitted there is no "direct evidence" linking fructose to obesity either. All I could see in that review paper was one small study on Puerto Ricans [94], one small study is not evidence for anything and it was not specifically looking at Alzheimer's disease. I don't think it is worth keeping the text. It should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

agree w/ Psychologist Guy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have also raised this issue on the talk-page of the sugar article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. While your reasoning seems, well, reasonable, I am concerned that playing the role of peer reviewer and amateur scientist is majorly overstepping the boundaries of a Wikipedia editor. While WP:Ignore all rules applies, it seems to me that if we think that if the science is bad despite meeting our usual standards for reliability, the correct course of action would be to describe the science anyway and instead write a letter to the editor of the journal criticizing the review, and attempt to get that letter peer reviewed and published before we override the consensus of the journal we've selected as reliable. MarshallKe (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Second thought. Alternately, we might codify your reasoning into WP:MEDASSESS. Something like "if a review is obviously based on too few studies, or based on in vitro, animal, or single case reports, it should be treated as the same level of reliability as a single non-review study". MarshallKe (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

We can't legislate clue. A persistent problem is that editors seem to want to turn their brains off and uses WP:MEDASSESS as some time of decision tree when in fact its purpose is to "help distinguish between minor and major views" rather than offer absolute rules. In this case, an eight year old narrative review in a Nutrition journal making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about dementia "emerging evidence" which does not appear to have got any significant scholarly traction ins later RS, does not seem like a great source for relaying accepted knowledge, which is what we are meant to be doing. I agree this should be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Then guidelines shouldn't specifically stop us from using clue. Per MEDASSESS, Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a high-level type of source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. I am proposing this edit to free this up. MarshallKe (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Dr. John Campbell's Youtube channel

1. Source: Campbell's Youtube page

2. Article: Ivermectin

3. Content: The views of Dr. Campbell on the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin, as expressed in a series of videos dedicated to that subject: ivermectin001, ivermectin002, ivermectin003, ivermectin004, ivermectin005, ivermectin006, ivermectin007, ivermectin008, ivermectin009, ivermectin010, ivermectin011, ivermectin012, ivermectin013, ivermectin014, ivermectin015, ivermectin016, ivermectin017, ivermectin018, ivermectin019, and ivermectin020

Discuss the general reliability of this source, including Dr. Campbell's credentials, the self-published character of his Youtube channel, and whether we can use in wikivoice or with attribution any of his content. Forich (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there an article about this guy? Because legitimate scientists publish articles, they don't post YouTube videos. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

They may do both, but good point, moreover, written sources are better for WP:V. There are exceptions of course, Skeptoid has sometimes been used to apply WP:PARITY and a transcript is generally available. Still, it would be unacceptable as a source for biomedical claims (not WP:MEDRS). —PaleoNeonate – 21:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

They seem WP:PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Dr. Campbell describes himself as "My name is John Campbell and I am a retired Nurse Teacher and A and E nurse based in England. I also do some teaching in Asia and Africa when time permits. These videos are to help students to learn the background to all forms of health care. My PhD focused on the development of open learning resources for nurses nationally and internationally." This alone seems to preclude him as an expert on ivermectin, imho. It appears he is not even a Doctor of Medicine. --SVTCobra 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• A click-hunting youtuber who has lately got into bed with the antivaxxers/covidiots and started promoting ivermectin and amping-up vaccine adverse effects. Just incredible this could even be raised as an RS when we have the WHO, EMA, FDA, Cochrane Collaboration etc. for sources on ivermectin. I am getting increasingly concerned about Forich's editing in this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• This is neither a reliable source (especially in light of WP:MEDRS) nor is it even WP:DUE as a notable person whose wrong opinions are nonetheless notable in their own right. It has no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think you understand what "reliable source" means in Wikipedia. Which part of "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" does a nurse's YouTube video would fulfill? What is this guy's reputation for fact-checking? If none, he is not a source. Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable YouTube videos are almost always ipso-facto non-RS. There is no way to verify the claims or establish the reliability of the video source/creator. Rare exceptions might exist such as videos from a major and reputable news outlet or a major university. But the odd exception aside, YouTube videos and channels are almost never RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

IMDb

Is imdb reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sikonmina, it is not, because it consists of user-generated content. See WP:IMDB for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems that current policy accepts its use as an external link. Is that not spam? Sikonmina (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it is. It is allowed as an EL though, yes, see WP:IMDB-EL and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for how to use IMDb appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• My understanding is that in the film industry, IMDb credits are considered reliably correct so as to be accepted as one's resume/portfolio. I'm sure this would not be the case if the website was completely user-generated content... unless those users are a small group of ethically reliable contributors. Please explain further, Muboshgu, how/why Wikipedia considers it unreliable on the basis of user-generated content, or maybe point us to some earlier discussion which explains it. I've also been curious about this issue. Platonk (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  How about 32 of 'em? The general consensus is that if they do have editorial oversight, it's bad. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  For less well-known actors, the profiles and information are pretty much junk, often created/maintained by the person or a representative. Even on the acting roles, there's nothing to really show how significant the role to help us know if they should be listed in the cast section. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Both my daughter and I have IMDb listings, and I was the sole source of information for both of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks you three for those pointers! Platonk (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• As a long time contributor to imdb, some observations. Some of the content on filmographies derives not from users, but from the official data from WGA (Writers Guild of America). Users can't change them, even if the WGA has conveniently neglected to mention that the work is an adaptation, and does not credit the original's writers. Second the imdb regularly censors or rejects "adult" content, so its bios and data have more than a dose of whitewashing in them. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Crypto-focused news sources that are considered reliable

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but are there any news websites that primarily focus on cryptocurrency and/or blockchain that are generally considered reliable sources? I'm aware that CoinDesk isn't considered reliable, but WP:RSP makes no mention of other crypto-focused sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Off-the-cuff comment here, but "Crypto" (be it cryptocurrencies, NFTs, or blockchain in general is well within the zeitgeist of a large number of reliable sources. May I ask why you are intentionally looking for a source that is singularly focused on this subject? --SVTCobra 04:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It was just out of curiosity. Occasionally whenever I look up tech news I see crypto-related news articles, and more often than not they come from sites that deal specifically with crypto (for example, CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph). Crypto-related news does seem to be reported in more mainstream sources sometimes, but usually only for big events (for example, NFTs being the latest fad, regulation on crypto, value peaks and crashes, and so on). Meanwhile, more often than not, news about specific companies and currencies seem to only really be discussed by specialty crypto-focused sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's difficult to answer such a broad question but, personally, I am not aware of one. Coindesk is considered the most credible crypto-centric outlet by far, but the two RfCs clearly established that it should generally not be used. So logic would dictate that the other crypto-centric publications should be treated at least similarly, if not considered unreliable. I had access to a state-of-the-art 250$/month The Block Research subscription for a year, and I was frankly unimpressed: you could pretty much say about it the exact same thing that we have said about other crypto-centric publications, and I would be very careful about using it as a source. I'm sure David Gerard will not disagree. JBchrch talk 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• summary: they're all trash, every one of them. CoinDesk is the "best" of them and it relentlessly promotes interests of its owners, Digital Currency Group, without marking such. In one previous discussion, I noted the story that over half of the crypto outlets would accept direct pay-for-play. All crypto-specific publications that I know of allow undeclared crypto holdings by their writers, in contrast to actual financial press such as Bloomberg or FT. Mainstream financial press, as well as having the slightest actual journalistic ability, cover anything that is of note quite adequately these days. The other source that's been usable on crypto/blockchain articles is peer-reviewed academic papers - though you have to watch for predatory open access outlets, and "conference proceedings" tend to let any terrible trash through. There are good individual writers, people I like and admire - but the outlets are so guilelessly corrupt that I don't consider any of them usable for Wikipedia. This also applies IME to any "fintech" outlet that has a "crypto" section on the front page - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with David here, if anything needs to covered about Crypto, we should be using mainstream financial sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

btw, there's a discussion draft at Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) - worth glancing over both that and the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Notability (cryptocurrencies). My opinion on the talk page is that WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are actually all we need, but a note on sourcing would probably be relevant - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I should point out that I've taken money to write for some of them (Decrypt, The Block). Again, the individuals are often excellent and know what journalism is, but the outlets are beholden to their funders and are promotional advocacy press, not specialist technical press - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comments, especially from David Gerard who I'm aware is an expert on this sort of thing. One thing I have wondered for a while though is how come other areas with specialty press, for example video games or sports, tend to have more objective or reliable journalistic sources compared to crypto? For example, with video games there are several video games-focused sources that are considered reliable, to the point that we even have a whole page on them, while the same can be said for sports (although sports is mostly covered in mainstream sources, specialty sources such as ESPN and The Athletic also exist and are considered reliable). Even anime has Anime News Network and Crunchyroll News as reliable English-language sources, while reliable esports-focused specialty media also exist despite the relative newness of the field. Why hasn't the same happened for crypto yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to forget that their are a lot of low-tier video gaming sources as well. I'd argue that a lot of the esports focused media is also low quality and tends to focus on ephemeral influencer drama. Crypto is essentially a speculative investment, where value is entirely based on the confidence of investors, rather than in fundamentals, and there is a strong financial incentive to hype up whatever you have invested in. There just isn't the same incentive in video games or sports reporting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to speculate further in this forum. Suffice to say that crypto is a modern-day gold rush with all trappings and allure. Further, I think we can close this as, "no, there is not the source which Narutolovehinata5 seeks". --SVTCobra 23:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Hemiauchenia, and just adding that the mainstream financial news outlets like the FT, the WSJ or Bloomberg already provide independent and unbiased coverage of the most relevant parts of the crypto market (i.e. the parts that are the most relevant for finance professionals). My theory would be that the individuals making up the (economically viable part of the) demand for independent and unbiased coverage of that nature are already subscribed to all three and generally also have a Bloomberg Terminal. I could also go on a whole tangent about the fact that it's difficult to short crypto at a professional, "Wall Street money" level—but as SVTCobra said, maybe we should not speculate further. JBchrch talk 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Fantomon's climate data website

from [95] appears to be a one person website but seems in French so hard to tell. Repeatedly being inserted at Bognor Regis by hopping IP. e.g. [96]. Tried to raise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Climate data at settlements - problematic sources but no-one has responded. Source for Bognor climate data is [97]. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

They've also added it to Ardtalnaig. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Dynalias seems to be DYNDNS related, a dynamic DNS provider, suggesting that the site's IP address is also dynamic... It's likely indeed a personal, self-hosted project that is being promoted. On the other hand the current address points at a German hosting provider (1&1). COIBot report still pending (it may never show up). —PaleoNeonate – 07:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: the COIBot report failed, but insource:"climate-datas-weather.dynalias.org" still shows it cited 20 times in mainspace. There's also an instance at {{Aberdeen weatherbox}}, —PaleoNeonate – 00:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the rant on the first link, the website author says (among a ton of other things):

1. that they "have a knack" for predicting next month’s weather (A noter que j'ai un talent parfois pour savoir le temps du mois suivant surtout à Paris) (note: there is good money to make if you can successfully predict the weather in one month’s time, and many smart people with lots of resources have tried).
2. that Météo-France kicked her from their library "for no reason" (Météo France a été très injuste avec moi comme me virer sans que j'aie rien fait de sa bibliothèque)
3. that the website started out as a high-school project (mon site est parti d'un site de tpe et d'idées vagues pour relativement vite devenir bien plus grand) ("TPE" : see "travaux personnels encadrés" in Baccalauréat#Baccalauréat_général_:_série_Scientifique_(S)).
4. that "real experts" see the value of her website, unlike the "aveugles infoclimatisés" (literally: "climatoinformed blind people"; I assume this is some derogatory term for non-climatosceptics, but her site is the only online search hit for the term)

"All that raises red flags about crankery" is a weak summary; I do not see a single red flag left unraised.

The meteorology data is (I assume, I did not find the information in the rant) taken from weather station feeds, which can be taken from other sources. Any interpretation built on top of that is unreliable. Any graphics made from the raw data are unusable as copyrighted (unless there is somewhere an appropriate copyright notice that I did not find). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding point #4, the full sentence is "En tout cas, les vrais spécialistes objectifs considèrent mon site comme une 'mine d'or', ceux qui ont un cerveau et ils voient le contenu pas comme tous ces aveugles infoclimatisés en général" which can be faithfully translated to "In any case, the true unbiased specialists think of my site as "goldmine", those that have a brain and they see the content not like these infoclimat-ed blind people in general", where I'm pretty sure that "infoclimat" refers to infoclimat.fr. JBchrch talk 20:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: "infoclimatisés" here more likely is just "climate-informed", clearly used in a sarcastic manner (i.e. a better translation of the last fragment is "not like those blind 'climate-informed' people in general" [and people could easily be replaced with the more obvious insult which is clearly implicitly intended]). This alone raises enough of a red flag for the site not to be acceptable, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: We are obviously all in agreement about the outcome, but just for reference, if you cntrl-f "infoclimat" in the first link, you will see that the author explicitly refers to the website beforehand. JBchrch talk 04:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like an amateur website; there are far better sources of this data on publicly available, scrupulously reliable websites. No way this is needed as a source for anything. --Jayron32 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The data they use seem rather credible (at least I've used them and they don't seem to be off the mark, and a lot of countries have still not updated their stations to 1991-2020 normals, which I hope happens soon). The small problem with the otherwise brilliant infoclimat.fr is that they often limit the data queries to France and its vicinity only (though climate normals are sometimes accessible for larger cities in other countries too, like this one for Warsaw, while her webpage gathers the information from other locations, too; another problem is that the only other webpages for weather data I know is [98] (a personal webpage of Piotr Djaków, a climate scientist, which covers Poland only) and [99], which requires skills to decode info from their databases. We preferably need some more user-friendly webpages, which her is.

I'd say that her website should only be used in the rare case when the data may not be accessed from any other source (which it normally should). So as a stopgap measure, I'd say OK, but we must find a better source that contains the same data ASAP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Notifying WikiProject Meteorology of the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject overturning RSN result

I'm not sure where to ask or announce this issue; perhaps RSN itself is the right place. Sherdog (WP:RSP#Sherdog; latest RSN discussion) is being described by the last RSN closure as follows:

There are arguments both for and against the reliability of this source. Editors who considered the source less reliable cited lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, while those in favor cited its agreement with ESPN as an indication of fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. Overall, however, the consensus seems to be that the source is less reliable than ESPN and other sources rated generally reliable, but does not count as a self-published source under WP:SPS. Some editors believe that Sherdog is reliable for some basic information, especially fight information and results, but not other information. Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject page at WP:MMA that says:

In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog.

Attempts to change this wording have been met with repeated reverts and stonewalling at the WikiProject's talk page (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#The_Sherdog_requirement). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the closure was poorly done and not a fair reflection of the discussion. I have to say I also think changing the wording while discussion is ongoing was premature and agree with the editor who reverted.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The only other option as a close was realistically 'no consensus' given the arguments in place. Which when it comes to sourcing practically means 'Ok but expect people to push back on it'. But that's a red herring, the problem isnt to do with the RSN result on Sherdog, its that the MMA project is mandating a particular source as a reference which runs directly against the neutrality section on WP:V (a site-wide policy that applies to all articles) and WP:NPOV (a site-wide policy that applies to all articles). A wikiproject does not have the authority to reject sources that disagree with their preferred source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

allthatsinteresting.com

I'm having another look over the Overtoun Bridge article, and I've been unable to find anything on the noticeboard about allthatsinteresting.com, as this post is cited as a source within the article.

First off - it states that at least 300(!) dogs have jumped off this one little bridge in Scotland, which seems like a ridiculous amount. It cites this New York Times article for this claim, but even that simply states that:

Local researchers estimate more than 300 have sailed off the bridge; tabloid reports say it's 600. At least 50 dogs are said to have died.

I'm assuming it's tabloid hookum. 'Are said to have', 'local researchers' and 'tabloid reports' doesn't fill me with confidence.

I'm pretty sure it's not a reliable source - on their 'about' page, this is part of the text:

Both history books and news reports aren't always framed with sensitivity to the many perspectives that inform the human experience. We seek to cut through entrenched narratives and see past pervasive biases in order to uncover the truth about the subjects we cover.

So, yknow, that seems like an invitation to literally writing whatever.

I think I'd be right in removing it, but I'd appreciate a more experienced look at it. Thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Allthatsinteresting.com claims to have good editorial processes in place. That said, there has been a lot of coverage of Overtoun Bridge in legitimate news stories, which would seem to be preferable sources. For example, The Times (London) reported on June 26, 2015: “A Victorian bridge has been dubbed "Rovers' leap" after more than 600 dogs jumped from it on to rocky ground almost 60ft below. In the past 70 years, between 50 and 100 dogs have been killed after leaping off Overtoun Bridge in the village of Milton, West Dunbartonshire.” Let me know if you need a copy of the article. John M Baker (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@John M Baker: - a copy of that article would be fantastic, thank you so much, though I'd be interested to know where they've sourced both the 600 dogs and 50-100 dogs in the past 70 years numbers from. I'll also have a good look to ensure I'm not playing into WP:CITOGENESIS, either, as it seems like it'd be liable for that pretty heavily. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Per its "about All That's Interesting" message, the website is owned by a private company in Brooklyn, "tied to no external funders, political interests, or third-party commercial ventures". It may be aimed primarily at an American audience, and be Americentric in nature. Its articles are attributed to "freelancers from around the globe". No guarantees about their backgrounds or credentials. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: - so, pretty much an anonymous quagmire. I'll have a look at that Times article to see where their numbers come from, but I think I'll remove allthatsinteresting as a source for now and leave a cn tag for me to replace later.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I've sent you the Times article. Like many newspaper articles, it doesn't give a source for its numbers, so I guess it depends on how much weight you want to give to the Times' reliability. I would suggest including the numbers in the article and giving the Times as the source. John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

LibSyn & MonthlyReview

As per this conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Identity_politics, under "Identity Is Not Just By Oppression", are "LibSyn" and "MonthlyReview" Reliable Sources for Wikipedia? I ask because of their clear bias towards socialism, in this case Libertarian/Democratic Socialism. Or in fact any other reason which may be applicable. Are they reliable sources for "Identity Politics"? Chantern15 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I haven't looked at LibSyn yet, but the MonthlyReview is just a republishing of the Combahee River Collective Statement and it's as rock solid as a source could be when it comes to identity politics. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I understand, are we talking about MonthlyReview as a rock solid source, or Combahee River Collective Statement? Did the CRC put out a statement describing their views on Identity Politics, and if so, is the MonthlyReview a reliable source to report on the CRC?Chantern15 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The collective's statement is the rock solid source, and MonthlyReview appears to have faithfully reproduced the statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see, what about LibSyn?Chantern15 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The sources appear to be reliable for the statements of the Combahee River Collective and Barbara Smith. (Monthly Review especially, which is a publication of some standing; the other source is a non-notable podcast series but the episode features Smith herself.) The question is more (a) is it DUE, and (b) are Smith and the Collective the best sources to use for making general encyclopedic claims about identity politics in Wikipedia's voice in the lead of the article. Those aren't questions for this noticeboard but for the article noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then I will head over to the article noticeboard.Chantern15 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

LibSyn is not a source, it's a podcast hosting platform. So it would come down to the individual podcast - David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone heard the podcast referenced in the article?Chantern15 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Berberine for diarrhea

This involves the following two discussions:

• User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.#I'm a "lunatic charlatan" since I use traditional Chinese medicine! Help, what do I do?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 January 21#Can you help me find a WP:MEDRS that shows the use of berberine in treating traveller's diarrhea?

Do the sources listed in the above discussions support a claim that Berberine is an effective treatment for diarrhea? My conclusion is that the sources supporting that claim do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Am I correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• pmid:33149763 is not in the greatest journal, but might be usable for its unexceptional conclusion, that research into berberin's worth as a treatment for diarrhea has yielded inconclusive results. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Independent Media (South Africa) and associated sites and newspaper titles (Independent Online / IOL, Pretoria News, The Star, Daily News, The Mercury, Cape Argus, Cape Times)

IOL (Independent Online) [100] is a widely used source on Wikipedia articles about South Africa. Not prone to link-rot and un-paywalled, it draws its content from long-established newspapers, such as The Star, Pretoria News, The Mercury, Daily News, Cape Argus and Cape Times. Despite some problematic, social-media driven original content from the IOL website [101] it's generally been a solid source. However, in recent times the group has seen its newspaper circulation collapse[102] and the quality of its journalism has been questioned. In particular, the Pretoria News coverage of a story about decuplets being born in South Africa has been widely reported to be a hoax, including by an independent ombudsman appointed by the group.[103] [104][105] A professor of journalism at Wits University described it as "a low point for journalism"[106]. It appears as if the group is sticking to the story about the decuplets [107][108] and continues to run articles supporting the claim [109][110][111] insinuating a "cover-up" and describing "human trafficking" [112][113][114] despite widespread denials from government and medical sources.[115][116][117]

In light of this should IOL and its associated titles still be automatically regarded as reliable sources? Should older articles be seen as reliable, with newer ones being viewed with more scepticism? Park3r (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The Latin Australian Times

This news source has been removed by a user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_325#The_Latin_Australian_Times from all Wikipedia pages for no reason https://web.archive.org/web/20170216082414/http://latinaustralian.com.au/

The news paper is no longer in print but it used to be called Noticias Y Deportes it was the oldest Spanish newspaper in Australia, and distributed in all states in the country.

It was supported and sponsored by all 13 consulates and embassies of Spanish speaking countries in Australia and its journalists were renowned and award winning in Australia

This should not be discarded as a Wikipedia source specially since media in Australia is so limited. Lat was the only news source to cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Globe_Australia Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

These references were removed for being unreliable. The stories that were being linked to were purely community fluff pieces and not pieces of reliable journalism. I'm not making the claim that every piece of content from LAT may have been unreliable, but the ones that you had added to support statements on Wikipedia were all the usual community fluff pieces you see in local newspapers and specialist minor circulation papers. Nothing about them came across as reliable in any way, and much of the time didn't support the notability of the statements being claimed. Additionally most of them were being used to support references for articles subsequently deemed non-notable by the community and deleted through AfD channels. (and this is before we get into the fact that much of the references to it were scans uploaded to the personal website of an individual you have a COI with with no evidence of copyright permission.)

All that being said, if you wish to use it as a source for a statement, this noticeboard is better served by saying what it is you wish to source, and what the reference is that is supporting it. Generally saying it should be used isn't helpful here. If you wish to bring something to the community you wish to source and ask if the article in question can be reliably used to source that claim it would be more helpful. Canterbury Tail talk 21:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The article in LAT about Sum Numg won an award why did tou have it removed from Sum Numg's wikipedia page? what do you know about circulation and spanish news papers? nothing period Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My reasons were explained. And it's amazing how many of those fluff pieces were also written by people with connections to the people in the articles, like all the ones about or even marginally related to Maurice Novoa and written by his mother. Just goes to prove how they are not journalistic reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You exaggerate so much that's how you convince people to take your side Maurice's mother only wrote one article connected to him and that was Mrs Globe Australia every other article referenced on Wikipedia was written by the editor Raquel Diaz. Australianblackbelt (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Note for reference, I'm not the only one who has ever called the LAT into question for it's lack of journalistic qualities or import. Here's another thread where it is raised and where no answers around its notability and reliability were forthcoming. A question that has never been asked that I can find, what is your connection to A) these subjects and B) the LAT itself? Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Like I've said in the past I knew Maurice Novoa from the Uruguayan social club, I am just a pensioner and I had nothing to do with the latin australian times. I know you have a vendetta against Novoa and even though there is sources on him that didn't make the afd because I was conveniently blocked you will never accept it till you die https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/250994481_4444654728987230_7873012860185257027_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=OMbPfXhdEFAAX8hXvKH&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=62767b53d14706c391286b859f9e403d&oe=61A68307 This is a two page color centre fold in the El Español special Australia day edition, it's all about Maurice and is the countries longest running Spanish news paper]] If you could read a word of Spanish you would read that one of Maurice's PR jobs has a former Australian prime minister as a guest. Maurice is famous in the small latino community in Australia, he has even been in newspapers in Uruguay as far back as 2001. He also appeared around 2003 in many print publications in Indonesia. Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You have never been blocked from anything on Wikipedia, your block log is completely clean and no one has prevented you from posting anywhere. You were notified of the AfD you are referring to above, you were active editing while the AfD was running. No one prevented you from participating. And I have zero vendetta against anyone or anything. I will just, like all good Wikipedia editors, remove non-notable promotional material from the project.

Anyway the purposes of this thread should be for you to propose using something in the LAT to support something on Wikipedia. Don't focus on other users, don't talk about how some people should be notable. This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you notice no one else is responding, this is due to the fact that you haven't made any proposal on how to use the LAT as a supporting reference for an article. Please follow the instructions at the top of the edit window and you will be more likely to get a response. What is the source, what is the article, what is the statement that you wish to use it to support. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I propose that the LAT story on Sum Nung be reinstated on that page because I was an award winning article and picked up by other outlets overseas. Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Boze Hadleigh and Olga San Juan

I just added content to Olga San Juan cited to Boze Hadleigh's Hollywood Hispano, published by Carol Publishing Group (intentional redlink; idk if notable or a good publisher) under his pseudonym George Hadley-Garcia (unclear to me why he chose to publish this book under a nom de plume). In 2018, an IP substantially expanded the OR-suffused but nonetheless concerning section on "Disputable claims" by Hadleigh. Is Hadleigh a reliable source for film history, or at least the claim I want to make? Should we delete the "Disputable claims" section per WP:OR or WP:BLP? Should we create an article on Carol Publishing Group? My questions abound. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Carol Publishing Group had (has?) a long and complex history, involving Lyle Stuart, Star Trek, Seinfeld, Kensington Books and the Church of Scientology. They are known for having published a lot of Hollywood- and celebrity-related material, some of it not only unauthorized but actively opposed, and I don't know that I would regard them as a RS. I am not sure whether they are still extant as an imprint anymore; they don't seem to have a website, and their old phone number seems to have been disconnected. (Anybody live in Secaucus, New Jersey?) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: @AleatoryPonderings: The diff you provided shows Encyclopedia.com as the citation. Also, you don't at all explain what part the article Olga San Juan has to do with this. Maybe it is too late in the evening for me, but I don't understand this query. --SVTCobra 00:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Encyclopedia.com (or rather Contemporary Authors) is the first cite in that diff. Hadleigh's book is the second. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

For my money, each of Carol's books are to be judged on their own merits. The best analogue I can think of is WP:BUSINESSINSIDER: a generally reasonable organization driven to excess on occasion. Carol was by and large a serious outfit with a real editorial staff (see Herman, Jeff (1998). Writer's Guide to Book Editors, Publishers, and Literary Agents, 1999–2000. Prima. pp. 64–66. ISBN 0-7615-1353-1. OCLC 39798658.). Ironically but unsurprisingly, the lion's share of coverage Carol got was for its salacious titles like Final Exit; it also published staid stuff like this bio of Thurgood Marshall and the works of Kahlil Gibran. So I guess we have to judge Hollywood Hispano on its merits. Which in turn would likely involve assessing Boze Hadleigh#Disputable claims on its merits. The examples cited in that section could be WP:CHERRYPICKING or evidence of a real problem. I don't know which. But I don't think we can discount anything Carol publishes as ipso facto garbage. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Science Vs Podcast on Havana Syndrome page RfC

I opened an RfC on the Havana Syndrome page. I'm hoping to eventually get the podcast rated Generally Reliable, but to my knowledge the Havana Syndrome page is the only place it is used as a reference. So for now... Talk:Havana syndromeDolyaIskrina (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Joshua Project

Is the demographic data published by the Joshua Project reliable? Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times in the past Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#Joshuaproject.net, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_226#Duane_Alexander_Miller,_Believers_in_Christ_from_a_Muslim_Background:_A_Global_Census, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Joshuaproject.net, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Reliability_of_the_Joshua_Project_as_source, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Joshua_Project, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Is_Joshua_Project_reliable?, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Joshua_Project. As far as I can gauge it, the consensus has been that it's unreliable. It's still being used so I'd like to add it to the WP:RSP list. Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

From the above I agree that an RSP entry is a good idea. A potential summary may include: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. Often the RSP talk page is enough to agree on what to write... —PaleoNeonate – 03:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

strongly implied exactly what I said

In the following talk discussion some concerns were raised regarding an edit. The editor, who added the content first noted I can't find that claim in Mansfield's paper itself here and later the editor brought a press release document and said the disputed content is strongly implied exactly what I said here. The editor refuses to address the concerns and removes failed verification template. The editor is an extremely respected administrator with hugely positive contribution to Wikipedia. Your thoughts are welcome. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not ANI. Maybe best to try and sort this out within the process Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si.427.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

NICAP And other non-government UFO research organizations

In some articles I have seen references leading to NICAP (don't remember the exact article) , in other articles I've heard from fellow editors (such as the talk page for "UFO sightings in the United States") that it cannot be used, can NICAP be used as a source, and I would like clarity about other UFO research organizations, such as MUFON, CUFOS (the stonehenge incident), etc.Chantern15 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

for what it claims, maybe. As a source of fact no.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If the organization itself is notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article (i.e. coverage is not WP:UNDUE), then perhaps one would reference their own writings as direct quotes or attributed examples of what they themselves have said, but such sources should never be used to cite material in Wikipedia's voice, uncritically. --Jayron32 10:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So, one can include these sources, just in a neutral manner?Chantern15 (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

No, one would ONLY include the sources for direct quotes or paraphrases of such quotes by the organization (or similar) and ONLY if it was necessary for the article, for example in an article about the organization itself, it may be useful to use the organizations own words (or a paraphrase thereof) to understand the organization better; in those cases you can cite it. What you should never do with such sources is to use them as you would use an actual reliable source, and NEVER use it to cite statements in Wikipedias voice where it makes it look like there is widespread acceptance that what they say is true. Insofar as the false things they say are well reported false things, it may be useful to go to the source, but if they are 1) not well known false things or 2) being used uncritically in Wikipedia, you should NOT cite them that way. --Jayron32 11:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The above, they can be used for their views, as long as they are attributed. They can not be used for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:FRIND and WP:GEVAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, what about the articles which use info from such websites to describe UFO incidents?Chantern15 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Nothing in an article should take info from such websites as information. At most, we may report that "such-and-such a publication claimed this-and-that was reported to so-and-so" but we should never use their reports as sources for actual statements of fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That may be, but there are articles on Wikipedia which do use these as sources.Chantern15 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I'd like clear guidance on this, please.Chantern15 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Clear guidance: don't use 'non-government UFO research organizations' as sources for statements of fact in Wikipedia articles. They aren't compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria. None of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And what is to be done with all the articles who do use these as sources?Chantern15 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

They should be edited to comply with policy. Which articles in particular are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Felix Moncla, The Stonehenge Incidents, Ellsworth UFO sighting and others.Chantern15 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The Felix Moncla article cites several sources which don't comply with policy. Much of the article doesn't appear to be sourced at all. It needs reducing to whatever can be stated directly from reliable sources. As for 'The Stonehenge Incidents', what exactly are you referring to? If it is the section in the Stonehenge (building) article, that seems to cite several sources, but NICAP isn't among them. And it makes it quite clear that these are claims regarding an alleged UFO, not statements of fact. The Ellsworth UFO sighting] article is a total trainwreck, citing as its only source Robert Emenegger's mass-market book for the overly-credulous UFOs: Past, Present, and Future. Emenegger was also responsible for a 'documentary' of the same name. I shall look into this, and most likely nominate it for deletion, if proper sources cannot be found. Meanwhile, per WP:LINKSTOAVOID I shall be removing the links to NICAP (and ufocasebook.com) from the 'external links' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's good work on your part, but there must be more articles such as this, which I am not an expert on, this will be a long and slow process of clean-up.Chantern15 (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Boobpedia

As seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nuts_Magazine_models and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Banghard, is Boobpedia a reliable source for information on women listed on that site to be referenced here on Wikipedia?Chantern15 (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

"Boobpedia is a free and user-edited encyclopedia of women with big boobs.", its a wiki, so no.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So is this going to be deprecated as a source?Chantern15 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Doesn't need to be - an editor should be able to say "yeah, that's a wiki, probably not a good source for Wikipedia" - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've asked on the articles' respective talk pages, whether this source should be removed.Chantern15 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

It absolutely should be. You don't need permission to make Wikipedia better. You can just remove it yourself. See WP:BOLD for more information. --Jayron32 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's already unacceptable according to WP:UGC. It doesn't need to be specifically addressed. clpo13_(talk) 18:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

List em here and I will remove this tripe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are no more uses of the source in articles. Here's a search in case more pop up: [118] Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If it ever becomes a popular reference site like IMDB, I can see it being used in the 'external links' section of certain articles. But as a source? No way. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to make changes which could be immediately reverted, so I thought it best to start a conversation on the talk pages.Chantern15 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

• Jesus christ. feminist (+) 02:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of The Canadian Encyclopedia

thecanadianencyclopedia.ca  

I routinely cite The Canadian Encyclopedia for claims about Canadian topics, but recently I've become concerned that its editorial policies are not the strongest. For instance, its article on Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory is written by a freelance writer and journalist, not a historian. They invite contributions from (it seems) pretty much anyone. There are several editors but I can't find an editorial policy listed. At one point, the encyclopedia was published in book form by reputable publishers including McClelland & Stewart (see the various editions available on the Internet Archive), but these days that's not the case. I am not proposing a formal RfC, just trying to get a sense of RSNers views. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that call for contributions does specify that the encyclopedia is looking for "experts" and "experienced contributors", not "pretty much anyone". That said, I agree that the standards of the encyclopedia have declined in recent years. Instant Comma (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that standards ... have declined. Have there been any actual errors noted, and if so, how has the Encyclopedia reacted (if at all)? That might tell us more about standards than WP editors' evaluation of CE writers' CVs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

JSTOR 30303104 (from 1989) lists a bunch of errors about Nova Scotia content but this was well before it started being published online (obviously). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

One example: The Royal Canadian Mint does not produce banknotes: [119]. Instant Comma (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Canadian Encyclopedia is of a not-so-stellar quality, and it's in general a reliable source. I will note that a lot actually depends on who writes the specific entry. The one referred to here has actually too little written on its author. There are entries which are written by professional historians, such as this one by Gaston Deschênes, but as for this article on Maurice Duplessis is written by Conrad Black, who has indeed written a biography on Duplessis but whose biography is pretty much on the apologist side, though not that awful after all. It really depends on the entry, but I would presume it usable unless proven otherwise. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's bang-on and would note that entries are increasingly written by the encyclopedia's editors and not by experts in the field. Instant Comma (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is filmdaily.co a reliable source?

I ask because there's a strong possibility that someone operating multiple accounts is being paid to keep the Donavon Warren article alive. That's a non-notable director who, as far as I can tell, acted in and directed one indie movie called Wheels in 2014. Recently, after I discovered this, the (suspected) paid editor added a handful of recent "articles" about Donavon Warren - very suspicious, as they're all from the last month, and none of them appear to be in an actual reliable source. Looking at filmdaily.co, I don't see any real articles, just a bunch of spam dressed up to look like a legitimate site. As for the multiple accounts, check out User:Binaza and notice that they almost exclusively edited articles that Ugochukwu75 is heavily involved in. Does anyone else see this? Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin, this discussion is probably better held at the COI noticeboard rather than at RSN. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I felt it even falls into WP:G4. --SVTCobra 02:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Need to know the reputation of a publishing outfit.

What is the reputation of Edizioni Ca' Foscari-Digital publishing - Is it a Reputable publisher? A self-publisher? Other? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: It's affiliated with the Ca' Foscari University of Venice.[120] Its domain name "edizionicafoscari.unive.it" gets more than 700 hits on Google Scholar. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Howard Blum

Some of his claims as covered on UFOs are labelled as dubious or false, as investigated by Phillip Klass, what would be the appropriate way to address this issue in the project blue book article? I don't know if those claims of his are false, but phillip klass has found some parts of the same book to be dubious or false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book#Post-Blue_Book_U.S.A.F._UFO_activities and as I have referenced in the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_Blue_Book#Blum's_comments_should_be_taken_with_a_pinch_of_salt_and_not_at_face-valueChantern15 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Is the book "A History of Kafferistan" reliable?

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZoH2oQFIhWIC&q=chitrali+cap&pg=PA33%7Ctitle=A History of Kafferistan: Socio-economicand Political Conditions of the Kaffers

Its a book about Nuristan province in Afghanistan. Nuristan was Back than named Kafferistan. Is this book reliable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:69b5:4300:ddb7:4a4c:f11f:37d9 (talk • contribs)

PinkNews needs to be reevaluated

In light of recent events, I think the use of PinkNews as a "reliable source" needs to be reevaluated:

• Bindel-v-PinkNews, Case No: QB-2020-002650 (7 July 2021)
• Pink News Quietly Issues Retraction Over 'TERF Cult' Hit Piece, 4W, 25 October 2021
• Pink News vs Julie Bindel, The Critic, 29 October 2021.

It was also forced to apologize to MP Joanna Cherry and pay for the legal costs of the lawsuit against them: Correction, PinkNews, July 3, 2019.

Then there are the barrage of yellow journalism headlines for "news" articles:

• Outraged academics condemn government for handing anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock an OBE, PinkNews, January 6, 2021
• Universities union backs trans rights in row over anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock, PinkNews, October 14, 2021
• Anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock quits Sussex university in ‘massive win for LGBT+ students’, PinkNews, October 28, 2001
• LGBT+ students claim ‘monumental victory’ after anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock quits, PinkNews, October 29, 2021
• Tory equalities minister leaps to defence of anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock, PinkNews, November 2, 2021

It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it. The editorial decisions by PinkNews proves that it is nowhere near to being a "reliable source" for use as a citation in accordance with WP:RS. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yellow journalism? That's at least a bit contentious. I highly doubt "anti-trans" is the equivalent to little but spurious propaganda, unless you've a view to push. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Looking on your Talk page, I see the following:

99g: 'Never known a female to "womansplain" anything to me or anyone, but "mansplaining" is a condescending entitlement of which the meaning isn't changed because those who do it wrap themselves with a multi-colored gender flag. Pyxis Solitary (yak)

So if that's not the blueprints to a red flag factory, I'm not sure what is. Stock is pretty reliably considered to have undertaken transphobic actions by more than just PinkNews. Yes, it was forced to pay the costs of a lawsuit against Joanna Cherry; I don't see this as a reason alone to discredit them as a source. It is true that they're not exactly The Times, and that for serious matters you'd want more than just one citation from PinkNews alone credited, but I see no reason to deprecate them on the same level as the Daily Mail, for instance. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And you're using my response to a comment left in my talk page ... because _____. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What did actual reliable sources have to say about this? Did it get coverage at all? Because English defamation law is awful and shouldn't be used to determine reliability. And speaking of awful, I read those 4W and The Critic articles and wish I hadn't. Maybe we should consider them unreliable instead? Woodroar (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in the UK, but I found this barristers source: Julie Bindel settles libel claim with PinkNews, 5RB, 26 October 2021 Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a "news" piece from the law firm that worked for Bindel. Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Pyxis, I don't think you have really addressed the WP:BIASEDSOURCES issues in this filing. For WP purposes, the relevant question is accuracy - and headlines are not relevant in this context, since they can't be used for factual claims. And on the Bindel issue, I don't see how settling a defamation suit has anything to do with the source's reliability - if WP deprecated all sources that had ever settled a defamation suit, we wouldn't write very much about current events at all (which might be a good thing in some sense, but it would certainly be a major policy shift). Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: what exactly is the reliability issue you’re trying to highlight here? The headlines appear technically accurate and nothing I can see substantiates the claim of yellow journalism. If in fact "It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it.” then you can obviously provide reliable third party sources which say as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

4W is an anti-trans activist blog, and The Critic is an openly astroturfed culture war paper, whose backer backed it because he wanted "culture wars content" (as noted and cited in The Critic (modern magazine)). If sources of this calibre are against Pink News, this is in Pink News' favour - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary has been all over Wikipedia arguing in support of anti-trans viewpoints. And they're angry that PinkNews is one of the few reliable sources out there accurately covering anti-trans activity by groups like LGB Alliance and people like Kathleen Stock. That's the reason why this section was created. They don't want to have accurate media coverage criticizing the anti-trans subjects they like. Regardless of that, Pink News is a reliable source, Option 1 as we say around here, and has proper editorial background and vetting of articles and the information contained therein. Being biased in terms of being pro-LGBT doesn't alter their reliability status. Silverseren^C 18:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

They do seem to be pretty heavily focused on a number of feminism articles that definitely brush shoulders with trans rights topics; Kathleen Stock, Joanna Cherry and Radical feminism all pop up in their most recent edits. This doesn't define a WP:SPA, and their edits in Wikipedia mainspace seem pretty reasonable, but it is a contentious area that editors should be cautious within. Their edits in Wikipedia's Talkspace, however, seem a bit more contentious, and at times pointed. I don't think this post on PinkNews as a reliable source has been raised in good faith, and while their conduct isn't the worst I've seen, I can see things going over the line in the future. This isn't ANI, but when an editor raises something like this on RSN and has a history of involvement in radfem-adjacent articles, it feels like something to be considered. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be long until the culture warriors targeted PinkNews, and I don't think it should be too long until they are politely told that it won't be happening, either. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite:re your remark about ‘culture warriors’: I refer you to WP:NPA Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on…..political beliefs and WP:ADMINCOND Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I don't believe that labelling editors who come to Wikipedia to edit with a certain POV on a subset of articles (whether that be cultural, political, religious or anything else) to be derogatory, merely factual. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m surprised that you say that. In my experience, when people with different views call each other ‘culture warriors’, they are intending to insult each other. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a reliability issue here. It is inevitable that a news source will make a mistake, and given the state of UK libel laws it is inevitable that someone with sufficient cause will file and either succeed or settle in a court case. To give a tangentially relevant comparison, the BBC were forced into making a rather significant edit to an article that was heavily criticised for being transphobic, after one of the people who provided quotes posted some rather extreme comments on her personal blog. Should we now deprecate the BBC as a reliable source because of part of this article not meeting their content guidelines? Or can we accept that a reliable news source will occasionally drop the ball, and produce problematic content as a result without that affecting its wider reliability? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This complaint doesn't have enough oomph to justify any change to what we're doing, but a disturbing portion of the commenters are saying (roughly) "PinkNews supports the liberal political line so we have to keep using them". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That's plain conjecture and you know it. Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I mean the start of the discussion itself effectively says "PinkNews calls this person who I don't believe to be anti-trans 'anti-trans' and therefore we have to stop using them", which amounts to "this source is unreliable because I disagree with it." Underlying this is a fundamental reason why the topic area has become so tricky - there's such a sharply-divided view on sex and gender issues, especially when it comes to trans rights, that things some people think are unobjectionable will be viewed by others as so obviously wrong that it's seen as impossible to disagree in good faith. But at the very least it is well-established that we cannot declare a source unreliable solely for their views unless those views are plainly WP:FRINGE or unless there's reason to believe their views are interfering with the accuracy of their reporting in a systemic manner. I'm not seeing any serious argument for that here - there's extensive mainstream coverage of the view that Stock is anti-trans, enough that it can plainly be considered a widespread and mainstream position, even if there's competing mainstream positions and many more people who would disagree. (See eg. [121][122][123][124][125][126] - I specifically chose sources that are generally favorable to her; even those acknowledge that she's considered anti-trans by some or that her views are considered transphobic by a significant number of people.) Covering her from that perspective is not enough to affect a source's rating on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A news outlet publishing apologies - i.e., admitting it got something wrong - is hardly evidence of anything. Every news source that's been around for a while has a record of doing the same. PinkNews continues to be a reliable source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, correcting errors is a positive criterion for being considered a reasonable WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Only if this were "par for the course" for the publication would that be an issue, which does not seem to be the case for PinkNews. --Masem (t) 00:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• As others have said, issuing occasional retractions is expected for an WP:RS. And the argument that referring to someone as "anti-trans" is intrinsically yellow journalism is absurd - it amounts to arguing that the source should be depreciated because you disagree with its characterization of the subject. By that logic we could never call anyone anti-trans, under any circumstances, even with an inline citation, because you would argue that any source that refers to them that way is automatically unreliable; that is not how WP:LABEL works. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• PinkNews has received a notable amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS in academic literature as a source of factual information for its news reports pertaining to various LGBT-related topics. They were cited for example by PLOS One(1)(2), Heliyon of Cell Press (1), Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online of Elsevier (1), Psychological Science in the Public Interest(1), Systematic Reviews(1), Culture, Health & Sexuality (1), The Journal of Sexual Medicine(1), and the Journal of Homosexuality (1).

A lot of HIV focused papers and reports appear to cite it, too. For instance those of the Journal of the International AIDS Society (1)(2), BMC Infectious Diseases(1), the World Health Organization(1), UNAIDS(1), and AIDS and Behavior(1). --Chillabit (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

With a source with a strong editorial bias like this one it is important to be careful about how the source is used. This would come in two forms. First, we need to be very careful when something PN reports is actually treated as fact vs commentary/opinion of the reporter inserted into an article that isn't called "opinion". For example, claims that a person or group is anti- or pro- something that don't reference an external source should really be treated as opinion. Second, if PN uses an appeal to authority ("Many consider X to be Y") we should consider how much weight should be given to that information. This is doubly true when evaluating the claim is inherently subjective/shades of gray. Being cited in academic work is a step in the right direction but we have to ask what they were cited for. Were they cited for hard facts or for as an opinion of some type? Were they cited for things they got right or wrong? I can see why concerns are being raised and even if they don't rise to yellow journalism the concerns point in that direction. With any source with such a strong POV it certainly makes for a "use with caution" in cases where the views expressed or the weight given views are subject to PN's editorial bias. Springee (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Springee's first point, that (f)or example, claims that a person or group is anti- or pro- something that don't reference an external source should really be treated as opinion, doesn't actually carry consensus on Wikipedia. Some editors argue that we should expect RS to provide evidence when they make a judgement about the applicability of a label, but most editors do not agree, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Generally, if only one or two sources are labelling a topic pro or anti, we should be attributing that. If a significant proportion of all sources that talk about a topic in-depth about a topic use that terminology, attribution is unlikely to be needed. I think given Pink News here, we'd have more cases that fall into the first situation, but that doesn't change anything with their reliability. --Masem (t) 14:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the "balance of sources" argument is logically completely different from the "sources should supply their own evidence" point. The former reflects WP policy; the latter is an additional standard to which a minority of editors is strongly committed (IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, though I'd read the "provide own evidence" reflecting on if there's a lack of any other sources making the same statement. There's various levels of gray here, but as long as we know its coming from an RS, we don't expect RSes to provide their own sources, but for us, its applying the concepts of RS to know whether we attribute it or simply cite it in consideration of other sources if they are corroborating similar positions/information. --Masem (t) 15:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion (PinkNews)

1. My response to those who question why I think PinkNews needs to be reevaluated:
The PinkNews of today bathes in headline hysterics, drum beating, and fomenting outrages. It is laser-focused on creating controversy against subjects it disagrees with or does not approve of.
Legitimate news sources do not sensationalize nor feed frenzied crowds with biased stories.
Whatever "news media" PinkNews may have been years ago, today it is a sensationalist tabloid. It is the LGBT version of the UK Daily Mail.

2. For those who are indulging personal attacks in this discussion: do you need to be reminded of Wikipedia policies -- or are you going to cry ignorance about them?
* Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor; * Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors; * Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views; * Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views; * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
* Avoid condescension; * Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment.

Because in case anyone has forgotten ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where the latter are headed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Only commenting on #1, but every major RS today, perhaps outside of the NYTimes and BBC, engages in "headline hysterics" as well as less objective tones in writing as to draw and maintain readership. Fortunately, headlines are not part of a reliable source, and we have capabilities under YESPOV to extract what we know is factual info from more subjective tones (or place subjective stuff in attribution), as having bias is not the same as being unreliable. What needs to be shown is either outright fabrication of material (the Daily Mail's problem), or such adherence to misinformation and little regard to the editorial process to address that to make them unreliable for that (the Fox News situation around politics). --Masem (t) 14:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"What needs to be shown is either outright fabrication of material". To wit: the articles by PinkNews that resulted in lawsuits from MP Joanna Cherry (in 2019) and Julie Bindel (in 2021), which forced PinkNews to publicly apologize for publishing defamatory allegations about them (in the case of Cherry, it also included monetary agreements). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

My read of the case is that they did not create deliberate misinformation, but used innuendo and exaggeration, which said individuals asserted was defamation and thus took legal action and had courts rule in their favor. They did also redact these articles. --Masem (t) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Innuendo and exaggeration + news source = zero credibility. If putting PinkNews on the same level as the Daily Mail is considered hard to swallow -- okay, I hear you. But it isn't far-fetched to put it on the same level as The Sun. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The thing is: When PN engages in innueondo and exaggeration against certain people or targets, it seems pretty obvious, while when they are reporting on news relevant to the LGBTQ community, its clear they keep a more level head (though clearly with a pro-LGBTQ slant). Whereas with works like other Brit tabloids, the lines between the tabloid reporting and any serious work are impossible to delineate, which makes it hard as a WP editor to determine what we can use for referencing in a serious nature. And of course in the Daily Mail case, falsification could happen anywhere, making the entire work suspect. As others have said above, there's reason to keep the current flags on RS/P related to PinkNews about some of their coverage, but that's easy to spot and keep far at bay from WP. We can excise the bad part of that apple and keep the rest to use, something we simply can't do with most tabloids. --Masem (t) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Second Masem's comment. There is nothing here that casts doubt on the general reliability of PinkNews as a source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

General reliability yes, but subjective commentary and weight should be treated with caution. As Masem said above, if the only source making the controversial claim is PN then we should be very careful with how it is used. Springee (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What you say is accurate enough, but it is also reflected in the status quo RSN entry for PinkNews. Presumably the filer wants to change this, or we are all wasting time. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Related to PinkNews entry on RSN, while we're discussing it here could/would it be appropriate to more clearly define what exactly the additional considerations may apply and caution should be used are against this source? Both @Crossroads: and I have had disagreements in the recent past as to the scope of those considerations, and spelling it out more clearly may help either or both of us when it comes to disagreements as to this source's reliability for certain statements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the first comment, Whatever "news media" PinkNews may have been years ago, today it is a sensationalist tabloid. It is the LGBT version of the UK Daily Mail: this has not been substantiated in any way by Pyxis, and, for anyone who has actually followed the Daily Mail controversies, is quite obviously a false and absurd statement.

Concerning the second point, I would simply point out that personal attacks - especially, unsubstantiated ones - are no more appropriate on this page than they are elsewhere on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

indeed, were Pyxis to try to press this point it may be WP:BOOMERANG material. In any case, this is not in any manner collegiate editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Headline hysterics, drum beating, and fomenting outrages" - sorry, but calling someone "anti-trans" is not headline hysterics. Nor is it drum beating, nor is it fomenting outrage - not when the subjects of these articles are the ones creating said outrage through their actions.

"Laser-focused on creating controversy" - again; PinkNews doesn't need any help in this department, nor does it "create" controversy. Seemingly everyone's favourite pastime in the UK is coming out as transphobic. Just reporting on it doesn't make it worse or create something new, it just reports on it.

My conclusion is that these things only seem like they're creating controversy if your intention is to then ask "Please explain to me how their actions are transphobic?" - and I have run into enough bad faith WP:SEALIONing online in regards to trans rights to even consider that as a viable thing to present at RSN. The actions of Stock, Cherry, and a number of others have been reported on reliably as transphobic. Reporting on someone being called anti-trans is not biased or opinionated.

This RSN is based on nothing, going nowhere, is clearly against consensus, and only seems to be prolonged so far in a bad faith war of attrition. I think we all have better things to do with our time than this. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Modern secondary sources along with primary source from Raj Era

Dispute on sources on Srivastava

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1054030775

• SECONDARY - Oxford University source

• SECONDARY - Milton

• PRIMARY - Gupte

Other sources:

Christian

Shukla

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Large swipe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If these sources are meant to support the statement "Several Brahmin assemblies and Shankaracharya considered them to be Kayastha Brahmin", I can see the following issues here:

• O'Hanlon (2014). Reliable source, but how does the quote support the statement?
• Israel & Wagle (1987). Dito.
• Gupta (1904). No. See WP:RAJ and various RSN discussions about the wider subject of Raj sources and caste puffery.
• Novetzke (2016). Reliable source, but again, no immediate connection to the article topic. Note that the quote above has been altered by the OP. The original text goes in full: "It appears that, in the thirteenth century, Kayasthas may have been considered either as equal to Brahmins or simply within the Brahminic ecumene, this despite the fact that modern-day Kayasthas in Maharashtra understand themselves to have arisen from the Kshatriya varna and are thus an intermediary caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas." So the subject is not ambiguous "they", but "Kayasthas".
• IMO, not passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

–Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ऑस्ट्रोनेसियर If you go through the Gupte source you will see that it reproduces verbatim the letter of Banaras Brahmins in local as well as English translation. The date of this letter is 8th Day of the white half of the Ashvin month of the year 1701 of Saka era, which roughly translates to October 1779 of comman era. Those are not Gupte's opinion but the translations of the original letter of Banaras Brahmins based on their interpretation of Puranas.

The Oxford University source talks exclusively about this letter while Milton source mentions this letter and also mentions that Shankaracharya's decision also contains this letter along with others.

You may google the conversion of Saka Era dates into Common Era dates.

previous comment by Large swipe (talk

• Comments by LukeEmily:

I agree with User:Austronesier. The text disputed on the page is "Several Brahmin assemblies and Shankaracharya considered them to be Kayastha Brahmin. i.e. this edit

O'Hanlon (2014). Reliable but does not support Srivastava as being Kayastha Brahmin.

Israel & Wagle (1987). Reliable but does not support Srivastava as being Kayastha Brahmin.

Novetzke (2016). Reliable but does not support Srivastava as being Kayastha Brahmin.

Gupta (1904). Raj era source hence not reliable.

Shukla(2016): It is in Hindi and you have not provided any page number or English translation of the quote from the book discussing the letter. Is it WP:HSC?

Large swipe , can you provide more information on the last source(Shukla)? In addition to it not being in English, the link is also not accessible nor have you provided any page number or an english translation of any quote. The publication is not academic.

LukeEmily (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

livelaw.in

With reference to this section in this article: , what is the reliability of the website "livelaw.in" (reference 24)?Chantern15 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

• Comment Reliable for legal news reporting in India. LiveLaw and Bar and Bench are used for quick referencing of court orders for mainstream media like here and here because nobody references law reporters like AIR or SCC. Their editorial board seems great, and they never sensationalise their news. - hako9 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

GEOnet Names Server (GNS)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the US's GEOnet Names Server (GNS) database?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.
• Option 5: The source is:
  • Generally reliable for Locations/Coordinates
  • Generally unreliable for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place"
  • Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND.
• Option 6: Same as Option 5 but including Toponyms in GNS as generally reliable.

Background (GNS)

Ten or more years ago, thousands of geographic articles have been created on English Wikipedia by importing database entries directly from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS). For example, a search for the phrases "by opening the Advanced Search box, entering" and "can be found at GEOnet Names Server" (i.e., instructions telling the reader to search the GEONet Names server for the ID code for the location the article is about) on Wikipedia returns more than 43,000 results. These largely refer to populated locations. Some of these articles have been expanded using other sources into full articles, others remain as stubs for which GNS is the only source. GNS's location classifications are assembled using substantially the same methodology as the GNIS database which was the subject of a previous RFC. Its classification of locations, especially as "populated places", therefore suffers from the same issues.
Additionally, a 2008 study of 26,500 South Korea toponyms uncovered around 200 Japanese names (see page 199 here), apparently as a result of using 1946 US military maps as a source (the Japanese-pronunciation names had apparently never been used on Japanese maps going back to 1910, so the US military - likely due to use of Japanese assistants in compiling their maps - are ultimately the source of these errors). The same study also noted that "There are many spelling errors and simple mis-understanding of the place names with similar characters" (see page 198), and also uncovered some very random English toponyms still present on the database but never commonly used. Therefore, at the very least, it appears that place names on GNS should ideally be confirmed in other sources, as it may for some countries have imported systematic errors from the old military maps that GNS is typically based on.

I have therefore adapted the previous GNIS survey to exclude toponyms from Option 5, but also added an Option 6 including GNS toponyms as generally reliable. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (GNS)

• Option 5 as Nom. The classification of locations in GNS is essentially the same as that of GNIS and as such the same analysis applies - it is inaccurate as to whether a place was ever populated and cannot anyway be used to justify claiming that a place has legal recognition, not least because it does not come from an authority in the country concerned because this is a US database for places outside the US. As for topnyms, the reported error-rate (~1% Japanese names in South Korea, and a unknown number of additional erroneous names from misunderstandings etc.) is hard to balance so I'd prefer just to leave it as an open question. As far as I've ever been able to determine the location data on GNS is accurate. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)