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: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)? MEMRI has been cited around 560 times on Wikipedia per memri.org   and memritv.org  .

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (MEMRI)

• Option 1 Yes there were some controversies in the past but but there was some controversies with other WP:RS doesn't meant we should disqualify it.It widely used by others WP:RS [1],[2],[3],[4] and I could find many more.Yes it have agenda like many others so it maybe best to attribute --Shrike (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Generally reliable, they do a very high volume of translations with only a very small percentage ever shown to be misleading or erroneous, and are heavily used by others. I don't think it's necessary to attribute because they aren't giving their opinion, just a straight translation of primary source material. However, that also means that, as Memri is a primary source, it doesn't lend weight unless the quoted material is covered by a secondary source. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Its an informal Israeli agitprop organization with strong Israeli defense connections. The question is, has MEMRI's documented methods, and purposes, which created the ruckus back then, changed, when it was exposed for altering a Palestinian child saying:'(They/Israelis) are shooting at us' to 'we will annihilate the Jews' Despite the protest of Arab translators, its founder Yigal Carmon, had the chutzpah to go on Glenn Beck's programme and defend the distortion as, yes, accurate, though he doesn't know Arabic. These are the precise words. He overrode the objections of CNN's translator, and insisted they translate it differently:

'You know, Octavia, the order of the words as you put it is upside down. .. Even someone who doesn't know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word "Jews" at the end and it also means it is something to be done to Jews not by Jews.'

As independent experts on translation have noted.

Carmon does not just challenge the expertise of CNN's Arabic department here but also ignores what all Arabic grammars have to say on the structure of Arabic and the mobility of the object in Arab syntax.(See Mona Baker, 'Narratives of terrorism and Security: "Accurate" Translations, Suspicious Frames,' in her Researching Translation in the The Age of Technology and Global Conflict: Selected Works of Mona Baker, ed.Kyung Hye Kim, Yifan Zhu Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-0-429-65670-5)

The man who refused to admit the translation was falsified, even when it was proven to be such, i.e. Carmon, still runs the outfit. He was a military intelligence colonel who had been the effective military governor of Palestinian territories for several years, and who was stoutly opposed to peace agreements with them, its method is to select the worst they can find on numerous Arab media outlets, and highlight the putative content, to create a sense of chronic terrorism in that world. They have upgraded their accuracy since, yes, but not changed their selectivity, and the aim of publishing whatever looks bad, however parochial, to skewer the 'Arabs'. The results are predictable. If any Arab organization imitated their tactics, they could produce the same hysteria by excerpting and translating from English motherlodes of stuff from Fox News the Drudge Report, and any of the thousands of shock jock radio programmes in the US, like those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and take them as representing a threat to the world. A sense of proportion of what dickhead said what, where, and in what context is lost from view, as is invariably the case in intelligence disinformation operations like this, which use raw material that has some basis in reality, to influence public perceptions. Memri's translations should only be cited through secondary sources written by competent area scholars, and should never be used as a Primary Source, which is an open sesame to the usual wiki editor engaging in original research, usually for BLP articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishidani's link above goes to Mona Baker, who once said[5] that "I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances." Adoring nanny (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Option 4 This is literally MEMRI... This is the poster child for a bad source which we use as a derogatory comparison for other sources. They have a long history of publishing both false translations and false analysis, I literally cant think of another organization in their space that does a worse job (if anyone can then name them). If MEMRI isn't a 4 nobody is, they’re the bottom of the barrel. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

​I'm not so familiar with this source. When I look at its WP page, it seems like most specific incidents mentioned in the article occurred back around 2007, and I don't see a source that obviously talks about the reliability of MEMRI in a general sense. Do you know of sources that talk about MEMRI on a timespan longer than a single event, or that makes general statements about the source? If MEMRI is a poster child for this issue, then I assume I'd be able to look at articles about the issue somewhere. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you catch the "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation” part? MEMRI faded out of relevancy in the early-mid twenty teens due to their hijinks, they are not currently regarded as reliable by anyone I know of and if you do a google news search for MEMRI you will find that they are no longer used as a source for translation or anything else by WP:RS as they once were. The news organizations all got burned by MEMRI, they’re not trusting them again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2002 we had the Guardian do a whole story on how unreliable MEMRI was, “Selective MEMRI” [6] which is still a good read. This sort of thing is why I’m surprised we’re having this conversation, we knew MEMRI was garbage two decades ago and they’ve done *nothing* to dispel that notion since. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Lets not forget that Guardian has its own bias yes they selective but as many other biased sources that we do allow.And you own source says Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output. Shrike (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion of reliability not bias and the Guardian's reliability is not up for dispute here. You will be overjoyed to learn that since 2002 there has been dispute over the general accuracy of Memri's translations as is covered extensively on the page. They got worse, not better. Nobody has yet made an argument that MEMRI satisfies WP:VERIFY, if you would like to then go for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 at least and probably Option 4, according to Middle East Media Research Institute. We will mainly be using the translated documents and in fact often using MEMRI for the translations, because this is the English Wikipedia. The fact that those translations have been found to be be selective is a pressing concern. Guy (help!) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has their bias and they regularly used by respectable WP:RS.I don't see any difference for example from Btselem if we allow such partisan sources with clear agenda there is no problem to allow Memri--Shrike (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with bias or partisanship, this discussion is about reliability. They also *used* to be regular used by WP:RS, they aren’t anymore (its down to maybe two Israeli papers and even then its infrequent). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly Book from 2017 [7] Book from 2018[8],Book from 2018 [9] Does it recent enough? Shrike (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those appear to be from general commercial publishers not academic publishers. Try a google news search limited to the last month, thats always the easiest way to check relevancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look again Routledge and Walter de Gruyter are academic publishers --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Shrike (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't recognize de Gruyter as it was rendered. Routledge is borderline with a more commercial outlook post 1998 although I’l give it to you if that moves the discussion along. My question still stands, they aren’t as widely used by WP:RS (particularly news outlets). Can you name three reliable news sources that have used them in the last month? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is picked by the media but here is an example from NYTIMES on last year [10] and washPO[11] from April 2020, BBC used their clip on their program [12] I think its recent enough.If they use it there is no problem that Wikipedia will use it--Shrike (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those first two feature quotes from the head of MEMRI and discuss their published reports or soon to be published reports but they don’t make any comment about MEMRI’s reliability nor do they adopt those assertions as their own. MEMRI is certainly a notable think tank/advocacy group (thats why they have a wikipedia page) but neither of those speaks to their reliability. Can you specify when in the 27 minute audio clip the MEMRI bit is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked the article about radical islamic groups exploiting Covid. Shrike. Yeah, MEMRI would report that. Neither it nor the mainstream media reported that Israel smashed a structure set up for a clinic in the poorest area of the West Bank, one that could have served Covid testing among Palestinian herders. Yes, B'tselem did report it, but of course that is, as you say, as biased as MEMRI, with the difference that the IDF itself recognizes B'tselem's accuracy, and B'tselem always reports Israeli casualties and deplores terrorism, from either side. Mainstream reportage is already notorious skewed to one partisan narrative without adding insult to injury.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment No one is saying that they translate everything, which would anyway be impossible. I don't see how being selective about what they cover is evidence of unreliability, but then again I don't think this source grants any due weight per WP:PRIMARY. If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? Random WP editors translate stuff all the time without attribution and they certainly have much less evidence of being reliable. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

'If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? .' If we had the option of being allowed to use any source simply because we have no other available, Wikipedia would be chaos.(b) I've long seen them translating an extensive quantity of obscure crap (my analogy with shock jocks). Who establishes what is newsworthy, MEMRI, an informal arm of Israeli intelligence? No, reliable secondary sources that establish relevance, notability and WP:Dueness.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 and I'm curious why this user is opening up RFC's on specific sources all of a sudden. What is the impetus behind it? I don't see any discussion on talk pages or anything drawing it to an RFC that preceded it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Quoting Federico Zanettin's 2016 paper, [13], who notes some criticize MEMRI's selection of which pieces it translate but that:

  "The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

  MEMRI's translations are used widely. That MEMRI, as a media watchdog, is selective in choosing which pieces it covers is to be expected. In any event, the translations themselves are considered accurate.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. I'd be open to the argument that MEMRI had turned over a new leaf if they apologised for providing twisted translations, but in fact they doubled down on them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Some instances of controversy don't warrant a deprecation. Yes, they are selective in the same sense as for instance SPLC is actively scanning for hateful content. As for political ramifications or controversy, you can't really blame them for Arab language TV channels broadcasting such content. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

SPLC doesn't just focus on extremism coming from one racial group. If they did, we'd call them racist. MEMRI is dedicated to making Arabs and Muslims look bad. Hard to believe that in 2020 we are still not taking racial bias seriously.VR _talk 23:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 without independent confirmation. They took an interview with Norman Finkelstein on Lebanese TV and edited it so that he appeared to be a Holocaust denier. This episode alone proves that they cannot be trusted. The very reason MEMRI exists is to misrepresent the Arab (and Persian) world to the advantage of Israel. Zero^talk 12:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 maybe 4, seems there is enough smoke for a fire here:

Mona Baker (25 October 2018). Translation and Conflict: A narrative account. Taylor & Francis. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-0-429-79645-6.

Full text for free here. Zero^talk 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Christopher A. Bail (2 August 2016). Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream. Princeton University Press. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-0-691-17363-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)

• Option 4: MEMRI "translated" a child's response: ""I'm going to draw a picture" to "I will shoot". And they translated the child's "The Jews are shooting us" to "We will annihilate the Jews". (See Mona Baker, 2010, Narratives of terrorism and security: ‘accurate’ translations, suspicious frames), Worse than that: when confronted by their mis-translation, Yigal Carmon stated: "Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation." (see Tomorrow's Pioneers#Translation_controversy. Mistakes are one thing; pretending your mistakes are correct is immensely worse. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, per above comments, this org has clearly published fabricated content deliberately and systematically, and therefore they should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Fairly simple, imo. The degree of misinterpretation points towards disinformation, further affirmed by the long form publications presented above. Not to mention the ties with the Israeli intelligence community are not endorsements. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 This seems pretty clear to me just based on what others are saying. If they did anything like what Zero or Huldra are saying they did this is unambiguously a 4, and the supporters of 1 frankly don't seem to have a lot of evidence backing them up. Loki (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Did people here actually read Mona Baker who is cited above? Ignoring the fact she is a leader in the boycott movement (The Times: Don’t play the nutty professor with David Irving, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law : Boycotting Israeli academia: Is its implementation anti-Semitic?), her article after noting one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, is all about narrative complaining that MEMRI highlighting hate speech in terrorist-run TV promotes a narrative). Baker concludes with the opposite point on translation: "more important argument that I have tried to elaborate here is that attempts by Arab and pro-Arab activists to challenge neo-conservative organisations such as MEMRI by casting doubt on the accuracy of their translations miss the point. A group called MEMRI Watch for instance, operated for a short while in 2007 ... but clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement". Baker herself does not contest MEMRI being accurate. Other editors above have pointed out sources showing use of MEMRI translations by both media and scholars. It is used by others, and even ideological opponents admit that the translations are generally accurate. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Very astute comment, I would like to add that Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow any user to translate content without infringing on reliable source or original research. No one arguing that the source should be deprecated has been able to show that it is less accurate or reliable at translating material than the average Wikipedia editor. One disputed translation certainly doesn't do it. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Since you are refering to Baker (2010), I did read it and I think you're missing the point she is making as well, the question isn't about mistranslation but misinterpretation or in her words "misleading narrations". It is very much possible to produce factually incorrect translations with accurate translations, however odd that might sound. The point she is referring to in the quoted line is present in the introducing lines of the "Narration theory" section.

The model of analysis adopted here, and which makes it possible to demonstrate how narratives elaborated about Arab and Muslim communities through translation do not have to be ‘linguistically inaccurate’ to be misleading, is elaborated in greater detail in Baker (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) and elsewhere.

For example, in english one can say "I want a hotdog" which can be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's hot" which can also be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's attractive", etc. This gets even easier and much more confusing when you add another language to it. There's an example of it in Baker (2018) long form.

MEMRI insisted that Bin Laden 'threatened each U.S. state, and offered an election deal to the American voters - a sort of amnesty for states that don't vote for Bush', and that 'the U.S. media have mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S'

(Ball 2016; linked above) and Harris 2003 make similar observations as well. The Baker (2018) long form has referenced the latter. (Bolding is my own)

Harris (2003) similarly insists that 'MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israel's] occupation as religious extremists or Anti-semites'

It should also be noted that the MEMRI Watch that is referenced to by her in your quoted text has still also found instances of direct mistranslations and doctoring albeit perhaps not as much as expected. At the very least MEMRI is an advocacy group with questionable reliability and questionable independence in relation to a belligerent party in a conflict zone. I don't see how this is of any value for encyclopedic purposes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Harris(2003) is a Counterpunch essay, hardly a high quality source. Baker is a leader in the boycott movement, she has her own narrative. Both are are relatively dated. In contrast, Zanettin, Federico. "‘The deadliest error’: translation, international relations and the news media." The Translator 22.3 (2016): 303-318, is a later academic work by a neutral party who refers both to Baker and Harris (whom Baker cites) that states:

"Various commentators have, however, questioned MEMRI’s impartiality, both in view of its covert ideological standpoint12 and in consideration of the apparent bias in the choice of source material it translates. Harris argues that ‘MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israeli’s] occupation [of Palestinian territories] as religious extremists or anti-Semites’ (Harris 2003) This ‘selective appropriation strategy’ is also discussed by Mona Baker (2006, 108–109), who similarly contends that the choice of material translated contributes to the elaboration of a narrative which portrays those who oppose neoconservative politics as extremists. The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

In short, the translations themselves are accurate even according to detractors.11Fox11 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't access The Translator so can't comment much on Zanettin 2016. Nevertheless, the quotation doesn't tell us anything; it just repeats a summarisation of Baker 2010 as in that MEMRI's accuracy of the translations of particular texts aren't disputed but not that MEMRI's narration of a particular piece as a whole isn't. Further, disregarding Harris 2003 and even if we consider Mona Baker to be partisan, there are still a number of academic sources which do support their assertions. For instance the concluding findings of Hijjo, Nael F. M.; Kaur, Surinderpal; Kadhim, Kais Amir (20 April 2019). "Reframing the Arabic Narratives on Daesh in the English Media: The Ideological Impact". Open Linguistics. 5 (1). De Gruyter: 81–93. doi:10.1515/opli-2019-0005. make these observations.

In this regard, the findings of this study reveal that MEMRI-translated titles are a complete reframe to the original...MEMRI makes several ideologically motivated lexical choice decisions. The findings clearly illustrate how translation agencies of international media outlets employ narrativity features to insert their perspectives and agenda in the target text. They also explain how narrativity features are used by MEMRI as devices of (re)constructing, (re)framing, and (re)negotiating the Arabic source narrative in favor of the meta-narratives ‘terrorist Islam and Muslims’ and ‘the War on Terror’.

The translations of text in isolation of context may be accurate but the interpretations are not which is still a form of disinformation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how you're getting "disinformation" out of that. "translation agencies of international media outlets" are likely considered RS and according to this source, they also use "narrativity features". (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Narrativity features" only refers to semantic attributes in a language. The "translation agencies of international media outlets" are not being considered in the same vein as MEMRI in the study; the former might insert their perspective or agenda through minor inconsistencies in semantic meaning but not to the extent where the rendering of source material has been completely deconstructed and reframed as is the case with the latter, which would produce a misinterpretation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - MEMRI's reputation as a poor source is well established literally over decades. Examples: [14] [15] [16]. It is a propaganda outlet, and I dont think that is even in dispute. As far as the absolutely nonsensical line about Baker writing about one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, no, what she, in a peer-reviewed journal article (which oh by the way matters more than the well-poisoning above about leader in the boycott movement), what she writes is that MEMRI fabricated entirely what a subject said, which CNN's translators also agreed with. We have well-poisoning and gas-lighting in defense of a propaganda outlet. Great. nableezy - 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at your three examples, the Guardian and MondeDiplo are both complaining about what Memri chooses to translate, and the Guardian one actually says the translations are generally accurate. In the WaPo source, if one clicks through to the Memri translation the WaPo is complaining about, it is clear that Iran's parliament did put nine conditions on its approval of the JCPOA. The WaPo takes issue with the characterization of these conditions as "amendments", but, well, look at the actual conditions to see for yourself. So what we are left with is a complaint of selectivity. But every source is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, please do not misrepresent what these things report. What the Le Monde Dilpomatique source says is

Memri is frequently criticised for the quality, and sometimes even the integrity, of its translations. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an Islamist living in Britain, Hani al-Sebai, was invited to take part in an Al-Jazeera programme, More Than One Viewpoint. Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not”. Note the introduction of the contested term dar al-harb, which is Arabic for house of war (denoting the part of the world populated by unbelievers), a term not used by the speaker. In a country at war on terror, the use of that term implies that anything goes. Memri also omitted the condemnation of the killing of innocents.

Halim Barakat, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC, also suffered from this approach. He claimed that an article he wrote for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, “The wild beast that Zionism created: Self-destruction”, was reproduced by Memri under the hate-inducing headline, “Jews have lost their humanity”. Barakat denies having used that phrase. “Every time I wrote Zionism, Memri replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. They want to give the impression that I’m not criticising Israeli policy and that what I’m saying is anti-semitic.” As soon as the translation was posted on the Memri website he received threats. He was told that he had no right to teach at a university (he has taught for more than 30 years) and that he should leave the US. Another Georgetown professor attacked him in an article based only on Memri translations, without checking the Arabic texts.

In June 2004 Memri triggered a campaign against a London visit by the well-known Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, commissioned a study of the “Islamic conspiracy dossier” to obtain an impartial view. His counter-dossier concluded that the campaign was part of an “apparent rising tide of Islamophobia” aiming to “close off any dialogue between London and mainstream representatives of one of the world's great religions”.

The Livingstone commissioned report analysed all Qaradawi's works, and discovered that nearly all the distortions came from “material produced by the Middle East Research Institute” which “was set up by a former colonel in Israel's military intelligence service”. It concluded that Memri systematically distorted facts, not only relating to Qaradawi but to many other Muslim leaders, and the report was intended to set matters straight.

Memri is also guilty of basic factual errors. According to its “experts”, Abdel Karim Abu al-Nasr is a Saudi national, because he is a leader writer for a Saudi newspaper, whereas he is a prominent Lebanese journalist. In a long paper on Saudi Arabia, Memri wrote that Crown Prince Abdallah Ibn Abdel Aziz (now king) belonged to the Sudeiri branch of the royal family, which would surprise anyone who knows the country.

What the Guardian supports is that MEMRI is a propaganda outlet. What the Washington Post says is that MEMRI straight fabricated a claim that Iran did not pass the JCPA when they in fact have. That is, MEMRI said a black and white lie, 4 pinnochios by they way are reserved for "Whoppers". nableezy - 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that WaPo said that. But look at Memri's translation, which the WaPo does endorse and uses in its analysis.[17] There are nine "conditions" on the approval, and most conditions have multiple sub-conditions. For example, the first condition starts off "Khamenei demands that the U.S. and Europe lift the sanctions, not suspend them, and in addition . . .". There are further links to Khamenei's English-language twitter feed, which also have nine conditions. Curiously, the WaPo prefers to characterize this as approval. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4. MEMRI is an unreliable source with a lot of questionable reporting. I don't think that can be debated. On the question of whether it should be "outlawed" or not, I lean towards being inclusive, i.e no outlawing. Thus, my vote is for option 3. If preferential voting isn't yet a thing on Wikipedia I'll have to vote for option 4. ImTheIP (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. There is no real dispute that the translations themselves are accurate, this is acknowledged even by Mona Baker (who showcases her own axe) and neutral parties such as Zanettin note accuracy and use by news outlets. Baker stresses narrative, and I don't think there is a real dispute that MEMRI promotes a narrative. MEMRI is selective in the pieces it translates. Thus, if a piece appears on MEMRI's site we can generally count on MEMRI's translation to be accurate. However, we can not count on MEMRI's showcasing to be representative of the Arab language media it is presenting.--Hippeus (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Baker very specifically says that MEMRI totally distorted a translation, giving it an opposite meaning than it had. This canard that she acknowledges that there is no real dispute the translations are accurate when her paper opens up with what she calls an example of blatant mistranslations has no grounding in fact. nableezy - 14:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 I have read the discussion above. There seems to be consensus that (a) MEMRI's translations are mostly accurate, and (b) MEMRI is a highly political and biased organization. I agree with both these statements.

I therefore strongly support full deprecation because “mostly” accurate in a politicized organization is nowhere near good enough. The same test applies to all sources we have previously chosen to deprecate – all our deprecated sources are also "mostly" accurate.

Let’s say that MEMRI are 95% accurate in their translations, which sounds great, and is likely as statistically accurate as a translation made by an average Wikipedian speaker of the translated language (referencing a point made above). But what about that 5%?

First, it is likely that a reasonable portion of the 5% inaccuracies in a MEMRI translation are politically-driven spin. Second, is quoting out of context – MEMRI may have translated the part of a speech which fits their narrative, but not translated parts which add nuance or context.

Because they translate niche publications, we usually cannot verify any of this. The existence of these gaps in our knowledge, combined with certainty that they are a biased organization, make it negligent for us to use a MEMRI quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 – MEMRI does not produce its own content, only translations, and some of the original content cannot be found elsewhere online. Therefore, at the very least, it's a reliable repository of third party content, where the sources are clearly stated, which is also helpful in practice. As for the translations, I think it is telling that despite being extremely controversial among those who hold opposing views, they have only managed to find a small number of possible mistranslations, out of thousands of MEMRI clips throughout history. This is an extremely low rate of mistakes, likely lower than any major publication we commonly cite. For example, yesterday I found an article in a leading economic newspaper about Israel's energy sector, with a number of obviously bungled facts – does it mean the entire source is bogus? In any case, since translations themselves aren't the source, even if theoretically a translation was inaccurate, it would be within Wikipedia policy to cite the video with a note on the translation. However, this should be done on a case-by-case basis, if there is doubt; by default, the translations should be accepted as reliable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: Thats not true, their translations are packaged as “reports” which contain original analysis and content, in fact some of them are almost entirely analysis and original content with only a snippet or two of translation. Their four most recent pieces [18][19][20][21]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 From an article attacking MEMRI[22], we have the following: "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output."(Emphasis added) The part I've bolded above really cuts to the chase. The article then goes on to state concerns that in one case the newspaper being translated might have lied, which, if it did, is obviously not a reflection on MEMRI's translation. It also says that MEMRI's founder and several people who work there have former connections with the Israeli military. Which would point to bias, but every source is biased.Adoring nanny (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That article is from 2002, 18 years ago, and is entitled “False MEMRI” which should tell you everything you need to know about their reliability. "General accuracy" isn't good enough, if even a small fraction of the information published by a source is false or misleading and there is no mechanism by which errors are corrected and no reputation for correcting errors either then its an option 4. Since 2002 we’ve had clear cases of them publishing false and misleading information, what are we supposed to do about that? We aren’t given much wiggle room here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

When I follow the link, the title I see is "selective Memri". But every source is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read more than the title. A title which is a pun on "selective memory" and not a comment on how selective MEMRI is. nableezy - 16:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nableezy I did. Please strike the first part per WP:NPA, and see my discussion above of the fact that the article is in fact saying that Memri is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 One of the best source when it comes to information about middle East and a large number of scholars trust this source. Excelse (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4; they're very biased in what and how they translate, and cases of outright falsification / misrepresentation and fabrication of information have been cited. Our main citation should be to the original news report if it is (independent of MEMRI's selection of it) due weight. We might (on a talk page or, perhaps, even in an article) compare our translation of a non-English source to any other available ones, including MEMRI's, and take it as evidence that we have the translation right if they line up, and seek further assistance if they don't. But I wouldn't take their word for anything (whether their translations or their original content), especially anything controversial or in the topic areas (of politics) where they are biased, or about BLPs. -sche (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 You might not like MEMRI's agenda, but they translate Arabic accurately. They don't make up remarks by Arab and Muslim personalities. The truth is above everything.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. The examples of patiently deliberate mistranslation listed above are compelling, and the arguments against them (which mostly seem to consist of either ignoring the worst examples, arguing that Mona Baker is biased, citing much more vague / general statements that they're mostly accurate, or saying that everyone translates with an agenda) are weak. While they have been widely criticized for selective translation (which would already raise WP:DUE issues), and a lot of the coverage focuses on that, the deliberate mistranslations go way beyond what we could accept from a WP:RS, especially given the total lack of any sort of corrections or retractions, and nobody seems to actually be willing to directly disagree with the examples given, which have been cited in peer-reviewed papers as examples of manipulative mistranslation. As I mentioned in similar cases, we allow WP:BIASED sources, and we allow sources that sometimes make mistakes; but when a source has a clear, overriding bias that seems to define its entire mission statement, and has constant serious "errors" (always in the direction of its bias), that suggests a systematic problem that makes them unusable as a source. An additional concern is that many people are saying things like "well, if we remove MEMRI as a source, we will have no alternative to replace them" - that, to me, is a red alarm. A WP:BIASED source that has been accused of deliberate mistranslation in peer-reviewed papers, and which everyone at least agrees selectively translates things to present an inaccurate picture, being used as the sole source for things that are not mentioned anywhere else at all? Not just no, but hell no. EDIT: After quickly glancing over how it's currently cited, I would also point out that even though nobody seems to dispute that MEMRI is, at a bare minimum, WP:BIASED, it is repeatedly cited for statements of fact about its ideological enemies without an in-line citation, and is sometimes even used as the sole source to attribute statements with clearly-negative implications to WP:BLPs. Regardless of the outcome of this RFC, its usages are going to require massive cleanup efforts - as a WP:BIASED source, it should at the absolute bare minimum never be cited for anything that has to do with Islam, Israel, or mideast politics without an inline citation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Based on the published criticisms, this seems to be simply a biased organization. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Claims of actual inaccurate translations are few and far between. Even the published criticisms, some of which are by a biased author mainly known for firing Israelis on the basis of their ethnicity, point out MEMRI's wide use and that the point isn't accuract. The criticisms do lay the charge that MEMRI translates content that is extremist, and that the selection itself is biased while the translations are accurate. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - MEMRI has made mistakes, but let's not conflate that into saying that all their translators are unqualified. Like others have said, MEMRI is widely quoted by sources far more reliable than Wikipedia. If a reliable source says that MEMRI's translation is wrong, then we shouldn't include it. However, if we don't have a specific reason to doubt, then absolutely use it.Resowithrae (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - a big problem with MEMRI is how its used. MEMRI is mainly a WP:PRIMARY source and it is often used to make claims about living persons. Yet WP:BLPPRIMARY strongly discourages using primary sources alone for BLP material. But taking a look at its usage there are far too many instances of it being used for BLP material. This problem is compounded by the fact that MEMRI has a tendency of selectively publishing the most derogatory comments about living persons.VR _talk 23:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - MEMRI should be evaluated like any other primary source. It is best used when cited by a secondary reliable source, expert in the field. When there are conflicting reports among reliable sources, both reports should be included with attribution according to weight. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A random example of MEMRI cited by a secondary reliable source:

David Patterson (9 February 2015). Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-107-04074-8., see ref #65.

Hope it helps, Infinity Knight (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it helps to classify MEMRI as unreliable. David Patterson, are you kidding? Zero^talk 07:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

More random examples of MEMRI cited by secondary reliable scholarship sources:

• Kelsay, John. “Democratic Virtue, Comparative Ethics, and Contemporary Islam.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 33, no. 4, 2005, pp. 697–707. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40017994. Accessed 27 July 2020.
• Cook, David. “The Implications of ‘Martyrdom Operations’ for Contemporary Islam.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 32, no. 1, 2004, pp. 129–151. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40018157. Accessed 27 July 2020.
• Douglass, Charles A., and Michael D. Hays. Bibliography. Air University Press, 2008, pp. 99–108, A US Strategy for Iran, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13989.16. Accessed 27 July 2020.

More recent examples:

• Blank, Stephen J., editor. A CLINIC ON CLAUSEWITZ: LESSONS OF RUSSIA’S SYRIA CAMPAIGN. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2019, pp. 401–490, THE RUSSIAN MILITARY IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep20098.15. Accessed 27 July 2020.
• “Prospects for Counter-Theology against Militant Jihadism.” Militant Jihadism: Today and Tomorrow, by Serafettin Pektas and Johan Leman, vol. 6, Leuven University Press, Leuven (Belgium), 2019, pp. 187–216. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvq2vzmt.14. Accessed 27 July 2020.
• Landau, Emily B., et al., editors. In the Aftermath of the JCPOA: Restoring Balance in the US-Iran Deterrent Relationship. Institute for National Security Studies, 2018, pp. 23–32, Iran in a Changing Strategic Environment, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17021.5. Accessed 27 July 2020.

Best regards, Infinity Knight (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 is the most accurate depiction of MEMRI's reliability in my estimation based upon the above. To rely on an organisation founded by Israeli intelligence personnel whose only goal is to highlight the shrillest voices in the Arab world, together with their proven track record of knowingly or unknowingly mistranslating source texts that most people cannot understand on their own is a recipe for disaster. At most, their translations could be used with a disclaimer to the effect that "the above is from a translation by MEMRI, a partisan organisation; independent corroboration of the translated text from the original Arabic/Persian source is highly recommended". Havradim (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (MEMRI)

MEMRI has been substantially discussed three times, but these were between 2007 and 2009, over a decade ago. 1 2 3 Given that much of the controversy over MEMRI's translations is over a decade old, so I would like to know if anything has changed since then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

They’ve gotten worse not better, its bottom of the barrel sludge and I say that as someone on the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment personally unsure but I don't think Mona Baker's works on the matter should be used as an argument.--Calthinus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No kidding. Closer is encouraged to check out [23] and follow the links to see exactly who is being used to make the case for options 3-4. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An academic expert in the field of translation writing in an academic, peer-reviewed journal, or a literal logical fallacy. Yes, the closer should consider how this is being argued, I agree. nableezy - 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nableezy You are arguing that she is WP:RS even though she removed two Israeli academics, Dr. Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Professor Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University, Israel, from the editorial boards of her journals Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts, based on their affiliation to Israeli institutions.Israeli boycott divides academics and subsequently announced that Translator will no longer publish any research by Israeli scholars and will refuse to sell books and journals to Israeli libraries.Mona Baker's double standard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, she is a reliable source on translation sciences. Her stance on BDS has exactly zero to do with her qualifications. See WP:RS#Scholarship for why a director of the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at the University of Manchester writing in the area of her academic expertise is a reliable source. Your objections to her politics has zero bearing on her reliability. nableezy - 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is her own words and actions make her WP:QUESTIONABLE. Note in particular her complaints about the "Jewish press"[24]. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, several MEMRI employees are Israeli. So Baker, by her own words and actions has an axe to grind with respect to both Israelis and what she considers to be the "Jewish press". No word on whether or not she considers MEMRI to be a part of that "Jewish press", but it's a reasonable supposition. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes her questionable. WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; a WP:BIASED source can still be usable, though we would use in-line citations when citing them in the article case. It only becomes unusable (as in MEMRI's case) where there is substantial reason to believe that their bias interferes with their accuracy on a systematic level. Do you have any reason to believe that published statements by Mona Baker cannot be relied on? That is, do you have evidence showing that she has distorted or selectively manipulated translations herself? EDIT: And, more generally, given that she's being cited in numerous peer-reviewed papers here - do you think those journals are WP:QUESTIONABLE? It seems baffling to hold her bias against her to the point of trying to discredit her entirely as a source even in peer-reviewed papers from high-quality journals while arguing that MEMRI, which is not peer-reviewed and which has been accused of far more serious distortions, can be still used. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is Academic analysis of the Mona Baker views[25] by Judith Butler(who herself a vocal critic of Israeli policies) she clearly can't be used to assess Memri --Shrike (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See what I said above. If being WP:BIASED alone were enough to disregard a source we would obviously toss MEMRI in the wastebin instantly with no need for further discussion; no one disputes that they have a point of view. The question is whether a source can be trusted to tell the truth and make valid arguments, or whether their bias systematically overrides their reliability. The reason people are citing Mona Baker is because she's made that argument (although she's not the only one to do so); do you have any comparable sources throwing her accuracy into doubt, rather than simply ones that disagree with her politics? Obviously the idea that participation in the boycott alone would render an academic unreliable in their area of expertise is absurd - it might qualify them as WP:BIASED and require in-line citations when citing them, but saying that someone isn't an WP:RS requires a reason to believe that they distort the truth, publish factually-inaccurate material, and so on, not just that they expressed an opinion that others find objectionable. (In a few cases I suppose there are opinions that might render a source WP:FRINGE, but for the better or worse, her opinions are not that far outside the academic mainstream - disqualifying her based on this alone would disqualify huge swaths of academia.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, The thing she in not just biased she make antisemitic premises as described by Butler.Do you really thing that person that espouse racist premises could be WP:RS Shrike (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Butler specifically says "(which does not mean she is antisemitic)"; she is criticizing one specific action and statement by Baker for (possibly inadvertently) playing into anti-Semitic tropes, not describing her as WP:FRINGE. "They once said something that another person took issue with as racist" is obviously is not sufficient to completely and permanently disqualify a source when nobody is actually raising issue with the accuracy of her statements or research. Saying that she make antisemitic premises is a massive stretch from what Butler says - she isn't accusing Baker of engaging in scientific racism, or advancing conspiracy theories, or other things that would call the accuracy of her work into question; and she certainly isn't accusing her of deliberately manipulating her results to obtain a specific result, which is the far more credible and far more serious allegation made against MEMRI. More generally, yes, of course a source who previously said or did something that another person criticized as racist could be a WP:RS; we don't require that sources be unbiased or fair or good people. What matters is whether the views they're accused of taints their research to the point of rending them WP:FRINGE or unreliable, which is light-years away from what Butler is saying there. Or, in other words - if you wanted to disqualify Baker, you need to find sources describing her published research as either inaccurate or WP:FRINGE, not just ones that took issue with the wording of a statement she made. Above, you said (in defense of MEMRI) everyone has their bias, but you have to understand that the key question is does their bias taint their research. Nobody (that I can see) is accusing Baker of that; numerous sources, to varying degrees, say that MEMRI's translations are fatally-tainted (and, I'll point out again, you still haven't really answered that accusation beyond repeatedly trying to shoot the messenger.) That is the key difference here. The idea that you would disqualify a respected academic with significant expertise in the field in favor of a think-tank with a reputation for manipulative translation is simply baffling. Sources like Baker are the ones we ought to be using (with caution, of course, with in-line citations when her WP:BIAS is relevant, and focused on peer-reviewed sources so we can trust the review process and not just Baker herself.) Rando stuff published by MEMRI with no further fact-checking or review belongs in the wastebin by comparison - we ought to rely less on advocacy-groups like that in general, but especially in cases like this where there have been numerous accusations of outright distortions on their part. Also note that the distortions by MEMRI have been reported by numerous WP:RSes, not just Baker, eg. [26][27][28][29]. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles you cite complain about MEMRI's framing and reframing (see Framing (social sciences)) of their translations, and about the translation of the Arabic word Jihad to the English word Jihad, among other things. But WP:RS like the NYT and PBS describe their own work with the same term [30][31]. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Library of Congress summarizes "Critics charge that despite portraying itself as neutral, it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light through the production and dissemination of incomplete translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions." Sounds about right as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier: that summary isn't by the Library of Congress; it's attributed to the DBPedia abstract, which is derived from an old revision of its Wikipedia page. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • True, they are reporting it, however, just as any other rs reports stuff not by them. I assume they give it some credence and it as well fits with the other material identified in this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:CIRCULAR --Shrike (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is one of the MEMRI quotes I've run into on Wikipedia: "You haters, you midgets, you little insolent people – whether in America, in France, or in Denmark ..." Since MEMRI is the only source, who knows if it is correct or false? Incorrect translations from Arabic has been used before to smear Palestinians. See f.e Dareen Tatour's poem. In the supposed quote from Salah is he really talking about people of short stature? If so, perhaps the correct translation would be "dwarves" or "little people"? Is "you midgets" some kind of Arabic figure of speech and would better be translated to "you prejudiced people?" It just makes no sense. ImTheIP (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If certain content can only be sourced to MEMRI, and no other reliable sources can be found on it, then it should not be on Wikipedia per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.VR _talk 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

IvoryTower123 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @IvoryTower123: I see you posted this !vote in the Discussion section about MEMRI. Did you mean to post it either in the MEMRI RfC above or the PinkNews RfC below (I saw your edit summary was "pink news")? Armadillopteryx^talk 03:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: at least 6 editors here have unusually short editing histories to be coming along and "voting" on an obscure noticeboard discussion:

• • Excelse: 683 edits
  • Bob not snob: 594 edits
  • 11Fox11: 827 edits
  • Aroma Stylish: 746 edits
  • Resowithrae: 125 edits
  • Infinity Knight: 933 edits

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I wonder why you mentioned only editors that voted against your POV and didn't mention LokiTheLiar with 579 edits? Shrike (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, I didn’t look thoroughly. I am sure there are more than the 6 I mentioned. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews

PinkNews is a British online LGBTQ+ newspaper. Its current assessment at RSP reads: There is consensus that PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation. If PinkNews republishes claims from a reliable source, cite the original source instead of PinkNews.

Two of three previous discussions on this source (here and here) focused only on whether it should be considered POV for claims about a subject's sexuality (or homophobia), but for the most part they did not discuss the publication's reliability in general. Consensus was that information about those topics can be sourced from PinkNews so long as it comes in the form of a direct quote from the individual. Another discussion, which focused on a different topic, contained five comments that mentioned PinkNews. Of those, three suggested it was generally reliable, while two suggested it was generally unreliable.

I looked up PinkNews' editorial policy, which describes their procedures for article inclusion and fact-checking, specifically in the "Political stance", "Historic content", "Right of reply" and FAQ sections. In the "Political stance" section, they disclose that their position influences the tone with which they report on politicians they consider homophobic.

I've written an article, Honey Davenport, where I include a quotation from the subject that appears in this interview they did with PinkNews. Should PinkNews be considered trustworthy enough to not fabricate quotations or interview responses? My reading of past discussions is that quotations should be fine, but the exact phrasing at RSP says this is only okay in the specific subject area the publication was found to be POV in. I assume this is not intentional, but I would like to clarify this explicitly. My questions:

1. Should PinkNews be considered a reliable source for quotations from individuals about any topic, not just about the individual's sexuality?
2. Should PinkNews be considered reliable for third-party claims in general—except when making third-party claims about a subject's sexuality (or about whether they are homophobic)?

Thanks, Armadillopteryx^talk 03:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I just went to the PinkNews website and clicked on "news". One of the top stories was

Politicians in the Netherlands have voted to enshrine protections for LGBT+ people in the country’s constitution for the first time.

I don't see anything wrong with using that story as a source for such factual claims as "the Netherlands has said it will no longer specify the gender of citizens on ID cards." --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Question: Would the following be usable as sources?

• Parents of trans kids reject JK Rowling’s ‘offensive’ suggestion that supporting their children means supporting conversion therapy
• JK Rowling deletes praise for Stephen King after he declares unequivocally that trans women are women

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

My thinking is along the lines of your first comment: I would not say it is acceptable to use these as sources for claims like "J. K. Rowling is transphobic", but I don't see an issue with using the first article as a source for a statement like "J. K. Rowling said [text of Tweet quoted in article] in a Tweet."

Do you think there is an issue, in general, with using PinkNews as a secondary source that accurately reproduces quotations? In my example, is it okay to include a quote from a subject that appeared in a PinkNews interview? Armadillopteryx^talk 06:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not DM, I think it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't fabricate quotations. (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the decision to make it generally unreliable was a mistake. Pink News, as a newspaper specific to the LGBT community, covers quite a bit of news that doesn't reach general circulation, was at the very least historically reliable, and enjoys a decent level of trust to the point that Prime Ministers of both parties will write for the paper. Maybe a "use with caution" should suffice, with warnings that their output will be (understandably) biased, but "generally unreliable" seemed to be a bit of an overreaction to a few retracted stories. Sceptre (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• You mean something along the lines of the treatment TMZ gets? Armadillopteryx^talk 18:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose changing the first sentence of the PinkNews entry at RSP to: PinkNews is reliable only for quotations and uncontroversial statements of fact. I don't presently see a rationale to limit the source's use to only quotes from living people about their sexualities. Do others agree with this? Armadillopteryx^talk 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the evidence that was provided last time this was discussed it still seems to be generally unreliable. I suggest you find alternative, reliable sources for the topic you need to source. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• What is the reason for saying quotes about sexuality are okay but quotes about other subjects are not okay? The comments above seem to suggest there's no real issue with quotations in general.
• I also think wording like PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotations and uncontroversial statements of fact. would solve the problem.

Armadillopteryx^talk 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think they should be upgraded to generally reliable in context. Retracting stories suggests they do exercise care to correct mistakes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but retracting could mean they exercise care, or could mean they respond to other external pressures (e.g., potential legal action). Retractions do not, in themselves, demonstrate the exercise of care. Grandpallama (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The fix mistakes just like other media outlets regardless of who points out the mistakes, just like other media outlets. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree with @Gleeanon409. I would say its generally reliable when it comes to LGBT topics, like gay and lesbian characters in shows, for example. Historyday01 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ Spy-cicle💥  brings up the previous discussion, but there was really no consensus on whether it was a good source or not. Historyday01 (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose / generally reliable. They should be listed as generally reliable or, at worst, yellow "reliable, but requires inline citations for controversial statements" instead per Gleeanon409; the previous discussion was improperly decided and didn't get enough people weighing in. Issuing two retractions (which seems to have been the only reason it was categorized as red) is a sign of reliability, not unreliability, provided it is done promptly and isn't part of a larger pattern of problems. Obviously this is a WP:BIASED source, but there's no real indication that this gives them chronic reliability problems. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Lots of helpful comments above; I support the new language proposed by Guy. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree it is generally reliable. Would it be better to instead of singling out specific examples (sexuality and homophobia), to be more general with something like "Care should be taken when using it for BLPs"? Or perhaps to add that to the specific cases? CMD (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: In addition to Armadillopteryx leaving this alert at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and alerting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, I alerted Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I concur with Chipmunkdavis‘ wording. LGBTQ media are usually experts in reporting on sexuality and gender matters, in practice I see them correctly attributing to the original source. And rarely are they alone in reporting this type of information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose; generally reliable but use caution; see my comment earlier. Sceptre (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly agreed but opinions in the source may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles. Unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality other than direct quotes. Particularly useful for interviews, or basic facts that are not covered by other sources, but not for establishing significance, or for speculation of any kind. Use prose attribution where contentious. — Bilorv (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  (Comment duplicated below in RfC.) — Bilorv (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. works for me, and would also agree with "may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, per Guy Macon. That said, to some extent, "is this persoon homophobic/transphobic" is always going to be subjective (with the obvious caveat that in spectrums, there's going to be cases 99% of reasonable people will agree are examples). Generally speaking, "Pink News stated that X's statement on transgender people was transphobic" is always going to be more encyclopedic than "X is transphobic." We can state things in Wikipeda's voice sometimes - Anita Bryant was very openly an anti-gay rights activist. But we have levels we can go through, and one single, newspaper source saying it is NOT going to reach "in Wikipedia's voice" level, whether it's Pink News or The Times; newspapers aren't scholarly works. it'd be a WP:RSOPINION situation. While it might be worth reminding people of that, it's not really any different than not quoting The Telegraph's opinion of Labour in Wikipedia's voice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a news site, it's an extremely partisan and often hysterical and inflammatory commentary site with a lengthy track record of being forced to apologise for defamatory falsehoods eg https://www.thegayuk.com/pink-news-apologies-to-mp-and-makes-a-donation-to-charity-as-compensation/
  • That demonstrates they do correct mistakes. Any evidence of this lengthy record though? Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC?

Given the range of views and points raised so far, would this discussion be better framed as an RfC from here on out? It appears there have been no previous RfCs on this source. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, do you want me to format one? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If you do, please insure that "Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes" is an option. It seems to have at least some support. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

These can be expressed in the responses section Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PinkNews

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PinkNews? pinknews.co.uk   has been cited around 1,500 times on Wikipedia.

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

Further questions:

• 1. Is Pink News reliable for statements about a persons sexuality or attitudes toward LGBT issues?
• 2. Should citations to Pink News be attributed and/or have an inline citation?

The current text at the perennial sources list, which has been contested, is:

There is consensus that PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation. If PinkNews republishes claims from a reliable source, cite the original source instead of PinkNews.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (PinkNews)

• 3 or 4 - according to previous RFCs, PinkNews has been caught publishing fraudulent stories. This is why it is on our “not reliable” list in the first place. This needs to be addressed before we can change it to generally reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, PinkNews has never published any "fraudulent" stories, and has retracted any stories it published that happened to be in error. That is more than we can say about many sources that we accept as reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 I have to agree with the notion of depreciation. This publication has already been caught out on here allegedly "outing" people who aren't actually homosexual and publishing other fake news. We cannot take that chance here and should follow the precidence that was set with the Daily Mail ruling (I don't agree with it personally but it has consensus so we should follow it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  The C of E, any examples you would like to share? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

After looking through all the evidence presented at each of the RSN discussions, I don't see any cases when PinkNews published "fake news" (knowing falsehoods), and it has retracted any inaccurate stories it published AFAICT. That puts it ahead of many sources we do accept as reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: You mention speculation. Is ANY newspaper reliable for speculation? I'd be inclined to say that's a common flaw of all newspapers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Most newspapers are not in the habit of speculating about someone's sexual orientation without evidence. (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: Is there any real evidence of a pattern of them doing that? I'm pretty sure that you can find some horrible examples for any long-running newspaper. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
        • One example is enough. PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual. [32] There is zero evidence to support that claim. Her Diary is similar to that of many other teenage girls in the area of sexuality. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
          • The article you linked doesn't even contain the word "bisexual" in its prose, let alone say that Anne was bisexual. What it does do is quote passages of Anne's diary where she describes her attraction to female bodies, and it says that she displayed same-sex attraction. It also says, Anne never defined her sexuality, and it may not have been the most important fact about her. She was a teenage refugee, after all. In fact, it's plenty of other sources that actually describe her as bisexual. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Please don't hide behind "in its prose". The author chose to show a twitter message saying "Fun fact: She's also bisexual. She outlined her attraction to another girl in the diary but NO ONE TEACHES THAT" and then -- in the prose -- spoke approvingly of the person who created the twitter message. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You have yet to address all the other pushback against your use of this one example countered in the discussion section. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hiding behind "in its prose"? The article does not say she is bisexual. We don't use screenshots as RS, just like we don't use headlines; we use article text (which, again, does not contain a single instance of "bisexual"). And in fact, being an LGBT publication, PinkNews takes more care than most to give precedence to self-designation—as I noted above, it points out that Anne did not, in fact, state her own sexuality explicitly. And as Gleeanon pointed out below, PinkNews is nowhere near the only source that discusses this subject, and plenty of other sources do explicitly call her bisexual. Care to address that? You claimed that "only PinkNews" has ever raised the subject. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That's because Guy Macon misread the article, and can't think of a way of responding to that situation besides doubling down. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I understand what @The C of E God Save the Queen! and @Blueboar are saying, but I tend to fall in line with the viewpoint of @buidhe, meaning that I'll have to side with Option 2. I've used PinkNews before when it comes to sexual orientation and gender of characters in animated shows, and I trust it on that, so perhaps it should be used only a case-by-case basis? That's my thought at least. Historyday01 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on statements of fact, Option 2/use caution when talking about actual people. Sceptre (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, and in context will dictate if qualifiers are needed in the articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't think there's many newspapers who haven't gotten a few things wrong. It sees to be generally reliable and respected. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 This source clearly has fact-checking problems. For example, they published a source where the Israeli Health Minister said that the Coronavirus outbreak was a punishment for homosexuality. A user in a previous RFC brought up other issues of untrustworthiness related to PinkNews. I've done further research, and have concluded that PinkNews is significantly less reliable than the more reputable sources, because they continue to publish untrustworthy information. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, PinkNews fact-checked itself on that article mentioning the Israeli health minister, updated the article with corrected information, and appended a correction notice. This is a common practice by reputable news organizations. Sometimes the earliest info reported is wrong or incomplete, but the publication takes responsibility for making corrections as new information becomes available. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You do have a point there. I was unaware of the correction for the story involving the Israeli Health Minister. For that reason, I have ruled out deprecation. The other examples in the previous RFC seem pretty convincing to me though. Obviously, these aren't the only examples. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. It made me think to go back and read through the other examples as well. I wrote my thoughts about them below. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence they are untrustworthy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[33] Every scholar who has addressed the issue has concluded that what Anne Frank wrote was typical of a teenage girl with little or no real-world experience. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked does not even contain the word "bisexual", but lots of other non-PinkNews sources do use that word to describe her. I replied in more detail to your similar comment above. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The article I linked to most certainly does contain the word bisexual. The author chose to show a twitter message saying "Fun fact: She's also bisexual. She outlined her attraction to another girl in the diary but NO ONE TEACHES THAT" and then the author spoke approvingly of the person who created the twitter message. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I replied in more detail to your near-identical comment above. The article text does not contain the word bisexual, it only discusses the same-sex attraction that it quotes directly from her diary. Since this issue appears important to you, why not address the multitude of other sources that explicitly say, "Anne Frank was bisexual"? Armadillopteryx^talk 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on statements of fact, Option 2/use caution when talking about actual people. There isn't a publication in the world that gets everything right 100% of the time. Well - outside North Korea, anyway... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on statements of fact; Option 2 use caution or attribute when talking about sensitive matters (such as BLP). daveout 👾 ^(talk) 23:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1, generally reliable, (exercises editorial oversight, issues corrections, etc), as Aquillion says in the subsection above; the previous discussion indeed seems to have been improperly closed or decided. (I would agree with Adam Cuerden, in the same subsection above, that statements that a person is transphobic/ racist/ etc are often more encyclopedically phrased as "Source says Person is transphobic" rather than "Person is transphobic.^[Source]", but this is true regardless of what the source is and is not any more salient with regard to this source than others AFAICT.) -sche (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• My comment from above: [reliable for quotations and uncontroversial statements of fact and] opinions in the source may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles. Unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality other than direct quotes. Particularly useful for interviews, or basic facts that are not covered by other sources, but not for establishing significance, or for speculation of any kind. Use prose attribution where contentious. I believe this is best covered by option 2. I echo comments above that no source is reliable for speculation on sensitive issues involving living people, or for saying in Wikipedia's own words that a person is bigoted, and evidence hasn't been presented that PinkNews publishes more falsehoods than any green RSP source. Its issue with claims about sexuality is one of a particular kind of speculation. — Bilorv (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the 7 examples of unreliability, some of which involve accusations of homophobia or describing the sexual orientation of fictional or real persons, that are given in the April 2020 discussion. Per WP:APPNOTE (Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic) I am pinging all the participants of that discussion, excepting Buidhe and The C of E, who have already voted in the RfC: Guy Macon, David Gerard, JzG, Eostrix, MarioGom, Genericusername57, EvergreenFir, and Only in death. Regarding the "further questions": (1) it is not reliable for statements about a persons sexuality or their attitudes toward LGBT issues, unless it is a direct quote from the subject, and (2) citations to it should be attributed and have an inline citation. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Bad set of options: close RfC and restart. We were in the middle of a discussion, and Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. was gaining support, when suddenly an RfC was posted that doesn't have that as an option. --Guy Macon (talk)

The source has to be put into one of the four standard categories for color-coding and categorizing at RSP, right? I support your proposal to be the description that goes there. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Aquillon and sche, and because we don't need a note saying to use caution about using this particular source for information about actual people because that's redundant with the general Wikipedia policy of always using caution about any source when talking about actual people. Loki (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or option 2. My feelings are described well by Guy Macon's summary above. That is the language I think should appear at RSP. My reasons:

• Of the three previous discussions on PinkNews, the first and third focused narrowly on whether the publication's assertions about individuals' sexuality or homophobia are reliable; they did not discuss reliability in general. Guy's proposal that sexuality/homophobia claims can come only from direct quotes handles that.
• The second PinkNews discussion contained 3 comments calling the source generally reliable and only 2 calling it unreliable.
• Of the six pieces of evidence that gnu57 presented in the most recent discussion:

1. Only two of the PinkNews pieces mentioned actually contained concrete errors. The one discussed by these two outside articles [34][35] and the one discussed here noted that PinkNews retracted the two problem stories; issued public apologies in both cases; and, in the first case, also made a charitable donation as further compensation. This, to me, indicates that PinkNews is like any reliable news source that values fact-checking, owns up to its mistakes, and corrects them on record.
2. I think the analysis in this one is itself dodgy at best, and I'm happy to go into why if anyone wants to discuss it. I also read the PinkNews article it was referring to and found only the headline to be misleading—but headlines in any publication are generally not written by journalists and are not held to the same standard as the article text anyway.
3. This link is dead and apparently not archived, but the URL appears to reference the Israeli health minister claim, which I addressed above in my reply to Scorpions13256. It was another case of PinkNews catching itself, correcting itself, and appending a corrective comment to the article in keeping with the practices of a reliable news source.
4. The only issue here was, again, a clickbait headline, but headlines are useless for encyclopedic content anyway (more at WP:HEADLINE).

TL; DR: Half the "problem" articles linked in the last discussion weren't actually problems, and the ones that were saw PinkNews showing accountability and proving it takes fact-checking seriously. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ruled out option 2 per Adam Cuerden's comment below. The level of caution required here doesn't exceed the treatment that encyclopedic tone requires of any other source. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, I would think reliable sources would be accurate before they get a letter from a lawyer or attacked by a celebrity on Twitter. Also, nobody's addressed the fact they make stuff up when it comes to the identity of fictional characters, which is concerning when people are specifically saying they want to use this source for identifying characters as LGBT. Are we going to become SlashficPedia? This is addressed in the "17:13, 26 April 2020" comment in the previous discussion by Guy Macon. Not sure how he feels about that now. It's also noted there that the outlet itself repeats stuff from bad sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my previous evaluation: "Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on statements of fact. Attribute. Looking at the discussions of its supposed bad journalism, they all seem to be cases where it turns out it corrected itself in the manner expected of a WP:NEWSORG - this discussion has improved my opinion of PinkNews - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (almost 1), generally reliable on LGB (sexual orientation) topics PinkNews it acts like a reliable WP:NEWSORG it exercises editorial oversight and owns up to its mistakes, and corrects them on record. As per Guy Macon....use inline citations for controversial statements and any claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia should be supported by direct quotes. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, with the normal restrictions on newpapers as a whole. I don't see how Guy Macon's restrictions (or anyone else's suggestions) wouldn't be true of any other news organization. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You already voted. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • • @Crossroads: I commented up above, but I certainly didn't vote here, or choose an option. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Hm, I imagine some of the confusion is because there was already one !vote going on and then this RfC was started, but Ctrl+F "22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)" for where you did comment in support of option 1 in this RfC section (and not just the earlier "Proposal" section) yesterday. -sche (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. A news organisation actively and openly posting corrections is preferable to one that doesn't. No news organisation, including sources almost universally viewed as reliable (such as the BBC, Reuters and the FT) often issue corrections – the fact that they need to do so does not make them any less reliable. I strongly support adding Guy Macon's qualifier ("requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes") to the text box. Domeditrix (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree about adding Guy Macon's qualifier. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. As has been demonstrated above: the publication has shown editorial discretion when it has made errors. They publish their editorial policy, including a commitment to correcting errors and offering subjects "an unreserved right of reply". I think usual caution about using news sources and sourcing material about living people suffice rather than restricting use of Pink News as a source outright. Ralbegen (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The people disagreeing with the previous consensus have certainly changed my mind on the issue. It's clear that their fact-checking is about as good as sources like The New York Times, or The Wall Street Journal. All sources make mistakes at some point. PinkNews is different from the British tabloids in that they actually issue corrections. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - they have published some bad stories in the past, but have issued corrections, and they provide valuable, accurate coverage in the space where they operate. It isn't difficult to identify and ignore the more sensationalist stories or headlines, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Options 3 or 4. I've actually used them as a source before multiple times, but it's unfortunately hard to deny that they are not real media these days, having descended into clickbaity, obviously biased, opinion pieces more than "news". Heck, they don't even pretend to be legitimate media anymore. The last article i saw from them they actually accused someone of being a racist, with no context, merely to sway the readership opinion. It's garbage these days, only marginally more reliable than the Daily Mail. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds interesting. Can you provide a link to the article in question? I ask because we found above that previous claims of journalistic malfeasance on their part didn't check out at all when we looked into them and discovered they'd actually handled them in an exemplary fashion. So if you're going to claim this, it would be useful to see precisely what you mean and verify your claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd hate to promise something and not deliver. We're talking about a specific example someone pointed out to me last year, on a website i no longer read or visit. I contributed to their article a bit in the early days, but this was when i was a regular reader and found their journalism to be worth defending, probably 5+ years ago. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. I think this is a legitimate media outlet, or at least I'm not seeing any substantiated sources to prove otherwise. In general, no I wouldn't personally require attribution in cases of statements of fact. IvoryTower123 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per examples cited in the previous RfCs (last in April). It seems clear to me that they are a quite recent online newspaper with lower standards than established newspapers. I went to their webpage and read this article: UK’s biggest cervical cancer charity shuts down disgustingly transphobic lie that ‘only females get cervical cancer’ which has a quite inflammatory title. It details a controversial issue in an opiniated manner, and the story mostly consists of tweets by random non-notable people. And importantly, when they are the only publication digging stuff like this from Twitter, WP:DUE should be considered. At best, this is clickbaity soft pop news. --Pudeo (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Google[36], pinknews.co.uk has called someone a "homophobe" 2,940 times. For comparison, nytimes.com yields only 468 results (an considering this includes their archives from the 90s). I do think some of these articles are WP:BLP nightmares because the stories are built on tweets but detail such controversial issues. --Pudeo (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Our article on PinkNews says it was launched in 2005. Given that it is an LGBT-focused publication, I think it is to be expected that words like "queer", "homophobe", "non-binary", etc. will occur more frequently there than in the average source, so I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. FWIW, PinkNews' editorial policy states their political stance and acknowledges how it influences their tone when they report on politicians and other entities they find homophobic. To me, that's actually preferable to a source like Fox or Daily Kos that portrays itself as neutral although far from it. And remember that WP:HEADLINEs in all publications are generally not written by journalists and fall short of the reliability standards of their article text. All sources have WP:BIAS; PinkNews is not alone in that (but unlike many, they acknowledge it openly). Armadillopteryx^talk 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 o4 4 Pink News has low standards and is not neutral.Fred (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting, can you support those points with any evidence? Everything so far seems to have been refuted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is evidence for the "low standards" claim. They are openly non-neutral when covering LGBT issues, but we use many non-neutral sources. On the other hand PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[37] and they have a habit of labeling historic figures as LGBT based on tiny shred of evidence. I stand by my previous evaluation: Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC
      • You've posted this claim three times in the past day, and not answered any of the replies noting that your linked source doesn't say such a thing. It quotes a tweet, and then it cites literally the diaries backing up the claim in the headline. Your example doesn't check out at all as bad journalism on their part, it checks out as good journalism - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The author of the article chose what tweets to feature, and the publisher approved their inclusion. The author knew exactly what message was being and I reject your claim that "it doesn't count if it's an image of a tweet". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
          • I have a similar impression as Jenova20. Much of its content is little more than buzzfeed clickbait articles with compilations of Tweets. Articles which amount to a list with photos of celebrities, such as "Celebs you didn't know.."[38] Articles that are 60-70% tweets about a charity clarifying their transgender policy, like "Jo's Cervical Cancer Charity..."[39] Again, another tweet-based story about a celeb getting married, the headline claims "a million"[40] people are upset she's chosen an opposite sex partner, yet never substantiates it -- not even citing one tweet disappointed.Fred (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
            • None of those examples demonstrate they are unreliable as much as they carry stories similar to other tabloids, and screenshots of tweets is somewhat common nowadays. Also WP:Headlines are often not written by the author. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You are absolutely outraged that a tweet quoted in the article uses the word "bisexual" to describe Anne Frank - you consider this sufficient to consign Pink News to the outer darkness. I look at the article text, and I see it discuss her attraction to a girl, and her attraction to a boy. Tell me, Guy: what's a common, reasonably used word to describe someone being attracted to both girls and boys? - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile your claim "consign Pink News to the outer darkness" with my actual position:

Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes.

The common, reasonably used word to describe someone who is going through puberty being attracted to both girls and boys is "normal". It is perfectly normal for teenage girls to have sexual feelings towards other girls. If that makes you bisexual, then well over 90% of the female population is bisexual.

There are a few people who claim that any sexual feelings toward the same sex -- no matter how young you are, no matter whether the feelings are lasting, and no matter whether you ever act on those feelings -- makes you gay or bisexual. Those people are mostly homophobes and religious wackjobs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

But Guy, this is supposed to be a discussion of the reliability of PinkNews, and PinkNews didn't publish anything in its editorial voice that disagrees with anything you just said. The article in question ran under the heading Anne Frank was attracted to girls and concludes, "Anne never defined her sexuality, and it may not have been the most important fact about her." Your statement that On the other hand PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual is a simple misreading of the article in question, perhaps due to a lack of familiarity with which contemporary journalists (including the most reliable of reliable sources) use tweets in counterpoint to their stories without any presumption that the tweets represent "established facts". That simply isn't the way good contemporary journalists use Twitter. Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumping in here to say I agree with the growing consensus that Guy Macon is not representing this article fairly: it aligns with several other articles published by other sources we consider reliable, it's sufficiently nuanced, and it reaches a conclusion that is reasonable given the evidence provided. Loki (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4 -- per the very good arguments made above. Cassianto^Talk 15:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those very good arguments all have been debunked. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I explained under my post and gave three examples why Pink News is clickbait material. No one has responded yet. In terms of it being improperly sourced, check out this article on removing slurs from the NASPA Scrabble dictionary[41] The source they give [42] has a list, but doesn't contain any of those words or any words I recognize. It looks like placeholder text to me for a website under construction.Fred (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve now replied, and must point out that none of these examples demonstrate they are unreliable as a rule. Do you have examples that do demonstrate that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Fred, the source list you linked contains all of those words; it seems you didn't understand how the list is printed. The words are written as anagrams so that the actual slur text doesn't appear on the page. The words in the PinkNews article, which I will partially redact with asterisks, are "b*mboy", "sh*male", "d*ke" and "f*ggot". They appear in the scrabbleplayers.org source as "bbmouy", "aeehlms", "deky" and "afggorty"/"afggoty" ("f*ggotry"/"f*ggoty"—obviously they can't remove the basic form of that word, since it also has a non-slur meaning). In other words, the article is sourced correctly. You didn't understand what you were looking at, which is fine, but that's not a shortcoming of PinkNews. Armadillopteryx^talk 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 As per the general unreliability demonstrated above. I oppose option 4 not just because of my general opposition against deprecation, but because even if this is generally unreliable it is not on the same level as the normally deprecated sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

But Emir, no such "unreliability" has been demonstrated. Guy Macon's initial objection, for example, is based on a complete mischaracterization of the PinkNews article on Anne Frank. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 PinkNews is at this point far less reliable than sources such as the Daily Mail, which have been deprecated. They veer between obvious clickbait like posting a picture of 3-year-old Prince George and declaring that the photo had turned him into a "gay icon" [43] and rushing into print blatant hatchet jobs on public figures who dare to support anyone they're already bashing, such as this one on Jonathan Ross for saying that JK Rowling was not transphobic - they declare in the opening sentence that "Jonathan Ross announced Sunday evening (June 7) that he has become a representative of the entire LGBT+ community" (he said nothing of the kind, nor do they then quote anywhere he did) [44]. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Re:Prince George, you’re either purposefully misrepresenting what was written or simply failing to comprehend nuance.
  • Re:Jonathan Ross, WP:Headlines are not content, and usually not controlled by the author. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Re: Prince George, the first line of the article is "Prince George has become a gay icon overnight - at least that's what some people - sorry, his subjects - are saying." underneath a photo of the three-year-old prince. So neither misrepresentation nor "nuance".
    • Re: Jonathan Ross, that headlines are not controlled by the article's author would be irrelevant here even if I had mentioned the headline, but I did not - I quoted the first line of the article, which was written by the author. But as I said, even if it had been a headline, those are indeed controlled by the publication, and this RFC isn't about the article's author, it's about the publication, Pink News. So I'm afraid your point is moot on two counts. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, I think you are indeed mishandling the nuance of the Prince George article—either that, or I don't know how familiar you are with pop culture journalism. It's normal for a publication with interest in celebrities/fashion/etc. to write pieces about things they see that they like and to use the vocabulary of their target demographic in the piece. Calling someone an "icon" or a "gay icon" is a common compliment used by (especially the male segment of) the LGBT community—especially in conjunction with an obviously tongue-in-cheek expression like "his subjects". It doesn't literally mean the person in question is an icon, and I assume that's clear to most of the readership, who are familiar with the lexicon.
      • The same issue of misunderstood or misrepresented nuance is applicable to the Jonathan Ross piece. The text you quote is the author's so-called clapback to the Ross Tweet that appears immediately below. The article goes on to focus exactly on the response the Tweet got, plus it provides background information in the form of direct quotes about who said what previously. Not seeing anything problematic here; it's standard (reliable) pop culture fare. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. He was a three-year-old toddler and they published an article based on the tweets of random nobodies saying that a photo of the way he was standing meant he is gay, with an obvious clickbait headline.
        • If a publication is publishing "clapbacks" to those who disagree with its ideology in the form of attributing something they never said at all to them, it seems clear that this is not a case of "nuance" but a case of the publication being unreliable as a source. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Not exactly a paper of record, but their reliability seems pretty solid, they correct errors, and I don't find any of the supposed evidence to the contrary convincing at all. Parabolist (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PinkNews)

Should the comments from the proposal discussion be moved into the responses section of the RfC to avoid redundancy? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this would make sense, since virtually everyone used the language of the four options above in their rationales (though a couple didn't). How would it work procedurally, though? Many of the comments state their official position as "oppose", since they were replies to a different question. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the "Oppose" can simply be removed, I won't move peoples comments without their consent, though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just ping them, and suggest they move their own comments? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

D'oh—yes, I think that's the best idea.

Guy Macon, Buidhe, Sceptre, Spy-cicle, Gleeanon409, Historyday01, Aquillion, Chipmunkdavis, Bilorv, Bastun, Adam Cuerden: would you like to move your comment from the above discussion into this RfC? Armadillopteryx^talk 21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Historyday01 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The conversation has changed enough that new comments should be made.

@Hemiauchenia:, the current text should be removed from this as it unfairly and negatively taints the source. Especially as others have already noted those discussions were not complete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a note about the wording being contested, hope this is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry I will make new comment under the RfC, though it seems unnecessary launch one considering there is has no or little evidence to show there has been a shift in their reporting (last disscussion was in April). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can move my comments around as they see fit. We aren't newbies here, and everyone will understand my position no matter where it is placed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sticking a WP:DNAU here (tentatively for 3 weeks) since this should be 'closed'—whether by formal closure or simply by updating WP:RSP, which currently says "this disputed entry is currently under discussion", to reflect the consensus here—before it disappears into the archives. -sche (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

More attempts to promote the fringe theory that Anne Frank was LGBT
See Talk:Anne Frank#Yet another attempt to classify Anne Frank as LGBT.
This particular fringe theory is pretty much only found in PinkNews. Alas, I cannot point to the list of perennial sources until this RfC is closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

On a basic google search I got: As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer (Haaretz), Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero (Arre), Newly discovered pages of Anne Frank’s diary reveal her uncle was gay (Gay Star News), Here’s something you never knew about Anne Frank that will blow your mind (Gay Star News), Omitted: Anne Frank Would “Go into Ecstasy” at the Sight of Female Nudes (AfterEllen), Re-reading Anne Frank’s diary as a queer Jewish person (Special Broadcasting Services), Imagine Anne Frank at 90 (Religion News Service). Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait, what? Fringe theory? Seriously? Can't remember when or where I first heard or read about this, but yeah, hardly "fringe". It was briefly discussed on the article talk page in 2014. Surprising, actually, that it hasn't been included on the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I second this. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it definitely wasn't from PinkNews. There's a lot of secondary coverage from other sources that say the same thing. Some of Gleeanon's links quote relevant sections of her diary, which, well, speak for themselves. Not sure where this idea came from that it's PinkNews' invention. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I get that those who apply strict "self-declaration of sexual identity" to historical figures don't agree, but the view that Anne Frank expressed feelings that would in 2010 he called "bisexual" (or "queer") is by no means FRINGE. Stories in Haaretz, the Times of Israel, and Religion News Service (!?) show that this is not a particularly unique insight, much less a reason to discredit PinkNews. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Baidu Baike

Should Baidu Baike be deprecated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Baidu Baike)

• Support Baidu Baike is a chinese language user-created encyclopaedia, like Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, and holds a essentially analogous position to Wikipedia in mainland China alongside Baike.com, being ranked (as part of Baidu) #4 on the most visited internet websites by Alexa, with over 16 million articles as of 2018. This inherently makes Baidu Baike an unreliable source, as like Wikipedia it has no fact checking or any other indication of a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED. Baidu Baike has been noted for its hoaxes, like Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, as well as wholesale unattributed copying of Chinese language Wikipedia articles.[45] Its usage on Wikipedia is an issue, as it has been cited nearly 2,000 times per baike.baidu.com  . There was unanimous concensus (of 5 people) in a discussion in 2018 on this noticeboard to blacklist and have bot removal of this source, but this seems to have not been carried out due to it not being a formal RfC. Other discussions of the source on this noticeboard 1 2 3 As well as at the Village Pump A B have noted the same issues with reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Baidu Baike essentially represents what would have happened to Wikipedia if it had become a commercial entity, with all the issues that entails. As a response to the point that the text recives moderation before addition, this is true, but while this is likely to remove outright vandalism, it is unlikely to remove non-obvious factual errors that would require checking the sources. The copyright of the text volunteered by contributors is reserved by Baidu. This article in The Point Mag also goes over other issues, including support of commercial COI editing of articles as an inherent part of the operation of Baidu Baike:

Unlike Wikipedia, Baidu Baike unashamedly hawks opportunities for “content collaboration” to celebrities, companies and media outlets, emphasizing that Baidu Baike can incorporate a prominently placed external link or insert entire sections of content into an entry

(EDIT: Baidu Baike appears to have denied this). It also documents numerous factual errors, one of which involving statistics misattributed from one street to another simarly named one which were subsequently incorporated by other websites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Should be treated just like Wikipedia is treated as a source here. Should only be acceptable as an WP:ABOUTSELF, in very rare occasions, on our article about the website itself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike WP, the work is reviewed, first by their " expert team with over 2,500 members, including university professors" and second by the political censors. The censorship makes it of course of dubious value in some fiels, but not all, DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused by this argument that political censorship leads to reliability, can you elaborate? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Baidu Baike has over 16 million articles, far more than could ever be adequately reviewed by a team of experts (which is suggested to be around 2,500 people per the SCMP) The Perennial sources entry states:

Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation its a under-created encyclopedia, as any Wikipedia editor knows those are inherently unreliable sources. I would add that I feel the political censorship and messaging detracts from their reliability, not the other way around. The 2018 consensus also appears clear, RSN discussions which were archived but never closed having less weight or not being implemented seems to be a recurring problem. Perhaps there should be a discussion about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This should not even need to be discussed. A source edited by anyone and controlled by a company closely linked to China's government. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation: user-generated content, corporate links to government. -- The Anome (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above—absolutely no way we should use it as a source, ever (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation, certainly not a reliable source and there is already a consensus on it. I'd recommend a WP:SNOW close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support depreciation per WP:USERGENERATED. Baidu itself describes it as user-generated. The idea that the addition of political censors could exempt a source from that policy is certainly a... novel interpretation, but there's no evidence that whatever review does exist is sufficient to make a wiki of its size reliable, especially given the large-scale copying from zhwiki. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with limits. Pace DGG, who makes an excellent point, it looks to me as if this is not so much peer review as "appear reviewed". The obvious bias issue aside, this looks like one of the many projects set up to compete with Wikipedia because we reflect the world as it is, not as some interest group wishes it to be. With the risk of ideology-driven editing both by users and by the moderating editors, and the ever-present problem of control, I can't see this being usable generally because I don't trust that any random article will be factual rather than reflecting some ideological spin that I'm unaware of. However, I think that if an article is noted by others as being credible then we should not second-guess that. So if, say, the NYT praised an article as a good analysis of some facet of Chinese culture, there should be no bar to using it here. Guy (help!) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. I can imagine circumstances where review and oversight could help a source climb out of the WP:USERGENERATED hole. Political censorship is not the kind of review that could make that happen. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support since this is user generated like Wikipedia, with possible additional censorship.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support an edit filter, because I can't imagine any situation in which this would be useful. (pinged by Hemiauchenia) feminist (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not our decision Baidu Baike is not an asset of the Wikimedia Foundation; and we are not accountants; so we cannot depreciate it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Whoops, corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Based on description, this is not an RS about anything. It could be just left alone, but it was actually used for referencing on ~2,00 0 WP pages. So, yes, making an official depreciation (meaning there will be a warning message every time when someone is trying to include such source) would probably be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It's basically Baidu's Chinese Wikipedia. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: For the same reason we don't cite other Wikipedia articles here. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 23:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is basically the Chinese version of Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Baidu Baike is censored by the Chinese government. This might make it even less reliable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Baidu Baike)

Pinging currently and recently active members of the 2018 discussions @SchmuckyTheCat: @JzG: @Feminist:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging the proposer of the village pump discussion @GnolizX: Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: YouTube

Should YouTube be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (EDIT: Youtube is already subject to a XLinkBot filter) (Per the IMDb and Facebook discussions) to discourage misuse? YouTube is currently cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per YouTube.com  . YouTube is currently described at RS/P as:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (YouTube)

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

• Support edit filter These filters are intended to reduce misuse by inexperienced and new users, and are not a total blanket ban on YouTube use. Obviously per the RSP entry, videos by news organisations and similar are fine, but many other uses of YouTube are problematic, and are likely added by inexperienced users unfamilar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Adding these filters will discourage problematic additions of YouTube links to articles, while more experienced users can add YouTube links with discretion. EDIT: It's worth noting that any edit filter for YouTube would likely be a custom edit filter rather than the standard depreciated source filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 170,000 should have been the flag to stop this. Of course we're not going to have a warn filter for YouTube or deprecate it. We link it all the time. It's not a source, it's a platform, and it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources. See for example Killing of George Floyd which links to half a dozen videos or more. This deprecation thing at RSN is going too far. I find the growth of RSP in 2020 to be alarming. YouTube shouldn't even be listed at RSP. It's like listing "television" or "paper" at RSP. It's a medium not a publisher or author. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I explicitly did not mention the word "depreciation" because it was not meant as one. One could make the same argument for Facebook, which there was consensus to add a warn edit filter for. Obviously the citations to YouTube videos for George Floyd are acceptable, but they should be added with discretion, which presumably many of the over 170,000 added links were not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would make the same exact argument for Facebook and Twitter, neither of which should be listed at RSP because both are platforms. You might not have used the word "deprecation" but a warn filter is a very obvious step in that direction. These RSN evaluations of publishers outside of actual content disputes are inappropriate. It's just not right for a small group of self selected editors to assume the role of a publisher review committee. As an editor, I'm not going to start making time to vote on the general reliability of every source under the sun. Personally, I do not recognize any of these RSN "generally reliable"/"deprecate"/"filter" threads as representing anything other than local consensus (with the exception of those that were properly widely advertised, such as Fox News). This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not the Publisher Review Noticeboard. We should only be discussing specific sources--that means individual works used to cite a statement in an article--and only in the context of the specific instances in which they are used. RSP should only list true perennials--meaning publishers whose sources are often discussed at RSN. Platforms like YouTube and media like social media shouldn't be discussed here at all, and shouldn't be listed at RSP. Deprecation and edit filters should be extremely rare steps that only happen with policy-level consensus, eg Daily Mail. I just don't recognize the validity of a dozen editors saying "not reliable" and then it's red at RSP and suddenly a hundred thousand editors are barred from using it. Sorry, that's just not valid process, and I feel like it's getting out of control on this board this year. At a minimum, warn filter proposals should be advertised at CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I added this to CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot Those are completely reasonable measures, though I would have definitely opposed a blanket ban. --tronvillain (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Even WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Youtube is used by many expert sources and blanket measures such as filters and XLkinkBot are indiscriminate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: "YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? As I stated previously, experienced editors are not affected by XlinkBot, and the edit filter is likely to be a custom one not simply the same as the depreciated sources filter. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Lindsay Ellis, Nicholas Moran, PBS Spacetime, PBS Eons CGP Grey, Baumgartner Restoration, Caitlin Doughty, Alton Brown, etc., etc., etc., Need I continue? those are just from the first page of my recommendations. "not likely to be" is not reassuring and even IP editors are allowed to link to actual experts on YouTube by policy. This just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is CGP Grey an expert in? I think his videos are interesting, but his "Americapox" video has recieved criticism for paralleling Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel which has been heavily criticised by historians. I don't see how he can be classified as an "expert" as he has no credentials in any of the topics he makes videos on. I don't see why PBS videos should be cited for facts either, they're again interesting, but they are not subject matter experts themselves and Wikipedia should cite the underlying source material. Nicholas Moran has no actual credentials as a historian either per this Military Times article. Lindsay Ellis is a media critic with a film school degree and therefore the question of citation is one of WP:DUE rather than of reliability. As for Alton Brown and Ask a Mortician, I think there are likely to be better sources for the information in that these would be relevant to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. PBS Spacetime is hosted by an astrophysicist, PBS Eons by the Curator of Collections for the Museum of the Rockies. Moran is a Lt. Col in the US Army and paid for his historical research which makes him a working historian despite whatever Military Times wants to say, and you implicitly recognize the credentials of Ellis, Doughty, Brown. Don't like those? How about an Oxford PhD in astrophysics or Baylor College of Medicine or the Harvard School of Public Health or a professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh or Freakin' NASA, for pete's sake. "I think there are likely better sources" is pure speculation and this speculation and over-generalizing applies to the entire RfC; rather than actually examining the sources, like we're supposed to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot. CGP Grey is an educator, "What exactly" he is an expert in is...education. What are his videos? As it so happens, education. I find it richly ironic that a Reddit thread was cited for source criticism on RSN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think CGP Grey videos are unusable as sources. YouTube is WP:SELFPUBLISHed; being considered an expert sufficient to pass that policy requires more than just a breezy "oh he's a professional X." The requirement is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does he meet that standard? Beyond that, his videos generally summarize part of a particular published work (which he cites at the end), so you could just cite that work directly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently CGPGrey being an "educator" makes him a subject matter expert on everything? WP:SPS states:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

(emphasis not mine). CGP has no relevant expertise on the vast majority of topics he covers, and therefore isn't a subject matter expert. The specific reddit thread I brought up was from r/AskHistorians, which is notable enought to have its own wikipedia article and largely staffed by subject matter experts. As for the PBS stuff, it consists of simplified explanations for laymen and the production of web television like the PBS Digital Studios involves staff who are not subject matter experts, like researchers and script writers, who may introduce errors. Per WP:SPS again:

Exercise caution when using [self published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources

For what it covers we should be citing higher quality sources like review papers or high quality secondary sources like Quanta Magazine, the same principle applies to other creators you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I've stricken Grey because it's clear that channel is becoming a distraction. (Although I think from context you meant "...are usable as sources.") That doesn't refute any of the other 12 creators I linked and if I were so inclined I could find hundreds or thousands of Youtube creators that incontestably comply with the SPS requirements and clearly support the claim I made earlier about "many experts". The point is that blanket lumping these in with bad sources just because they exist on the same platform as BTS fanvids and 9/11 conspiracy nonsense (or whatever) doesn't actually comply with the RS policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) EC This is nit-picking at its nittiest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? WHO NIH NASA Nature BBC Smithsonian Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, respectively 1525, 639, 4932, 72, 11944 and 2890 videos. That is a exceedingly minor fraction of the material on YouTube (I thought I saw 1.3 billion video's on YouTube, but that was a wrong number, I now found 7 billion in 2017, of which these 6 channels would only make 0.0003% of the material, but now it is 2020). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we have to analyse on a case-by-case basis, but I dare to say that 99.9% of the material on YouTube will not be suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dirk Beetstra, except that he doesn't go far enough. 99.9% of the material on the Internet is not suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. I'm sure you all agree? So we should put in an edit filter for anyone adding any Internet reference whatsoever. Not ban use of the Internet, mind, just, you know, a warning. For experts only. Keep the others on their toes. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, :-) a nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but totally missing the point. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot A good way to caution editors without banning or "deprecating" YouTube. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with everything Levivich wrote. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as overreach, there are many good sources in the official channels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. YouTube is a self-published source in almost every case, and the majority of citations are of the form "X said Y on YouTube, source, X saying Y on YouTube". This is always a terrible idea and a warn filter is entirely appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is, hopefully, a well-meaning solution in search of a problem. Over time YouTube has increasingly worked to reduce all manner of fraud and corruption it faces worldwide. Meanwhile it’s used by more and more entities as an official news outlet for their views. Let’s find actual problems first then get creative in addressing those. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because, as Levivich noted, YouTube is a platform not a source. ¶ Of course, if we required editors to create an account ....  Self-trout   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, my concerns are echoed by many editors above, YouTube is a platform, not a source, it is home to many official news stations and professionals whose channels are perfectly good sources and who use it to widen their appeal. Also, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist, in my experience when YouTube is sourced it is either to a reliable source which just so happens to be on the platform, as a WP:PRIMARY source, or as blatant self-promotion. The last instance is the only problematic one, and putting an edit filter on YouTube will not stop them in the slightest. Even if these problems do occasionally pop up, this is a massive overreaction to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as stated by many editors above Youtube is a publishing platform like a book, radio, television, etc. Editors should not be seeing warnings if they should be allowed to use Voice of America, France 24, or the BBC. As Levivich has stated above, this board and its perennial sources list has begun to overstep its purpose in the wikipedia community. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. YouTube is a platform. It's not a source, and YouTube videos are not intrinsically unreliable as sources. Increasingly, good reliable-source information is from video (e.g., news or newscast video) rather than print these days, so an edit warning is overkill in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a slightly parallel discussion on WT:V about what actually is a "self-published source" and in alignment with "opposes" here and discussion there, YouTube is not the publisher in these videos - it is the person that prepares and uploads the video that is "publishing" it and that's where the self-publishing needs to be addressed. For example CNN and other media sources have videos uploaded, which clearly have been through news desk editors, so these are published, but not self-published, and thus 100% fair game as a reliable source. On the other hand, CoolGuy99 talking about his favorite Pokemon would be a self-made video and self-published. While the majority of videos on YouTube are probably in this latter category, a good chuck are competely valid sources and thus using an edit filter is a bad idea. --Masem (t) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot. I don't think Youtube can be RS, yes we can watch and listen to a historian's lecture there, but it's not paper. Where are reviews here? Some editorial hierarchy and control exist in the newspapers, while on YouTube it is mostly non-existent. If we consider a local TV news or CNN presented on Youtube as information source it is OR. Article, comment, interview etc, we can read and on these portals(CNN etc..) and use as a source. The whole world publishes some of its truth through Youtube and for controlling these informations we need an army of people. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How can it be that this NYTimes video at YouTube, this WaPo video at YouTube, or this NBC video at YouTube are not RSes, or are OR when we cite them (as we currently do in several articles including Killing of George Floyd)? They have been subject to editorial review and have been published by a reputable publisher (NYT, WaPo, and NBC, respectively). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • His last recorded(TV, etc) moments and spoken words are OR, and his last moments and spoken words in some comment from a journalist published in newspapers are RS, but even this RS can be challenged by someone on Wikipedia. Ultimately only after end of trial we will know the specific facts. After these facts are published in some newspaper or some book then it is a quality RS for Wikipedia. I see it that way. Mikola22 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Each video is narrated by a journalist and was published by "some newspaper", e.g. NYT, WaPo, and NBC. So this meets the criteria you are describing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • You see that journalist throughout video telling dozens of details and facts, but we don’t know if this details and facts are true. We'll know that in a couple of years when the trial is over. I'm talking about that. If the same is said in the article of that TV house (portal) it is RS although it is the same thing but in that case exist some visible editorial control, name of the journalist, responsible editor, date, additional confirming official sources in writing (police etc), etc. In the video reportage it may or may not be controlled, we do not know whether this information has passed editorial or the journalist has his personal conclusions. I look at the bigger picture(Youtube) and a million videos without any control, not only CNN and NBC. I'm from the Balkans, when we would start entering informations from YouTube there would be a mess on Wikipedia, and it is only for two or three countries. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 

• Oppose both - As people have said, YouTube is a hosting site, not a source in itself. The individual videos hosted on YouTube are the sources. Some are reliable, some are not. Think of it this way: with printed texts an author and publisher (which affect reliability), and we have a bookstore or library where the text can be located (which do not affect reliability). YouTube is equivalent to the bookstore or library. It is where the video can be located, but is not the author or publisher. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You raise a good point, @Blueboar:. Legally, Youtube only receives protection against civil and criminal actions specifically because it is not an author or publisher. If it is not an author or publisher, it is not a source as our policies define one, reliable or otherwise. Any discussion of Youtube as "a source" (singular) is predicated on a gross misunderstanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of the whole debate that kicked off why the US has Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because to distinguish between "distributor" like a bookstore that has no control on the content that is in the books it offers, and "publisher" which does. And I think our model that we're trying to get here is trying to get to that point as well. We want to tag things that are SPS where the person making the content is also the one that does the publishing (even if the "publisher" is a third party like Forbes.com or Amazon Book Printing services), and that we need to ignore the "distributor" like YouTube when it comes to that evaluation. (Again, tying to the ongoing WT:V discussion). There is a tiny tiny fraction of YouTube content that is made by YouTube employees (like YouTube Rewind) but that's less than 0.01% so not enough to call it an SPS. It is all on who is uploading and what relation they have to the act of publishing that content, if it has gone through what we'd usually consider appropriate for an RS w/ fact-checking. --Masem (t) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both (well, addition of the EF and retention of the XLinkBot rule). Reliable content hosted there is very much the exception rather than the rule, and other hosts should be preferred for the small portion of reliable content when available. Video citations should be avoided anyway, in my opinion, since they're hard to skim, not easily used without a fast network connection, and may not be available captioned. On the rare occasions that the only reliable source for something is only available through that Web site, and someone new needs to cite it, can make an edit request to get around the XLinkBot. (Although if something's not covered in any textual source, it probably is undue weight to be talking about it anyway.) Otherwise this should help cut down the amount of those references. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both for the same reasons as Goldenshimmer: 1) the vast majority of YouTube video are not reliable sources, and 2) even when a youtube video is published by a reputable entity, it's almost always preferable to use some other, written-down source as more verifiable and reliable. The current setup seems bitey because it reverts new users without giving them a reason. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Buidhe. I know it seems lazy to just quote the support directly above you, but it's exactly what I was going to say. I can't remember the last time I found a reference to a YouTube video that couldn't have been easily replaced with a more reliable source, a proper secondary source, or a more accessible print source. ----Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who has written a featured article with such instances, not every interview or primary source is necessarily going to have a viable substitute. And as others have mentioned, reliable sources like the New York Times and Variety Magazine are on YouTube as well. While there are usually replaceable sources outside of YouTube, this is not the case 100% of the time. Definitely not enough to go nuclear and instate an edit filter, which should only be used for sites that have no business being cited under any circumstance. Darkknight2149 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. WP:RSP is not a reliable source. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the edit filter. YouTube is sometimes usable for interviews and primary sources, so the idea of an edit filter is kind of dumb. Darkknight2149 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• A warning is fine for new editors using YouTube channels as a source. The majority of the warning's recipients will actually learn something new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Warn filter would serve as an education tool for new editors. For clarity, no appetite to depreciate as there are clear occasions when it is the correct source to use, but it clearly needs to be cited with care. Best, Darren-M talk 22:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose autoreverting (removing) youtube links: A bot cannot decide the context of a post. As an occasional editor, tried to post a youtube link to a TED talk on the Wikipedia page about the speaker. TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation, and its overall mission to research and discover “ideas worth spreading.” This youtube link was not like an official music video, for profit, or controversial hearsay, as the speaker was the subject of the Wikipedia page, the primary source. The XLinkBot reverted (removed) it. Then I posted the same content by a link containing ted.com, which was happily allowed to let stand. I posted another youtube link of a TED talk, because not all TED talks are on ted.com. This was also reverted (removed), even though I was logged into my user account, which is older than 7 days. The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot/RevertList says, "The bot does not revert when the account is older than 7 days (except when the rule is on override)". So I don't know why it was removed. This sort of discourages editing of Wikipedia pages. A more technical issue with the bot is that if you add a youtube link, and in the same edit make a minor change to another entry, say to remove some punctuation, the bot removes both entries, without showing this on the history page. Another thing is that even though ted.com is an alternative site for this content, it seemed to serve the content slower, so youtube would have been the preferred link. Lindamarcella (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • TED talks are not reliable sources in many cases. They're reliable sources for what the person says but may or may not be reliable for facts depending on the topic and whether the person is a subject matter expert. New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. What? Are you under the impression that new users don't understand the nuances of sourcing? You realize that new users aren't children or students? In many if not most cases they are scientists, researchers, professors or other professionals who already knew what a reliable source was and how to use and cite it long before they ever edited Wikipedia. Similarly, there are editors who've been here for 10 years and have less experience with sourcing than other people who aren't even editors at all. I doubt there is a connection between age of account and understanding the nuance of sourcing. Sourcing is a real world thing, not a Wikipedia only thing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have editors who determine the validity of sources and of videos. New users have to fumble around as it is, learning the acronyms, policies, guidelines, and then learning that WP:IAR is a policy. All of this is inadvertently difficult. There are many youtube videos - tours of lakes, tours of businesses, interviews...this is the 21st century and people are not going to the card catalogue and using the Dewey Decimal System to find a physical book. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Many individuals and companies have their own legit Youtube channels. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose edit filter, Support keeping it on XLinkBot (disclaimer, I am bot operator). Yes, there are MANY good sources on YouTube, many respectable publishers, news agents, libraries, repositories use this medium. Unfortunately, ALSO many people who upload material in violation of copyright do, and there are regularly copyvio links added. ALSO a lot of other people upload videos there (which is the far, far majority of the material): your personal movie of your dog is neither a source for wagging tails, nor a suitable external link on dog (I am sorry, the majority of material on youtube is not an RS for anything, and not suitable as external link). Then there is a lot of purely promotional material there (it is not so long ago that we had loads of spambots spamming links to youtube, up to a level that we had an adminbot block them). Then there are the regular cases of people who think that we are a repository of social media links. Links to youtube are needed, but should be used with care. It is good that we remind new users of those policies and guidelines. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, I totally agree with user:Levivich that youtube itself should not be on RSP. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • comment: I am just going to note here again: YouTube is not on the revertlist (neither the regular, neither the reference one) because of reasons of unreliability. It is on the revertlist because of it very often failing many other inclusion standards, including regular observations of spamming of YouTube, regular observations of linking to copyright violating material (including copyright violations of material which the original would be a reliable source) and material which is strongly discouraged in general. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We should not be going out of our way to discourage the use of videos as sources. There is nothing inherent in videos that makes them less reliable than print media. Like all potential sources, it depends on the originator of the source, not the type of source. Yes, much of the videos on YouTube are self published, but that doesn't matter. I acknowledge that inexperienced editors may use self published videos as a source, but if a user doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V, than they might use anything as a source. There's nothing about YouTube per say that warrants concern. Reliable sources can use it as a place to publish videos from their verified accounts, and non-reliable sources can use it as a place to self publish. That right there just about sums up the internet in general. Inexperienced editors are just as likely to accidentally include unreliable tabloids as a source. If anything, we should be more concerned with abuse of print sources, since in the mess of Google search results, it can be hard for an inexperienced editors to tell whether something is reliable or whether it's just a blog/tabloid. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE - There is another caution about using YouTube videos that may make a warning template appropriate... the issue of COPYRIGHT. If a specific COPY of a video is posted in violation of copyright laws, we can not link to that specific copy (although we might be able to link to a copy of that video on some OTHER YouTube channel.) This, however, has nothing to do with the reliability of the original. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Given the number of opposes for a warning, should there be a separate discussion about removing it from the Xlinkbot list? Without having given this too much thought, I think I'd oppose auto-reverting even while supporting a warning. Wouldn't many of the opposes also oppose auto-reverting? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Calliopejen1, you realize that the far majority of material on youtube is crap, spam, promotional etc. The reliable, useful material is a far minority of the material. Moreover, as I stated above, it is not too long ago that we had spambots spamming youtube (through the redirect service). People here are, imho unjustly, focussing on that little bit of good material, forgetting the spam, copyvio material and useless crap.

  I would like to see an analysis how often the bot reverts references which should not have been reverted (and how often the youtube references are actually copyvio), then I could be swayed to remove it from the revertreferences list. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that auto-reverting a new users comment is somewhat WP:BITEY as it is done with no warning, which is why I wanted to add the edit filter. However, if youtube links were enough of an issue in 2008 that they were added to the filter, they would likely be even more of an issue now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, the situation with YouTube has changed since then. E.g. most people nowadays have mobile phones with reasonably fast internet at reasonable prices so that they can stream video reasonable, in 2008 many people around the world were still using slow (expensive dial-in) internet where streaming video was not really a possibility (note, also the video size has increased since 2008, but they can be automatically downsampled). In 2008 the use of youtube by 'respectable media outlets' was minor, most was user uploads. Now it is extensively being used by BBC, NYT, etc. etc. Comparable, in 2008 advertising on YouTube was minor, now it is also extensively being used by advertising media, health fanatics, organisations with an agenda and similar. Yes, NYT and Washington Post use it, but they do not appear in List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos or List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels, nor are they even a reasonably representative number of the videos on YouTube. That will be worrisome if that is a reflection of the YouTube material that people will use as a reference on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. Pretty much all of the major news organizations that we list as reliable sources have official YouTube channels where they upload news reports to. Preventing any citing to these reliable sources' channels on Wikipedia would be absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Levivich. I'm struggling to even wrap my head around this. We could do the same thing for all videos I guess? Why just those on Youtube? Hobit (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose You can't really have a blanket ban on something like this. It needs to be delt with on a case by case basis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support While YouTube is a platform, we don't have a way to whitelist specific channels that might be reputable. Almost every use of YouTube as a citation that I've seen was in violation of WP:SPS, so I think the warn filter is not only appropriate but not enough to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. This is no different from using any other sources and links. Of course all participants must respect copyright, exercise good judgement if the link improves the page, etc. But yes, it should not be generally used as an RS to support any statements on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A blanket ban this wide, not accounting for factors as simple as news organizations not listed as "verified" on YouTube is unreasonable. 0qd (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Also, a link to a video on youtube can sometimes be the best primary source to verify something. -- œ^™ 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as there is thoughtful wording for the edit filter, noting that YouTube is platform that hosts diverse content, including unreliable non-expert self-published content (most hosted video on YouTube), reliable self-published material from expert sources, and content from traditional publishers, so the editor needs to assess whether the specific YouTube video that they're linking to is a RS for the specific WP claim that the video is being used to support: is it SPS? if so, does the creator have relevant expertise for the specific WP claim being made? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivitch and anyone else. Sturgeon's law applies to more than just YouTube, no reason to single out YouTube. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. I can't tell you how many time I've seen new users just use Youtube carelessly as a source. This is a recent discussion spawned by such behavior: Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Resolution_talk_post_ANI/EW_result/suggestion_2.VR _talk 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons provided by Levivich. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot I've seen YouTube links used way to much in the wrong ways myself. What minor legitimate uses there are the information can be gotten from better sources. For instance the New York Times own website if it's their video that someone is linking to. Most YouTube videos are also OR and primary sources. People seem to use them as sources indiscriminately though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Warning against using a source published on YouTube is akin to warning against citing a source published on the Internet. No one is actually citing YouTube itself. Just like when I am citing nytimes.com, I am not citing "The Internet", which came into existence a few decades ago. I am citing The New York Times, the newspaper with about 170 years of editorial history. When we cite a source on YouTube, we are citing a reliable publisher (e.g. NBC's Dateline) which just so happens to be using YouTube as its publishing medium. WP:SOURCES has good explanation on how to evaluate a published source. That is sufficient. No further red tape is required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There may be a case for placing restrictions on who can add links to YouTube (a type of general WP "semi-protected", used now for articles that are prone to vandalism). However, I've found links to YouTube very helpful, especially in the "External Links" section of articles, where they direct readers to, for example, authoritative talks by well-known experts in the field. In that sense they are not sources but more like further reading. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube)

Don't agree with how my earlier comments were hidden away, but I think you are on to something here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I archived it to avoid prejudicing this discussion, as I felt I worded it poorly. Would you like me to add your comments to this discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to add my comments here. I think this is a better proposal. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that YouTube has been on the XLinkBot list for a very long time (prior to February 2008) so its placement in this RfC isn't necessary, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube) - reputable material

A lot of focus by the 'oppose' field above is 'it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources' (quoting the first oppose, User:Levivich, who is quoted a lot, and similar opposes are there). Note: I oppose a filter, but I think it should still be on XLinkBot due to other reasons than being 'unsuitable as a reference' (which it is not, and which is not the reason why it is on the revertlist).

But by the numbers. A number I could find (probably not reliable) is that YouTube hosts 1,300,000,000 (1.3 billion) videos. The New York Times has 9804 video's on their channel (about 0.00075%), and the Washington Post 15,870 (about 0.0012%). BBC (my guess) has about 12000 videos. Yes, I agree that there is quite some good material on YouTube, but I guess I am safe to say that good material is less than 0.1% of the material on YouTube is due to reliable sources. Except from some primary sources, the rest, containing personal videos of dogs, birthday parties, pure advertising, clickbait material, beach parties, copyvio material, etc. etc., is likely not suitable as a source, not even primary.

I do feel that above !voting is completely undue because of that. The above would have been a much fairer discussion if people would have presented an analysis of a non-acting filter for youtube references of a couple of days, and an analysis of the last 100 youtube reference reverts of XLinkBot (I found 0 in the last ~1500 reverts ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: the 1.3 billion I saw was not the total number of videos. I can't find any number for 2019 or current, I did find 7 billion in 2017 (https://www.quora.com/How-many-videos-are-on-YouTube-2017-1). You can divide the number by a factor of 5, e.g. it becomes 0.00014% for the New York Times if you take a 2017 number, the number in 2020 is probably different. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I think many Wikipedia editors have very little idea about how important maintenance of the edit filter is and how much effort goes into fighting spam and other problematic links, and I regret not providing adequate evidence based on this. Can you provide a link to the Xlinkbot feed for youtube links? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, there is no special feed, I got that from Special:Contributions/XLinkBot. If you limit to mainspace and look for 'Reverting reference addition(s) by' in the edit summary shows reverts by XLinkBot that were done because of the 'RevertReferences' list. If you then check if it is a youtube revert (further down in the edit summary) you can see what I mean. Most reference reverting is due to discogs, fandom, reddit, not youtube. If you ignore the references, you see things like diff, where the user is spamming their own YouTube channel.

That however does get convoluted because some newbies do not format references as classical references but just as inline links (see e.g. diff).

The above proposal gets even further convoluted, because people who reference to a New York Times report often link to the New York Times link that embeds the YouTube upload of the report (https://nyti.ms/2T981nS vs. youtube.com/watch?v=pdUzzXpWg8c). (In my opinion the former link should be used as it puts a context on the video ('Indian authorities say life is returning to normal in Kashmir. ...'), but then there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the latter). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the use cases is avoiding paywalls. The example I've cited repeatedly in this discussion is Killing of George Floyd, where NYT and WaPo analyses of videos are used extensively as sources. We link to the official pages at NYT and WaPo, which have the videos plus some introductory text. But those are both paywalled. However, both NYT and WaPo uploaded their videos to YouTube, where they are available for free. So our citations link to both: the paywalled official websites, and the free YouTube videos. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree to that solution as well, but I think hat many people will just link to the NYT link, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the overwhelming majority of videos on YT are not reliable sources. But that's also true for the overwhelming majority of websites. And television. And radio. Hell, go into a bookstore and the majority of books won't be reliable sources (the majority will probably be fiction!), yet we do not have filters for citing books or radio programs. Even NYTimes.com is filled with unreliable op/ed. But we don't add a filter for it. I don't see what good a warn filter for YT will do; it will only be an annoyance. Focusing on the platform is just the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how YT is different from any other platform or media. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on Levivich basically: there should not be restrictions on the use of YouTube videos broadly, but obviously editors must be assure of the channel owner, their relationship to a reliable source, and other issues related to copyright before using a video, and with all that considered, maybe <1% of the videos on YT would even qualify as usable sources. But they do qualify. Blacklisting youtube.com thus is not right, but having an edit filter that takes one or two extra steps for editors that know what they are doing , is that reasonable, to prevent editors that don't know what they are doing from adding random YT videos all the time? It would be nice to have stats to know how bad this "problem" is - how many bad YT links are added to good ones, because I'm certain that it's far less than 99:1. If for every proper YT link addition we had to deal with 2 bad ones, that's probably not a point to add an edit filter, but 10:1 would be. --Masem (t) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and Levivich:, exactly, but that is not what is done here. It is here bluntly stated by many that because there is some good stuff, there can’t be a problem. That is what I am now arguing, we ignore the point that we may have 25 bad insertions for each good one. We may have 25 good additions for 1 bad one. Even if it is a ratio of, non negotiable, bad copyvios to good links of 1:1 we here say: we don’t care, there is good stuff. We don’t know, so the plain argument ‘but there is good material’ wins.

I have done these stats once for XLinkBot for one site, likely youtube, on the external links. I don’t recall numbers, but I remember that 20% were copyvio.

This RfC feels to me like a poison test ... it can’t be bad, we have one survivor. We need numbers. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, data > opinion, especially my opinion. :-D Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, for reverting references we don't have anything to go by, XLinkBot did not revert any youtube links that were properly used as references (i.e., within ref-tags) for over a year. For the other things, it reverted a youtube spammer just yesterday (Special:Contributions/Weeble69), and one 4 days ago (Special:Contributions/Anjyog), and someone promoting himself 5 days ago (Special:Contributions/Pakkepunjabi). I know that there it sometimes reverts youtube links which were meant to be a reference (new editor not knowing how we format references; see e.g. diff), but the number of times that happens does likely not outweigh the number of spammers that get reverted, the number of questionable linkfarms in external links, marginally related youtube links, and copyright violations. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bild

Bild is Germany's leading tabloid newspaper. It has come up twice on the RS noticeboard, In 2008 and 2014. From what I understand Bild is quite controversial in Germany and is in many respects comparable to the british tabloids, editors in particular compared it The Sun, like which it formerly had the equivalent of page 3 girls. It has been cited on enwiki nearly 1,400 times per bild.de  . Going by what's on thelocal.de, Bild appears to have published false or fabricated information several times throughout the last few years 1 2 3, so much so that they had to appoint a fake news ombudsman in 2017. The repeated publishing of false or fabricated information arguably puts it in line for deprecation imo. Can our German speaking editors enlighten us about Bild's reputation in Germany and whether they think it is worth of a deprecation discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

English language sources about Bild:

• Germany's Bild: Political powerhouse or treacherous tabloid? Deutsche Welle, 2012
• Fake News Meets German Racism The New York Times, 2017
• Bild, Merkel and the culture wars: the inside story of Germany’s biggest tabloid The Guardian, 2020Am
• Why Germany's coronavirus 'guru' is being targeted by lockdown critics thelocal.de, 2020

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am for blocking Bild's usage in the Encyclopedia and expunging citations of it. –Vami♜_IV♠ 19:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose deprecation, but the newspaper does occasionally print valuable material, such as an essay by German historian Anna Hájková; I think the paper (unlike Daily Fail) is reliable enough not to misprint such an essay. (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Such a strange name for a German historian... As of the source in question, there are certainly much better sources in Germany, but this one is not yet on the level of Daily Mail (eg. they posted an apology for one of the incidents mentioned by the OP: [46]). Pavlor (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

According to German Wikipedia she’s Czech, not German. The Bild is extremely unreliable and has a right wing bias. I would support blacklisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenrich (talk • contribs)

Being right-wing or not is not whether sources are reliable or not. We are a neutral encyclopedia but follow the reliable sources, biased or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is why the first thing I mentioned was that they are extremely unreliable. That is their reputation in Germany. They are a tabloid.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

At best Bild is a tabloid which occasionally publishes sloppy articles. There have been quite recent allegations about them intentionally misquoting people [47] [48]. 80.187.98.31 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

datarabia.com

Datarabia.com is being used as a source in many articles regarding middle east, especially when it comes to biographical informations. I can't find anything information regarding this website, regardless the total lack of information about Datarabia.com's owner or owners, on Google and other tools. It looks like a blog and, although I'm not a specialist or a scholar working on issues linked to middle east, I've found a lot of misleading informations especially when it comes to biographies. So, for now, I suggest to undo all sections or sentences that rely only on Datarabia.com, until a consensus is find regarding their reliability. Thanks. --JamesK78 (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It was good enough for Sherifa Zuhur, when she used it in her book.[49] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

UBO is not the only critera we use to decide reliability... (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If UBO could not be the only critera (and btw datarabia.com's UBO is not quite impressive) can I consider this source as non reliable especially when an entire section relies only on it. In many cases, I think it could be quit problematic, and sometimes misleading. This website gives us very few details regarding the people who owns it, in terms of transparency it raises concerns. If I agree that datarabia.com is not merely a blog, I think, regarding all this elements, that it can't be considered as an encyclopedic one. Of course, I'll glad if others contributors could add their analysis regarding this issue. Thx --JamesK78 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Landas

Landas is a peer reviewed journal published by the Loyola School of Theology at Ateneo de Manila University. Roscelese has objected to using it as a source on Catholic moral theology. Is it a reliable source for that topic? (Full ref: Uy, Alberto S. (2003). "The Homosexual Orientation as an "Objective Disorder" and its Limited Meaning". Landas. 17 (2). Ateneo de Manila University.) --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing to debate here. We had a near-identical discussion two months ago about a source that was, similarly, an official arm of the Catholic Church and that, similarly, had an overtly POV aim. It is inappropriate to spam the article with this content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

They are not even close to identical. The previous discussion was about a manual published by a seminary. This is about a peer reviewed academic journal published by a university. Not everything with a Catholic affiliation is an official arm of the church. —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole and Roscelese: I don't know if the journal is arm of the Catholic church. But I would think that an official arm of the Catholic church should be a reliable source on Catholic moral teachings, when properly attributed. Am I missing something? VR _talk 08:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yes, you are. It's not the "is this verifiable" aspect that is a problem, it's the "does it reflect encyclopedic values to include it if sources that meet our standards (in terms of reliability and neutrality) haven't taken notice." Again, this is the same conversation that we had about the previous source. If what Slugger wants to do is dump large chunks of Catholic apologia from rubbish sources into articles, there are probably many Catholic fan-wikis out there that would appreciate his time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Ok, just so I understand what you're saying is that the journal accurately reflects the views of the Catholic church but not everything the Catholic church believes should be on wikipedia, and only the views of the Catholic church that have been covered by reliable secondary sources should be on wikipedia. Is that right, or am I still missing something?VR _talk 01:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not judging whether or not I think it accurately reflects the views because I don't think it matters. It's a non-independent source whose explicit goal is pushing a POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't like POV-pushing sources either, but apparently we allow WP:BIASED sources. Similarly, we seem to allow non-independent WP:PRIMARY sources. We also allow self published sources "as sources of information about themselves" (WP:ABOUTSELF), which is presumably how Slugger O'Toole wants to use this journal. Even if we didn't allow the journal WP:ABOUTSELF could allow self-published statements by the Vatican into Catholic teaching on homosexuality.VR _talk 02:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We could and we do. But there are limits to that, as the page you're linking makes very clear (one of those limits is "not unduly self-serving" and another is "the article is not primarily based on such sources"). This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Right, so could we not use Landas with those same limits? VR _talk 05:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In theory, possibly. In practice, AlmostFrancis and I have been working hard to remove fancruft garbage from the article, so attempts to add more feel very WP:POINTy. In practice, are there any statements sourced to this article that you feel should be included, and why, if they cannot be sourced to any reliable source? Since the entire purpose of adding it was, seemingly, apologia, I can't see it not violating the "not unduly self-serving" provision. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do you know what the impact factor of the Journal is? I couldn't find anything definitive and the vague one I found was incredibly low. Do you know the process for peer review at the journal? On the webcite all there are just check marks in a grid, and I can't find any thirdparty sourcing that they do legitimate peer review. As far as I can tell father Uy doesn't have any academic degrees just Sacred Theology degrees from various seminaries and Ecclesiastical programs, and does not have a terminal degree. He may though as it is hard to find information on him. Has anyone ever cited this journal article? Its 17 years old at this point so should be cited at least a couple times if it was seen as of value in the field. You are correct that not everything Catholic affiliated is church run, however, as far as I can tell this school and journal is admittedly church owned and run by the society of jesus. Did they gain independence at some point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Indian Journal of History of Science

Publications in the Indian Journal of History of Science are being used for early dates for advances in (very) ancient Indian astronomy. These are both from a person called Anil Narayanan who has no appreciable background in astronomy, or the history thereof, that I can discover. The papers are "The Pulsating Indian Epicycle of the Sun" and "Dating the Surya Siddhanta Using Computational Simulation of Proper Motions and Ecliptic Variations". I don't know how to assess the reliability of edits to Surya Siddhanta.

A Google Search for the terms "indian journal of history of science" "reliable source" wikipedia reveals numerous examples of papers in this publication making quite grand claims about the extreme antiquity of various India-related topics, including Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries, Talk:Brahmi script/Archive 1, Talk:Indian mathematics/Archive 3, Talk:Heliocentrism, Talk:Vedic period/Archive 1, Talk:Heliocentrism/Archive 1, Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 2, Talk:Speed of light/Archive 16, Talk:7th millennium BC, Talk:Indian astronomy/Archive 1. This suggests the journal publishes in contested areas, if nothing else. It is apparently published by a Indian National Science Academy.

GPinkerton (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe a case of nationalism getting in the way of fact checking? (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: That is my thought --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: & @Guerillero: If this is a systematic issue something needs to be done about this as a potentially perennial set of sources ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Indian Journal of History of Science is published by the Indian National Science Academy,[50] so can be considered rs. According to the back bookcover of his self-published book, History of Indian Astronomy: The Siamese Manuscript, Anil Narayanan is a former scientist of the Indian Space Research Organization and a consultant in D.C. It doesn't matter what the background of the author of a peer-reviewed paper is, because it has been reviewed. But it's never a good idea to use original findings in primary sources as sources for articles. We want to first see if other writers accept, reject or ignore the findings and there's also weight.

Having said that, many ancient cultures made accurate projections of the movements of heavenly bodies.

TFD (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The issue is that the paper claims not only that accurate measurements were made of the movements of heavenly bodies, but that they were written down, in c. 3000 BC and transmitted whole, entire, and perfect to the present day. For context, this is at least 500 years older than the oldest Indus Valley script, which is in any case a proto-writing not capable of writing an astronomical treatise with, and 3,400 years older than the other RS's say the Surya Siddhanta is. His claims to be a "former scientist" are self-sourced. His Academia.edu (if it's the right person) claims he's a specialist in Sanskritology, not any kind of astronomy. GPinkerton (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

He says in the second article that the current version of the Surya-Siddhanta dates to 580 AD, then provides evidence that the calculations had been done and written down earlier. In the second article he says, "Some scholars believe the original Surya-Siddhanta to have been composed between 3000 BC and 8000 BC, though most modern scholars place the available version of the text at about 1000 AD." He doesn't say that the modern book was transmitted in whole from thousands of years ago to the present day.

So while he presents an alternative and unlikely theory, he doesn't state it as a fact. Academic journals sometimes publish theories that are in sharp conflict with orthodoxy, provided they are factually correct. But since he doesn't state any facts that are not stated elsewhere and his theory has drawn no support, your question it moot. Maybe the observations suggest an earlier date of writing, although what we know about the civilization precludes it.

His background is irrelevant. Journals fact check and peer review submissions.

TFD (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes he is saying that. He claims the calculations in the text are not accurate because of changes in the axis of the earth and that, arguing from a position of scriptural inerrancy, the text must have been composed at a time when the axis of the earth actually was different, rather than say the text was simply not perfectly accurate. GPinkerton (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

He argues that since the calculations in the thousand year old version are inaccurate, they may have been written at a time when they were accurate, that is at the beginning of the Indus Valley Civilisation or earlier. Where does he say that he bases his conclusions on scriptural inerrancy? TFD (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I read through the talk page discussion. Rather than challenge the publication, it makes more sense to question whether the theory has any weight. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Isolated papers that have received no attention in the literature on the subject don't belong in articles. TFD (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Journals fact check and peer review submissions. They're supposed to. Not all do. I suspect this one doesn't, at least not thoroughly and from a non-biased perspective. (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "they may have been written" and "at the beginning of the Indus Valley Civilisation or earlier" is a wild, wild claim which would make the Surya Siddhanta, by far, the oldest written text ever. Ever. It would also pre-date all known forms of writing, and, in order for the calculations to be accurate, the text must have been passed down, unchanged, for fully 5,000 years. The entire argument is based on scriptural inerrancy - i.e., the text's calculations are accurate, so they therefore must have been written 5,000 years ago in order for the calculations not to be inaccurate. The assumption of scriptural accuracy is explicit in the argumentation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Yes, I suspect that the basic grammatical error in the very name of the journal itself is a clue to its less-than-reliable nature. GPinkerton (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the carefully phrased implications in both papers that the calculations were first made at some date between 3000 and 8000 BC, is very fringey indeed, and typical of Hindutva reassertions of traditional Hindu chronology - modern historians think the basis for the events recounted in the Mahabharata might relate to wars around the 9th or 10th century BC, but traditional Hindu thinking places them around 3102 BC or earlier. Individual temples are often claimed to be 5,000 years old. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Humans began recording numeric values at least 40,000 years ago, according to History of ancient numeral systems. It doesn't seem paricularly outlandish to try to determine whether the calculations were accurate at some point before the book was published but humans were able to record them. It's not outlandish either that the Indus civilization would have paid attention to the motion of heavenly objects. In any case, the journal is peer-reviewed[51] and published by the Indian National Science Academy.

Reliability refers to facts. We expect that the facts in peer-reviewed journals are accurate. We do not expect that every article published merely summarizes generally accepted views and never provides any new theories. Journals exist in order to publicize new research and theories. Ultimately some of these theories will be questionable and most of those will receive no attention from other writers. It's a problem in Wikipedia that determined editors can find papers representing all kinds of unorthodox views. The American Psychological Association's journal, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, published the article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" as late as 2005. That doesn't mean the journal fails rs or that we have to accept the findings in the paper.

It doesn't matter either what an author's motivation is for their beliefs, provided they do not base the conclusions in their papers on those beliefs. So for example someone may write a paper for an historical journal arguing for or against the historical existence of Jesus. While their opinions may be influenced by their views on religion, the paper would be assessed on the strength of its arguments from facts not beliefs.

TFD (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We're not talking about notches on a stick (notice the History of ancient numeral systems article makes no mention of anything more complicated a tally on a stick until a significantly younger date than that alleged for the Surya Siddhanta), the Surya Siddhanta uses sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry. It is moreover written in Sanskrit verse, which it would also be a massive claim (and wrong) to state existed 5,000 years ago. Put Surya Siddhanta into YouTube and see what comes up: Hindu-nationalism and Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, who just might be a relative in more than ideology to the infamous P. N. Oak (the Hindu hyperdiffusionist who alleged the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple, among other absurdities.) As for It's not outlandish either that the Indus civilization would have paid attention to the motion of heavenly objects that's correct, but is then much more outlandish to claim 1.) the Indus Valley civilization had writing (they didn't) 2.) the Indus Valley civilization could have written in Sanskrit (they couldn't) and 3.) the Surya Siddhanta was, or even could have been, written millennia before the IVC got off the ground (it wasn't). You said that It doesn't matter either what an author's motivation is for their beliefs, provided they do not base the conclusions in their papers on those beliefs. but this is exactly what is happening here. Johnbod is right to link this with the neo-nationalist movement in favour of the historical reality of the Mahabharata; see for instance: the Indian Science Congress and the Eastern India Science and Engineering Fair and the National Informatics Centre. Basically, if it exists, it existed in, and was invented in, (really very) ancient India, or so the claim runs. Where is the evidence the Indian National Science Academy is a reliable institution in the 21st century? Its own article is all self-sourced and full of that which puffeth up. We say distinctly that it is "not to be confused with the Indian Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Sciences, India". Where is the independent witness to its credibility and that of its organs? GPinkerton (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• If they publish nonsense like this masqueraded as a scholarly paper, there is not even a little hope for reliability. This is even worse than Daily Mail. Accepting date between 3000 BC and 8000 BC as a minority view of some scholars is the same as writting "Some scholars believe the Earth is flat, though most modern scholars...". If there are other examples like this, "depreciating" this source may be the best course of action. Pavlor (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization: pt. 1 (Pearson Longman, 2011), Chapter 5, the Indian National Science Academy is referred to as the premier science academy in India, financed by the government.

Sumerians used sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry possibly as early as 3000 BC. Obviously the Indus civilization probably had no written language and did not speak Sanskrit, but they used symbols to record information. But I don't think the papers claim otherwise. I notice you haven't addressed whether the calculations would have been more accurate in 3000 BC than in 800 AD. Of course if they were, it doesn't prove anything but if they weren't then it would be an obvious failure of peer review.

As I mentioned above, there is no reason to use the papers in any articles since they lack weight for inclusion. But i don't think the fact they were published means that we should blacklist anything from the Indian National Science Academy.

TFD (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately in recent years Hindu Nationalists have penetrated deep into Indian academia (with government support). This is a major problem at *all* levels of Academia in India as the government their has been appointing ideologues with little in the way of academic credentials or competence. This seems to fit well within the bullshit these nationalists and charlatans spread. I’m not saying that today we have to blacklist India’s august academic institutions but in five years we might have to, its going downhill fast. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "Sumerians used sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry possibly as early as 3000 BC". Please also update Babylonian mathematics with this reliable information, if extant... GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, see "An Exhibition That Gets to the (Square) Root of Sumerian Math" (Wade, Nicholas. New York Times, Nov. 22, 2010.) "Sumerian math was a sexagesimal system, meaning it was based on the number 60....The idea seems to have developed from an earlier, more complex system known from 3200 B.C." And later: two tablets "bear[] on the issue of whether the Babylonians had discovered Pythagoras’s theorem some 1,300 years before Pythagoras did." (i.e., approx. 1800 BC) It's not like claiming they had invented calculus, measured the speed of light or discovered Pluto.

Horse Eye Jack, there are a lot of questionable theories published in historical and social sciences journals. In those cases I think the best first objection is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". We shouldn't use claims that are not covered by multiple mainstream sources and go significantly against mainstream assumptions. Even when claims are not exceptional, weight deems then insignificant for inclusion. But if historical journals in India depart significantly from journals from major academic publishers, then we should revisit the issue. But right now the author of the sources presented concedes that his views are not mainstream.

TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Sorry, where does the NYT mention trigonometry? GPinkerton (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear from the article that they were talking about trigonometry. If you are interested in learning more, it's covered in an article, "Plimpton 322 is Babylonian exact sexagesimal trigonometry" (Historia Mathematica, Nov 2017). The abstract says, "We trace the origins of trigonometry to the Old Babylonian era, between the 19th and 16th centuries B.C.E." Their findings were written up the New York Times in "Hints of Trigonometry on a 3,700-Year-Old Babylonian Tablet" (Aug 29 2017). I don't know whether any of it is true and do not suggest it be added to any articles. TFD (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It's clear they're talking about trigonometry for the Plimpton 322 tablet. What's not clear is how that artefact, dated 1900-1600 BCE supports your claim "Sumerians used sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry possibly as early as 3000 BC".

The NYTs "3,700-Year-Old" ≠ 3000 BC.

3,700 years ago is 1,700 BC.

That kind of error is rather like dating the invention of the diesel engine to the reign of Maximinus Thrax. GPinkerton (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't know at what point they discovered trigonometry if in fact they actually did. Since Sumerian civilization flourished from c. 4500 – c. 1900 BC., the artefact could have been based on an earlier model.

We know the diesel engine was invented in 1893 because we have documentary evidence. We also know that ancient civilizations lacked the technology to produce them. Also, it presupposes a great deal of knowledge of mathematics and physics for which evidence would exist. We would not for example see them building ziggurats if they understood Newtonian physics. We'd see Eiffel Towers and skyscrapers. But we can't say with certainty they were unable to calculate the length of a hypotenuse. All we can say is that it is unlikely. While looking for diesel engines in Sumeria would be irrational, looking for traces of basic mathematical abilities is not.

TFD (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: But traces of basic mathematical abilities is not what the author of the papers proposes. The idea is that advanced mathematical abilities existed c. 3,000-8,000 BC, were used to compose a text in a language that did not exist, were written down in a script that did not exist, and was then preserved by manuscript copying, together with its increasingly erroneous calculations, until the present day, uncorrupt. Meanwhile those abilities were mysteriously lost and had to wait thousands of years before their rediscovery in the Enlightenment and thereafter. Elsewhere, the fringe theorists (author included) claim the Surya Siddhanta used a heliocentric model and accurately predicted the orbits of trans-Saturnian planets quite invisible to the human eye without magnification or radio telescopes, presumably using the same lost technology with which they built the pyramids (doubtless a Vedic temple). How is this any different from ancient civilizations lacked the technology to produce diesel engines? Supposing Sumerian civilization invented trigonometry millennia before there is any evidence for it is almost as bad. The Romans build roads everywhere they, went: are you sure they might not possibly have done so the purpose of driving their automobiles across the empire? GPinkerton (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he is saying that, merely speculating that the calculations in the text were made long before when they were accurate. Of course this type of finding may give succor to people who believe what you are saying and even ancient astronaut theorists for that matter.

Bear in mind that the actual text is from the 1400s AD and is generally accepted as being based on a text written around 800 AD, probably based on calculations from the 300s to 400s. If you think that text could only have been written if they had access to radio telescopes and knew about planets beyond Saturn, wouldn't the theory that the text was written even as late as the 1400s be fantastic? Do you think it's a forgery? That seems doubtful because radio telescopes were invented in the 1930s, while the text was written about in the 19th century. (You might want to add that to the article.)

TFD (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The interpretation that it 1.) discusses trans-Saturnian planets, including Pluto, and 2.) offers a a heliocentric model are both claimed by devotees and repudiated by mainstream scholarship on the text. It's not me this needs to be explained to! I actually have already added the point about Pluto to article, some days ago. At some point the article claimed the Surya Siddhanta dealt with bodies not discovered until recent centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says, the Surya Siddhanta "makes no mention of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto, since these planets are not visible without telescopes." I don't see anything wrong with that. We can mention what the book doesn't include. I don't remember where the texts were discussing Pluto either. Maybe you could provide a quote. You might be confusing the articles in this discussion thread with sources that have made these claims. TFD (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. I wrote that text. GPinkerton (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember Anil Narayanan mentioning Pluto. TFD (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

See here. GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

First, that's not one of the two papers we were discussing and was not published by the Indian Journal. Secondly while he mentions Pluto, he does not claim that the Indus civilization knew about it. As you correctly point out, without modern technology they would have had no way of detecting it. TFD (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wen Wei Po

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Wen Wei Po? wenweipo.com/   has been cited around 440 times on Wikipedia.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Wen Wei Po)

• 3–4 based on Newslinger and Adamant comments below. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Extremely limited press freedom in China, serious questions raised about the papers credibility, appears to be a mouthpiece for Beijing. Claims have been raised about interference by the CCP in the past and has also been accused of publishing falsehoods. Bacondrum (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 or 4, see explanations given before the survey was created. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 or 3: RSes say that it is state-owned and advocates for the Chinese government, so there are legitimate press freedom / editorial concerns. I haven’t seen RSes say that they publish false or fabricated information though, just a single blog post. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Due to lack of press freedom from being owned by the Chinese government. Along with printing false and intentionally negative stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 This article on Wikipedia by Ta Kung Pao (which has merged with Wen Wei Po) fails to understand that several Hong Kong opposition figures were indeed born in British Hong Kong which is why that is reflected in their infoboxes, apparently suggesting that this is a "criminal offence" which is totally bizarre. Both papers are controlled by the Hong Kong Liaison Office, an organ of the PRC government. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: At most it may be served as sources for quoting pro-Beijing voice. Many of their reports are lacking of neturality Universehk (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Wen Wei Po)

Hello. I'd like to know the general notability of the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po since it has came up in AfDs a few times and I'd like to add it to the list of perennial sources. The Wikipedia article for it says it's a pro-Beijing news outlet and there was a post about it on Reliable Sources Noticeboard here back in 2011 that generally seemed to agree. The last noticeboard discussion only had a few participants though and from reading it over the consensus that it's not reliable doesn't seem conclusive. So, I'd like a more definitive answer as to what it's reliable for, if anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Call it lack of neutrality then. I don't really care because it's just splitting hairs over semantics. People here know what makes a source reliable or not. I don't feel the need to spend 50 thousands words making sure I get every single nuance of what makes a source reliable or not perfectly correct. The import thing is if Wen Wei Po can be used as a source and for what. Which every can judge, whatever term I use. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What makes an RS is accuracy, so they tell porkies?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. Which bias has something to do with. Especially in relation to Chinese sources and Hong Kong. I'm not the judge of if they toll lies or not. That's on people who comment to decide. Although, personally I don't think they are 100% accurate with topics related to Hong Kong, but my opinion doesn't matter here or I'd just be having this discussion alone, with a wall. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC. This is just a general reliability question, and doesn't need an RfC. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Should I change the title to be a regular discussion then? Tbh, I wasn't sure what the difference was. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

An RfC is used for calling for a sources deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable. This is so we can get the view of people from all over the Wiki, and not just those who regular this page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I changed the title so it's not an RfC. Since that doesn't sound like what I wanted to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia is being somewhat misleading here. Emir of Wikipedia really doesn't like the concept of depreciation and I understand his perspective. However calling a RfC doesn't mean that the source must be unreliable, though obviously calling a RfC on an obviously reliable source like the NYTimes would be pointless. A RfC means that the discussion will get a formal close and verdict, and can be added to the reliable sources noticeboard immediately. Admittedly I don't think that your RfC was properly formatted. wenweipo.com   has been cited signficantly more than the Apple Daily has, with around 440 citations. I would recommend pinging the participants of The Apple Daily RfC, as they will probably be familiar with this source, as well as leave a link to this discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The top of this page says "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument." Even if my views on deprecation are well known they were not why I was against the RfC. In my view an RfC to call people from around the Wiki, whereas this whole page is for discussing sources. I agree that the WikiProject would be a good place to get other views on the matter though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support an RfC if Adamant1 were interested in restoring the RfC tag. RfCs are intended to solicit participation from a broad section of the community. The 2019 header text RfC endorsed the use of RfCs on this noticeboard for questions of general reliability. RfCs do not necessarily have to propose deprecation; they can ask any question as long as the statement is brief and neutral. For regional sources such as Wen Wei Po, an RfC would attract more opinions from editors who are not normally involved in the Hong Kong topic area. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I changed it back to an RfC. If that's what would allow it to be listed in WP:RSP then I'm for it. I don't think it would get many comments in the Hong Kong Wikiproject anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

​Could you please also follow the instructions at WP:RFCST? You'll need to write a brief and neutral statement at the top of the discussion, then apply the {{rfc}} tag. Please see this RfC for a commonly used example of how the RfC can be formatted. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. I've sectioned the discussion, since none of the existing comments specify an option. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The main problem is with Wen Wei Po is a lack of editorial independence. Personally I would never use it and I’d probally seek to remove or replace it if I came across it but I think they’re a 3 not a 4 on our traditional scale and as such WP:DEPS seems a bit too far, generally unreliable is accurate as far as I understand. If anyone has clear cases of pushing false and misleading information I would be willing to reconsider. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: You said here not a 4 but your !vote includes 4? — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no survey at that time. The responses which followed mine did in fact include cases of pushing false and misleading information (hadn't seen the Baltic stuff before, that was atrocious). I still have some reservations about deprecation hence the 3 or 4 instead of a straight 4, but I would take that with a grain of salt because I know my personal bar for deprecation is higher (or lower depending on how you want to conceptualize it) than the vast majority of wikipedians. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple Daily (RSP entry) is the third-most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 5.71/10) according to a 2019 Chinese University of Hong Kong survey of the public. The same survey listed Wen Wei Po as the second-least credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 3.43/10). As Apple Daily is considered a marginally reliable source, Wen Wei Po is likely either marginally reliable or generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I found an article here about them mocking the conditions in Baltic states. Along with this article on how they printed a fake story about rioters burning down a building. They have also printed fake pictures. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium stores aren't exactly the most reliable sources themselves. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium is a blog host. We would need RSes about fake or fabricated reporting to deprecate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The source in question here is literally owned by the Chinese (Communist) central government and should be examined in that context. That being said, them being viewed in a poll as one of the least credible sources in Hong Kong needs to be considered in the context of the change of many people in Hong Kong towards an anti-Beijing point of view, which means they'd view pro-Beijing sources as unreliable. Heck We shouldn't be so easily dismissing a state media organization as "generally unreliable" due to bias or occasional government interference. The CBC, BBC, or whatever else "public broadcasters" have pretty intense biases of their own and have been interfered with despite nominal editorial independence. Heck NPR now has less than 50% of Americans considering it "credible" and was actually the least trusted news outlet out of 9 major ones in America. By the same logic since NPR gets their money from the US government and is generally considered unreliable by Americans we should be treating it as an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Press freedom is a factor that many editors consider when evaluating reliability. China's #177 ranking ("very serious situation") out of 180 countries in the 2020 Press Freedom Index is a strong negative indicator of the reliability of Chinese media sources (the largest of which are state-owned), and makes it unsurprising that the issue of press freedom is raised in just about every discussion on Chinese sources. The phrase "occasional government interference" severely understates the extent and scope of censorship in Chinese media. It is a false equivalence to compare NPR (RSP entry) to Chinese state media in light of the United States' #45 ("satisfactory situation") ranking on the 2020 Press Freedom Index. Also, the NPR is primarily funded by non-government sources; see NPR § Funding for details. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger and Bacondrum: Press freedom is certainly a relevant factor. But China's ranking in the 2020 Press Freedom Index isn't the directly relevant ranking. The newspaper is in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, which is ranked 80th out of 180 in the 2020 Press Freedom Index (above countries like Israel, Brazil, Philippines, and India). It's controlled by the Chinese government, which is a separate factor, but for Press Freedom Index purposes it's in Hong Kong. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how much autonomy a journalist working for the Chinese government has when they are working outside of China. My guess is not very much. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I would guess the same. But that’s due to them working for the Chinese government rather than the Press Freedom Index of the newspaper's jurisdiction. The source Lee, Chin-Chuan (1997). "Media Structure and Regime Change in Hong Kong". In Chan, Ming K. (ed.). The Challenge of Hong Kong's Reintegration with China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 113–147. ISBN 9622094414. from Wen Wei Po says that at the very least, the Chinese government reduced its control over the newspaper. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This paper is in Hong Kong, where better alternatives exist, so I have no issues with it being labeled unreliable. However, for mainland China topics I think we will have to accept newspapers with slightly lower standards, lest we risk massive systematic bias. All domestic sources are going to be at least somewhat pro-CCP (or they wouldn't be allowed to exist), so banning all pro-CCP sources would have the effect of requiring all mainland China topics to be covered in international media before we consider them notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI the “independent” media in mainland China isn't allowed to do original reporting, they can only do synthesis and rewrites of pieces from the major government news sources. There is no such thing as investigative journalism as we would recognize it in most of the world in China. We have almost the same problem with other single party states like North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria... We should have a single rule for the eleven or so single party states not some special exception for China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd publisher: Ed-Tech Press

Someone recently added "Ethics for Governance" ISBN 978-1-83947-390-6 by Kai Cabrera. The Introduction is word-for-word copied from the 2018 iteration of our page on ethics. So is most of that section. The material prexisted the publication of the book. The meta-ethics section right after is word-for-word from our 2018 version at meta-ethics. Same for normative ethics as so on. Every single sentence I checked was copied from here. I don't see any attribution in the text. It's possible there's something at the end of the "book" - the google book preview is limited. Clearly not a WP:RS and appears to be a simple published mirror, like PediaPress.

The publisher seems a little odd; address is an accountancy, presumably used for forming the company. Tons of these kinds of books with authors that don't seem to exist. For example, this one was complied by ""Keywon Frazier." Odd that an author of "Animal Transgenesis and Cloning" has no other presence on the internet other than booksellers of this particular work. Parts of that book are again copied from here as well as other papers. Every book I checked had copied material.

There are about 27 citations to this publisher. Would like a second opinion before I take action.Kuru (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove them all, I'd say. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Whether predatory publishing, or otherwise; it's clear this publisher and their works cannot be considered reliable sources. Entirely agree with removing the lot. Jack Frost (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yep, I’d say you are cleared to nuke that publisher. Happy hunting. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• WP:CITOGENESIS strikes again. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks to Kuru for cleaning out these unreliable sources. I had noticed something strange was going on around the same time Kuru noticed it: see also User talk:Henry.R1 § Questionable references. Biogeographist (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of a politician's tweets and On The Issues

Please see Tom O'Halleran. This is the content in question. It is sourced entirely to the politician's own tweets and press releases, and to On The Issues. The citations to On The Issues, such as here, are merely snippets of O'Halleran's campaign website. ("Ban luxury trips: Luxury trips paid for by special interests happen under the guise of keeping members of Congress informed...Source: 2016 Arizona House campaign website TomOHalleran.com , Nov 8, 2016." I was very surprised to see an administrator, Missvain, make these edits. I reverted them, and she said she was "shocked" by my reversion. Am I crazy? Are we allowing these kinds of non-independent sources in the articles of members of the U.S. Congress? O'Halleran, and indeed most politicians, have tweeted (and used other social media platforms) thousands of times. Unless a particular social media post was picked up and discussed elsewhere, why is a particular tweet noteworthy enough to include here? Marquardtika (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, On The Issues seems to be okay to me, as long as we consider it a WP:PRIMARY source. OTI does seem to simply rehash info from the politician without providing secondary analysis. It'd be better to find secondary sources, if possible, and is important to be careful in the context OTI is used. If we're discussing where a politician stands on the issues, their own statements can be useful, with caveats. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

On the Issues is largely volunteer run. I think we need to be very careful with sites like this. There is a ton of data there, but seemingly no editorial oversight...and the way I have often seen OTI used is in a pretty contextless, cherry-picked way. I really don't think we should ever be using it absent other sources. Politicians have views and have made statements about lots of things; if those views/statements haven't been covered or discussed in independent sources, they aren't likely to be noteworthy enough to include in their biographies, and instead are likely to reflect the bias of editors who feel like picking and choosing which positions to include on a page. Marquardtika (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, no, you're not crazy. The content about O'Halleran (including his views) has to be consistent with the BLP policies. So a site like On the Issues, which appears to be self-published, isn't an acceptable source due to WP:BLPSPS. A quick look at their "about us" info (on their "join" page) indicates that they simply gather info from other sites, so if any of those other sites are acceptable, better to go directly to the other source. As for his tweets, his campaign site, etc., WP:BLPSELFPUB applies: a small amount of material sourced to self-publications is OK, but it can't be the majority of the sourcing. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A tweet from an account that is definitely controlled by the person whose account it purports to be (e.g. a blue check account, or an account linked from a RS) is, in my opinion, fine to attribute statements made by that person but it probably should not be used to write content in Wikipedia's voice or assign quality to those statements. I would prefer this content sourced to this tweet [52] -

• He co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, therefore supporting police reform, including improved transparency, and accountability.

- be rewritten thus -

• According to O'Halleran, he co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, which he said addressed "police reform by improving transparency, [and] setting standards for accountability".

Chetsford (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing someone's views to statements by them (twit-like or otherwise) doesn't have reliability issues, but it raises a significant question of due weight: dude presumably makes lots of statements in public fora, why should this one or that one get picked out by Wikipedia editors for special notice? --JBL (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Joel B. Lewis, exactly. I said as much on the article's talk page. I have now attributed the recent additions and they all emanate from O'Halleran's 2016 campaign website and tweets he made in June and July 2020 (and in once case a press release from his office). The tweets alone make up the majority of the article. This seems to me a very poor use of WP:SPS and it is leading to WP:UNDUE issues. I have no idea why, out of his thousands of tweets, we would feature a handful from two months in his entire congressional tenure, especially when there are plenty of reliable independent sources out there--newspapers, for example. Missvain, it would be helpful for you to weigh in here to share your thinking. Marquardtika (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• While there are possible situations where we could cite a tweet by a verified account, it has to be done with extreme caution. Some things to consider:

• Is it unduly self-serving? A statement that is framed in plainly self-flattering terms, which stakes a claim to beliefs that are obviously popular, or which casts the speaker in a good light cannot be cited to a primary source. Something like stating that they support freedom of speech or oppose tyranny shouldn't be cited to twitter because it is obviously self-serving; similarly, in-depth defenses of (or apologia for) their own views are generally self-serving. Is it a clever, snappy quip that someone wants to include because it does a good job arguing for their beliefs? It shouldn't be cited to a primary source (or, at least, we should avoid quoting the snappy emotional framing unless we have a secondary source for it.)
• On the other hand, is it potentially-negative? For example, has an editor drudged up a quote where they seem to express racist beliefs, which no secondary sources have covered? Oddly, this isn't strictly forbidden under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSPS, but it's generally going to be WP:OR or fail to meet the criteria necessary for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Basically, are we citing a tweet for a viewpoint that readers are going to find surprising or shocking? In that case we probably need a secondary source.
• Similar to the above, is the tweet generally representative of their views, or is it an outlier? If it's not the way they usually present themselves, and it has no secondary coverage, then we'd likely be giving it WP:UNDUE weight to cite it directly. Again, the idea is that editors shouldn't be going through someone's twitter feed and plucking out tweets in order to prove something in particular about them.

If it's an unexceptional viewpoint that isn't particularly self-serving and which generally reflects how they're portrayed anyway, we might be able to use it; an example might be a politician expressing a view that is standard for their political party. But in that case, why hasn't it been covered anywhere else? For this reason the possible situations where we can use a self-published source for a statement of someone's views are fairly narrow. As it says in WP:SPS, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should not use tweets and indiscriminate compilers of positions (such as On the Issues). A politician's stated positions may be nuanced in a way that can't be captured by a tweet. Furthermore, the context behind a position can't be captured by a tweet. For example, a politician may state that they are against late-term abortions and phrase it in language such as "we can't let people do abortions just before a baby is born" – secondary RS would however clarify that late-term abortions are universally used in situations when the baby is not viable or when the health of the mother is at risk. Similarly, a politician may flip-flop on issues or hold multiple contradictory positions (Donald Trump for example held multiple positions on the minimum wage) – secondary RS would note that the politician holds contradictory positions or has changed the position whereas self-serving tweets would not do that. RS coverage is also helpful in determining what's DUE and what isn't DUE, whereas a self-serving tweet or a compiler such as On the Issues does not give any such indication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Missvain: I wanted to make sure you were following this discussion. It is my assessment that there is not support among other editors for the type of edits you made to the O'Halleran page. Do you disagree? Based on the results of this discussion, I plan to remove the content cited to tweets and On the Issues from the O'Halleran page and from any other pages that look to be suffering from the same type of sourcing issues. Marquardtika (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree, but, I don't have the mental capacity to sit here and try to state my case. Oral history from the subject (which is what Twitter is) is invaluable when it comes to sharing political positions. It's just a shame Wikipedians still struggle with accepting oral history, but, I've been dealing with that argument for over 10 years, and sometimes I win the argument, sometimes I don't. I'm just too exhausted mentally right now to give it a good go. Thanks everyone for your contributions to Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this PRIMARY or unreliable?

Regarding a recent discussion at Talk:Szmalcownik#Władysław_Bartoszewski_as_WP:PRIMARY. A historian (Władysław Bartoszewski) has been interviewed by another historian (Andrzej Friszke). This interview was published in a book by yet another historian (Andrzej Kunert) published by a reliable body (Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites). The source in which this excerpt or discussion is described at described WorldCat as follows: "A collection of documents concerning the Warsaw ghetto, the uprising in 1943, declarations and appeals sent by the Polish government-in-exile about the situation of the Jews in Poland, and the founding of Żegota in 1942 and its activities. Pp. 5-36 contain an interview carried out by Polish historian Andrzej Friszke with Władysław Bartoszewski, one of the founders of Żegota. They discuss an anti-Nazi Polish conspiracy during the war, the situation in the ghetto, and Żegota activities". Bartoszewki was cited and attributed for a claim he makes about WWII here: [53]. This was removed twice as WP:PRIMARY by User:François Robere who additionally argued this does not meet WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations. I disagree, as I think the source is reliable, both in terms of the publisher and the historians involved, and the historian quoted (Bartoszewski) is not even being quoted to talk about his personal experiences, but about the wider war-related topic, on which he is an expert in his professional capacity (all three historians are experts on WWII). Can we get feedback on whether this source is indeed PRIMARY and whether an attributed quote to Bartoszewski can be present in the article, or not, in light of the applicable policies and guidelines? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well, why not use some of his scholarly work for such an attributed claim? This source is reliable for Bartoszewki´s opinion, but its usability is limited outside of that (like with any interview). Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Interviews are indeed primary sources, it doesn't matter if they've been selected for publication in a particular primary source collection. Citing a primary source lends itself to cherry-picking (although I doubt that is happening in this particular case), which is why we have the article sourcing expectation to begin with. We don't want to set a precedent that inclusion in scholarly collections indicates reliability because it may indicate the opposite (sources might also be chosen, in some cases, because they are inaccurate in some interesting and useful way). Now, I personally believe that this source is probably accurate, but agree with Pavlor that it would be better to cite the information to a secondary source. (t · c) buidhe 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• The interview was published in a "collection of documents" (wybor dokumentow), and Bartoszewski is interviewed as a founder of Żegota on subjects that pertain to his activity at the time.[54] That's WP:PRIMARY by every measure. If Piotrus can source the claim to a secondary or tertiary source, then Bartoszewski can be used to elucidate. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not to comment on this case specifically since I know nothing about the people involved, but where did you all get the idea that primary sources are not allowed and that sources can be removed on account of being primary? This is one of the most persistent false myths about policy. You all need to visit WP:PRIMARY and read what the policy actually says. The three "Do not"s you can read there are a fine summary of what is not allowed. You can't eliminate an interview merely on the grounds of being primary, you just aren't allowed to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" it. Zero^talk 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The inference being used is that when there are no secondary sources supporting the same information, it can be excluded on grounds of undue weight. (It could also be that this is a case where the current practice is changing or has changed, and policy just hasn't caught up yet. Certainly the more controversial the topic, the more useful it can be to focus on secondary sources only.) Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But we will inevitably be forced to synthesize, since there's such a variety of WP:PRIMARY sources in this field, and on certain questions - like the extent of help given to Jews by the underground state - they're often contradictory. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Answering both) We often use interviews with experts reported by newspapers. The weight of something does not depend on whether it is primary of secondary. Next, if we can't use a source without "analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing" it, we shouldn't use it. That also is true for both primary and secondary sources. Contradictory sources are not a problem: we either agree that one is more reliable than the other, or we present both. It is just NPOV policy, which also doesn't depend on primary vs secondary. Zero^talk 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources only contribute minimally to weight in most circumstances, because they don't tell us about the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That's an issue of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, and an editor using only primary sources to address it would be engaging in original research. If something is only discussed in primary sources, the implication (except in cases like breaking news) is that no author of an analytic (etc) source has thought that it's important enough to deserve mention. An expert's viewpoint reported in a newspaper has been subject to the newspaper's (analytic) editorial judgement on how the viewpoint is presented, which quotations to use, and even which expert to interview in the first place, which grants the viewpoint more weight than viewpoints that are not reported in such a manner. One way to frame part of the issue here is whether the reprinting of the interview involves sufficient analysis (etc) to grant enough weight to support inclusion. Sunrise (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• As best I can tell from the article sourcing expectations, primary sources aren't specifically excluded, as long as they appear in one of the accepted publications. So I don't think the key question is whether the interview is PRIMARY, but whether this book satisfies the requirement for "academically focused books by reputable publishers." I have no expertise in this area, but looking at the WorldCat info (both the description and the list of U.S. libraries that have copies of this book) and having looked up more info about the publisher, my sense is that the book does meet that requirement; that is, the book appears to be both academically focused and published by a reputable publisher. Although an interview is normally a primary source, in this case, the primary sources in the book are the 1942-1945 documents that appear in the pages after the interview (the interview is more recent, and the two people involved in the interview could instead have co-authored a non-interview introduction to the book, but they chose to use a contemporary interview instead; I don't read Polish, and one question is whether the interview constitutes a secondary source discussion of the primary sources in the rest of the book). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, this is about removing citation "Every Pole who cooperated..." (diff). Yes, I agree with Piotrus that such citation of a primary source is good and appropriate. However, I also agree there is a problem with the "bare citation". It must be placed to proper context, based on another secondary RS, for example "Officials of Żegota repeatedly appealed to the Polish Underground State to act against blackmailers [ref]", or something else. But this may indeed be covered by this discretionary sacntion. Too bad. This poorly conceived sourcing restriction prevents participants from development of content. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• From looking at the artice it seems that Władysław Bartoszewski is not really a historian but a politician. He only has honorary degrees and was stripped of the professor title by request of the German and Pollish academic societies. The publisher is governmental not academic and reportable to the Polish prime minister therefore also political. Morover, when this was published Bartoszewski was the cheif officer of the publisher and took credit as an author of the book so WP:PRIMARY and bordering on self-published. I think this is the exact kind of source that should be not be used due to the exteneded sourcing expectations.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Actually it is a bit worse than I thought, Kunert was more than likely a doctoral student when he performed the interview. Also he later became the sectretary general of the publisher, hired by none other than Bartoszewski. Friszkel was working for the IPN at the time which has a rather dubious repuation for this kind of content. The is an incredibly well researched field and there is no excuse for using such limited sources.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bartoszewski was never “stripped of the professor title” and there’s no source that says that. The title “professor” was simply removed from a website because his title is honorary. As the source itself says, other officials and websites have chosen to continue to use the title. His title was honorary (given to him in Germany first as he taught some courses there) and many still use it today ([55], [56], [57]). From The Economist's obituary: "The war, stints in jail and persecution meant he had no formal higher education. Though he was a sought-after lecturer on history, and author of dozens of books, in status-conscious Poland some begrudged him the self-awarded title of “Professor”. But most thought he had earned it, and a lot more besides." He simply doesn’t have a formal title because... you couldn’t get one in German occupied Poland. But he was a respected scholar in Poland and abroad, and still is today. Yad Vashem clearly lists his profession as "professor and diplomat" ([58]).

  IPN has little to do with this book, and anyway, the book is from 2002, before the earliest criticism of politicization and such discussed on the linked page. Unless you can find a source calling the publisher unreliable, it is an academic body affiliated with the government, and therefore quite reliable by definition. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I would like to see your sourcce that the publisher is an academic body. According to both the Polish and our own article the publisher was a non-independent governmental body responsible for administration and messaging in the topic area. Bartoszewski doesn't have a formal title, which would have been doctor not professor, because he never received a doctorate (not Bartoszewski fault). Now that we agree that professor was honorary I think we are good on that front. Bartoszewski was by all accounts an exceptional human being, and I have little doubt in a world without WWII he would have been an impressive scholar. That doesnn't change the fact we are talking about an interiew of a Bartoszewski published by a government body for which he was the chairperson. Its the Holocaust, maybe the most researched topic in history, we do not need to make excuses for poor sources. If the interview had said anything of note we would have a secondary source.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's a primary source. Interviews are of very little use, because they are not fact-checked. People frequently mix up names, places and dates, or phrase words in a way that doesn't accurately represent what they meant. it also gives them an opportunity to say things they believe but if they had to supply sources could not find them. TFD (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with using Bartoszewski's quote, nor with the book where it appears. However, it would be beneficial for all, if this is supported by another reliable secondary source.--Darwinek (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Miraheze and Their Wikis

Back in March, I was googling one of Wolf Tracer’s one of only two known productions when I came across this site under Awful Movies which as its name suggests is about movies considered the worst of all time. Said special has an entry because of its atrocious blocky PS1 cutscene-like animation.

This wiki farm even this one runs on the software engine Media-Wiki. They resemble wiki except for comments in the bottom of almost every article and blog posts from numerous users. Unlike here, anonymous editing is turned off by default. Here there or even Jimmy Neutron's Canadian impostor is what a random article from one of these look like at a quick glance.

Last but not least, should they be discouraged from being external links slash references?

Lights out,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Per miraheze.org   they are only cited 24 and EL to around 30 times. I agree it's a bad source, but you could probably easily make the effort to excise them yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

All mentions of this wiki farm have been removed in a few select articles. Thank you for your input. 67.81.163.178 (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PressTV

What is the reliability of PressTV?

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

(t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PressTV)

• 4 Iranian propaganda outlet (similar to the deprecated HispanTV — see discussion), repeatedly publishes conspiracy theories and other blatant lies. Indeed, the deprecation of all channels of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting should be considered. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If we deprecate all Iranian state channels, then isn't that basically banning all viewpoints of the Iranian government and its supporters from Wikipedia? The POV of the Iranian government need not be treated as fact, but should be given due consideration on Iran-related topics per WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I saw your vote above to give option 1 to MEMRI. Does MEMRI not routinely publish conspiracy theories and extremist content? For example consider this article from MEMRI and this from Press TV.VR _talk 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that MEMRI is just providing a translation and does not vouch for the truth value of everything it translates. Similarly, non-conspiracy outlets sometimes report on faleshoods and conspiracy theories without stating that they are factual. PressTV on the other hand is actually promoting a conspiracy theory as fact. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe I'm talking about how they would be used here. The current PressTV guideline requires attribution, and does not consider PressTV as a source of fact. How is maintaining this statusquo worse than allowing MEMRI as a source? Both allowing MEMRI as a source and allowing PressTV as a source with attribution have the exact same consequences for wikipedia.VR _talk 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and holocaust denial 1 2 3 recently claiming that “Zionist elements developed a deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran" 4 Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments about Press TV representing the sole mouthpiece of the Iranian govt are convincing. Russia has TASS, which in the 2019 RfC was found to be usable as as source of the Russian govt's views. Iran has other news agencies including Islamic Republic News Agency, AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA), Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency and Iran Press some of which have also recieved similar criticsm over antisemtism like Press TV, like Mehr News Agency. Ultimately, we shouldn't be citing a source that publishes stories like Two-thirds of UK adults dispute number of Holocaust victims: Study when there are less odious alternatives. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Then you need to take a look at this survey by Holocaust Memorial Day (UK). Just to tell you how this appeared. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Press TV report states:

More than 65 percent of adults in Britain believe that the Holocaust, the alleged genocide of Jews during the Second World War, has not taken place in the way that historians claim, a new study shows

While the actual text of the study states:

It shows that 64% of people polled either do not know how many Jews were murdered or grossly underestimate the number

Press TV's wording is a gross distortion of what the study was actually says, some other quotes from the article:

According to some historians, around six million Europeans were killed by the Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945.

Many in the UK and other European countries have constantly rejected claims that around two-thirds of European Jews were killed by the Nazi Germany during the Second World War, saying Holocaust was a historic fabrication which helped Israel occupy Palestine under the banner of protection of Jews.

Under immense pressure from Israel and other Semitist lobbies, many European governments have outlawed the denial of holocaust and continue to impose fines and prison sentences on those denying the incident.

The (implicit) suggestion of these quotes is that there is good reason to doubt the Holocaust, referring to it as an "alleged genocde" and stating that "some historians" have claimed it had happened, when the concensus among mainstream historians is unanimous, and the claim that this recognition is pushed by Zionist lobbies is an antisemitic canard. This article from 2008 states:

The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs

Press TV was banned in the UK in 2012 (and remains so) after airing forced confessions of journalist Maziar Bahari. Given that Iran has one of the world's lowest press freedoms, like China, essentially all media outlets from Iran are quasi-official government mouthpieces anyway. But like China, I would expect that that this would vary between outlets, for example Xinhua and the People's Daily closely represent the government line, but Global Times is more jingoistic than the official government position, even though it is ultimately controlled by the PRC. Can you name me something especially valuable on Press TV that isn't in other Iranian news agencies or newspapers like the Tehran Times? We should never be citing something that calls the Holocaust an "alleged genocide", end of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. Press TV is certainly not reliable on issues relating to antisemiitism. But it is a major source for the viewpoint of many in Iran, including the government. It should be used with attribution and only on articles related to Iran and the region.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 I'd rather cite the Daily Mail. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is already on WP:RS/P, I think. This is Iranian state propaganda that promotes conspiracy theories and antisemitism; I don't see any need for it. If the views of the Iranian government are necessary in an article, that can be reflected using other, independent sources. Neutrality^talk 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 - It's state propaganda, no different than RT, KCNA, OANN, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Can't think of legit uses. Readers of Wikipedia are meant to have some confidence in the quality of underlying sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn: there is a legit use: to be used, with proper attribution, to present the view of the Iranian government respecting the guidelines in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. If such a view was due it would be mentioned in a good secondary sources which should then be used. By voting "4" I am voting for deprecation. There may be some theoretical edge-cases where the source can be used, but as I say, I can't think of one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4, This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 based on the Consensus we reached few years ago: The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [59]--Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Sa.vakilian: While that conclusion may be valid at the time, in the intervening years both examples quoted - RT and the Daily Mail - have both been deprecated and should not be used for such purposes by common agreement. PressTV should be no different. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 in bold, underlined, italic and ideally in a large font. Holocaust denialism is a bit of a red flag. Guy (help!) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG No one is saying that it should be used for statements of fact. But PressTV can be used, when properly attributed, for Iran related topics to present the view of the Iranian government.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, no, I don't think so. Let's link the government press release directly, not a cesspit that repeats it possibly unmodified. Guy (help!) 22:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jzg I am not following you here. Are you saying that Iranian government press releases are OK sources but Iranian state TV is not an OK source? That sounds like a contradiction.VR _talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: taking many of the "4" votes to their natural conclusions, we will end up banning most viewpoints coming out of Iran (a country of 80 million people). This is because all media in Iran is state-regulated to some degree, and the degree of that interference can change quickly. In the end, current Iranian affairs will solely be presented through sources outside of Iran, some of whom are openly hostile to its people and their culture (e.g. 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy). This will have negative implications for both WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Systemic bias.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Iran has banned most viewpoints comming out of Iran, wikipedia is just acknowledging that. Adding a theoctratic regimes propaganda doesn't do anything for neutraility or systemic bias.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Once an organization starts dabbling in holocaust denial you really can't trust much of anything they say. What ever small gain there may be from using their content for direct comments from the Iranian government, doesn't make up for the damage of sending users to an antisemetic website.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: The source can be used with proper attributions for Iran related topics. There's a recent consensus over its usage for expressing the Iranian voice. Moreover, deprecating this major Iranian state channels clearly goes in line with promoting Systemic bias. I still see no valid argument as to why this source should not be used with attribution for Iran related topics. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: I oppose blacklisting major newsorgs on principle, even unreputable ones like PressTV. Blacklisting newsorgs means that you lose major perspectives that wouldn't otherwise be represented. PressTV is the only English-language neworg based in Iran, so blacklisting it means you lose the whole Iranian perspective.

For example, here is an interview with international human rights law expert Alfred de Zayas. De Zayas isn't a nobody - he's like one of the top 10 experts in the world. But he is a vocal critic of US involvement in Venezuela, Bolivia, Yemen (by proxy) and other places so he is not interviewed very often on American news networks. So if you want to add his opinions about, say Yemen, to his own Wikipedia article you have to source it from PressTV (or Russia Today or some equally "shady" newsorg). Except, you can't! PressTV is #4 and verboten so even though you have both the video and the quotes from the interview in front of you, you are forbidden from adding it to Wikipedia. Same for Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza who also isn't welcome in American TV. ImTheIP (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing deprecation and blacklisting. Using an interview of de Zayas with PressTV would still be possible if there is a local consensus for that particular citation, per WP:DEPS. Imo it would be equivalent to citing de Zayas' blog, assuming he has one, according to WP:SPS. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Deprecation pretty effectively discourages the use of the source and there is also an automatic revert bot for ip users. Yes, you can argue for an exception if you have read up on all the latest WP:RULES and if you dare to argue why a link to an antisemitic conspiracy site is warranted (with the risk of being sanctioned if your argument doesn't hold up). Most people won't bother or will just add whatever they wanted to add without sourcing it which is even worse.ImTheIP (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, yes, it does. And given that PressTV has a history of holocaust denial, conspiracy mongering and bullshit, that is exactly how it should be handled: with a strong presumption against use, subject to exception by local consensus. That's option 4, by the way. Guy (help!) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Propaganda mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought you have something to add based on the RS policy. But wait, you're exactly asking to censor the Iranian government POV. I think ImTheIP is better than me at explaining this.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: for Holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. We should also be weary of other similar state propaganda agencies; they should not have a place in Wikipedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Unreliable for areas with demonstrated bias by the Iranian government e.g. fringe views on the Holocaust, but reliable in general non-political matters or for views of the Iranian government and their allies. Examples of their recent articles [60][61][62] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Press TV is a state sponsored media outlet of the Iranian government. In my opinion, it publishes false and fabricated information. It is a highly biased pro-Iranian news outlet. I would advice to avoid using it in almost every possible case; however, there might arise a situation where an editor who specializes in the field of Iranian politics and government affairs will feel that its usage is justified. An example of possible usage would be reporting that the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers met in Moscow in July to discuss the ongoing Iran nuclear deal. However, it is preferred that this foreign minister meeting were reported using a generally reliable source. If Press TV is used, it should be attributed. (as an aside: I cannot support deprecation, option 4, because it is equivalent to a ban) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PressTV)

PressTV's reliability as a source seems to have been discussed before but seems not to have been entered on the Perennial Sources board. Should such a major state broadcaster be omitted from scrutiny? There are citations on such pages as State of Palestine, for example, where such referencing might be considered contentious. Our article on them is not shy of denouncing them in various ways, so shouldn't there be a consensus attempted? GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Press TV indeed has an entry on RSP, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Press TV Press TV has been cited roughly 2,000 times combining presstv.com   and presstv.ir  . I was thinking about calling a deprecation RfC considering their repeated promotion of Holocaust denial, but you beat me to the punch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! So there is! My ctrl+F didn't find it because I was writing "PressTV" without the space. And yes, that's the way I would like it to go; I don't see how they're better than Sputnik. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think sources should be deprecated unless in very special circumstances. Furthermore, I don't think the consensuses on this page really represent anything more than the opinions of those who like to vote a lot. It appears to me that a lot of people vote based on their opinion of the source rather than whether the source is reliable or not. I think people should use their own judgement rather than these kind of blanket bans. ImTheIP (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand this for some sources, but Press TV promotes and advocates for conspiracy theories, which makes it akin to something like Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't people just exercise caution? A while ago I wanted to use an article from Russia Today as a source and the stupid filter stopped me. In that case, I knew the source was correct because other news sites articles said the same thing but the RT one was more to the point. I don't see the problem of linking to Breitbart either if it is for uncontroversial stuff.ImTheIP (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decides what is uncontroversial? GPinkerton (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, if other sources say the same thing, use other sources. If they don't, well, it's probably not true. Guy (help!) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think editors should have to use other sources. If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate. Blanket ban of sources are wrong because it cuts off minority perspectives. For example, if a famous Iranian general wrote an op-ed in PressTV, we wouldn't be able to cite it unless that op-ed was republished in other sources. That is not fair. ImTheIP (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate". You said it - "within reason".

If you deliberately use an unreliable source such as RT where alternative reliable sources are known to be available, all you're doing is creating work for whoever later comes along, finds the unreliable source, and has to redo the research to replace it. That puts it well outside the bounds of "within reason". Kahastok talk 22:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has to clean Wikipedia of links to RT. ImTheIP (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG Iranian viewpoints are often not presented in other sources, or those sources might distort Iranian viewpoints. This doesn't just apply to Iranian politics, but they could simply misrepresent what's happening inside Iran. We already have the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy and I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen Fox News openly attack the culture and religion of the Iranian people.VR _talk 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, WP is supposed to reflect the major viewpoints represented in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). Iranian media being conspiratorial and fake news does reduce the number of reliable sources which reflect Iranian perspectives. Maybe they could clean up their act. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, we don't reduce our standards to include shitty sources because they are the only ones that repeat what shitty people say. Guy (help!) 22:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a reasonable assumption that the views of the Iranian government also reflect the views of a substantial portion of the people of Iran (although how many Iranians agree with their government is controversial, see this example). So saying "shitty people" is really uncalled for. Consider what implications your comment has for WP:Systemic bias.VR _talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship; there is absolutely no reason to assume any such thing. Just the opposite, in fact. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, so there is a Canadian National Post article/op-ed that is filled with bunk and within days other sources like the AP, Reuters, AFP, and an Israeli at the National Post show it too be bunk. If anything your example shows we don't need PressTV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the legitimacy of this approach: Apparently, the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which runs or supports by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states. First, Russia Today[63], now Press TV and later many Chinese as well as Arab media. So this trend will undermine the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV and it needs a broader consensus. I mean the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so why should there be any reliance placed on sources that are not only censored, but openly embrace chanting out the party line? If we need to take a government's word for something, or represent their views, we can quote their own websites and press releases. There's no need to apply the distorting lens of that state's pet media organizations. GPinkerton (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you have not got the point and your argumentation is absurd. From the beginning, Wikipedia has declared that it does not believe in an orthodox or main stream narration, thus it has chosen to narrate all of the viewpoints, even the viewpoints of Fascists. Thus if we want to write a neutral article about Benito Mussolini, we should cover his own viewpoint as well, no matter how Fascist he would be. In addition, your argumentation is based on self-contradiction. If wikipedia policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, then it should not censor anything.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with GPinkerton here. If we need to quote the Iranian regime for their POV, we can go directly to their websites rather than having to weed out all the rubbish that these state-sponsored publicity outlets publish. I've come across so much of this recently and it's been very time consuming going through endless RfCs and talk page discussions trying to show what we already know about these outlets. The problem is that the Iranian regime's disinformation has spread beyond Iranian media:

• How Iran spreads disinformation around the world Reuters
• Iran’s threats to BBC Persian staff must be confronted The Guardian
• Facebook dismantles disinformation network tied to Iranian media Al jazeera
• Iran's propaganda implies Soleimani is being widely mourned — and the U.S. press is buying it NBC
• Iran has online disinformation operations, too CNN
• Iranian Propaganda Abroad

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A good strategy, so take this:

• BBC to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 after false child abuse allegations
• WATCH: BBC forced to apologise on air for 'fake news' GERS figure
• BP denies BBC accusations over Senegal gas deal
• BBC admits ‘anti-Semitism’ claim against Jackie Walker was false. Where’s LABOUR’S apology?
• Corbyn claims BBC report on anti-Semitism in Labour full of ‘inaccuracies’

Hahaha...--Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Funny, using Scottish Nationalist paper to attack the BBC (!) and then using a Labour Party blog to ... try to deflect criticism of the Labour Party and harp on their eternal victimhood and then using an oil company's denials to ... prove the unreliability of the BBC ...? What's next, using PressTV to attack the legitimacy of Israel? Using RT to say how wonderful Putin is? Please ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether certain sources are considered to have a conflict of interest

There is a request for comment on whether certain sources ("articles by any media group that [...] discredits its competitors") are considered to have a conflict of interest. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? — Newslinger talk 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can Photos/Images be used as reliable source?

This question was bothering me for long but since I have a current case in front of me. A new user started adding statements about whose photos and statues are installed in Parliament of India. Whether we can have such statements is issue of separate debate but they added links to photos of those portraits/statues as citations. You can see those contributions of above mentioned user here. Can we really use images hosted somewhere else as a reliable source? QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

QueerEcofeminist, we just had that discussion and the answer is "no". (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, Hey thanks for the link, I will read it and share with the concerned users too. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, Can government/parliament sources (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha: two houses of the Indian Parliament) be used as reliable source?' I haven't used photos/images as sources. I had added the Indian parliament's sources with their text but it all reverted. I didn't add photos/portraits without sources. Are government/parliament sources not reliable source? Are portraits or statues in the Indian Parliament not useful to add in the articles? eg भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

They might well fall foul of wp:primary. But there may also be issues of wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and Buidhe:, Please see my deleted edits ( 1 2 3 ). Are these edits really related to portraits/images/photos or statues? Is this correct act by User:QueerEcofemist?

Check out these edits ( 1, 2, 3, 4 (source already added), 5 ). Images of portraits / statues as well as their references are omitted by QueerEcofeminist. The images were not used as the sources, but these edits were deleted for the same reason. please Comment on this.

Portraits and statues of some of the country's most important figures have been erected in the Indian Parliament. In my opinion, the people whose portraits or statues are in this important place should also be briefly mentioned in the Wikipedia article of those people. To that end, I made brief changes to the articles of those persons, with sources of the Indian Parliament (the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha), and added to the article their portraits and statues available on the Commons. The changes I have made are simple. User:QueerEcofemist has deleted my edits from the article for the wrong reason. Please let me know if it is wrong to include information about Parliamentary portraits and statues in those persons articles, including sources from the Indian Parliament. Because I'm in confuse right now.

This article [64] contains information about the statues in Parliament Square in the United Kingdom. There are also separate articles for all the statues here. Then why does User:QueerEcofemist insist that even a brief mention of statues in the Indian Parliament should not be on the Wikipedia article of the person concerned? I have honestly expressed my opinion. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That looks like the caption is being cited, not the picture itself. Citing the caption is acceptable presuming that the source is WP:RS and the info is WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence my reference to undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic - The Biography

Source is: Chris Bowers; (2017) Novak Djokovic - The Biography John Blake, ISBN 178606460X [65] and information from the source is "part-Croat ethnic heritage". Is this reliable source and whether this information can be used in the Novak Djokovic article. Mikola22 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Usual weak sourcing in sport related articles and ethno-nationalistic edit-warring among the Balkan area editors complement each other appropriately in this article. As of this book, John Blake certainly is not the best publisher for this kind of information, but - looking at the other sources in the article - Serbian ancestry of his father has even worse source. It seems main source of contention here is how to write known facts (how much "Croat" his mother is). My proposal: simply write where they (mother and father of Novak Djokovic) were born and do not search for their "ethnic heritage" (which is hard to reliably ascertain with such poor sources like tabloid press). Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• If that's the only source, exclude. "Chris Bowers" appears as author only of a series of cheap tennis biographies from this publisher. Guy (help!) 12:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that we don’t have a better source about the origins of his parents. For mother we have 2 sources in the article, the first does not speak about origin, second is from Serbian tabloid in which his mother is mentioned as Croatian (obviously in an ethnic sense) while other editor thinks it is a label only for Croatia. We also have the latest source(this month) from the one of Serbian television portal in which Novak Đoković's grandfather(on the mother's side) from Serbia says for himself that he is of Croatian nationality (Croatian ethnic origin) and that Novak Đoković has Croatian blood. I can also put that source for discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we leave it out, we do not use crap sources just to fill out details. If RS do not care neither should weSlatersteven (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22, As Steven says, leave it out. Guy (help!) 17:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, You mean all sources? Then informations about the mother and father must get out of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That may be warranted. However, we discussed here source(s) concerning the mother of Novak Djokovic, so start with poorly sourced (and contested) informations about her. Ethnicity (or how it is called in the Balkans) of his father is sourced to Happy TV, which again is not a stellar source, but at least this part was not disputed yet. Pavlor (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If this (best source that we have) must to go from the article then I guess other sources worse than this must to go from of the article. As far as the mother's side is concerned, we have nothing. That is, nothing should remain in the article from mother's side. (so start with poorly sourced (and contested) informations about her), where to start? I am the editor, I explained here sources which exist for the mother. If this best source is not good then all other sources(mother side) has to go out from the article, worse sources cannot stay while best source has to go. Or we will invent informations about his mother. Mikola22 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not some tit for tat exercise, you asked about a source and you have been answered. If you want to raise other sources do so, but in a separate section.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• absolutely a reliable source! Slatersteven This book is the only full-length biography of Novak Djokovic. I'm surprised to see you call it a "crap source". I think that when a sports writer researches and publishes an entire book on a subject, we should take its word seriously. At least as seriously as the word of the many newspaper articles cited in the same article, which are by contrast not written by experts like Chris Bowers. Though there's no reason to think that it's a subpar source, even if it was we should still use it as being superior to the alternatives. I saw a featured article Edmund Sharpe almost entirely based on a self-published CD-ROM put together by an obscure, uncredentialed, amateur historian. The article passed featured article review, because no superior sources existed. Similarly, this book is the best source on Novak Djokovic, even if some claim it to be imperfect.Behindthekeys (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• We have very little information about the publisher. Does anyone know anything more about the Kings Road Publishing? We don't know if it's a self-publishing service. I can't find a reviewer in the book.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Part of the Bonnier Group (actual imprint of this book is John Blake). Books like this are bordeline-RS, but weak sourcing seems to be quite common in sport related articles. Main issue here is the intended use of this book - it may be fine for uncontroversial facts, but I would be warry to use it the way the OP proposed. Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Breitbart is talking about us

h t t p s : / / www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/

Don't miss this at the bottom:

Disclosure: The author has previously been involved in disputes on Wikipedia with some parties referenced in this article

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hahahaha, still literally fighting the GamerGate thing five years later. And he says *I* have too much time on my hands? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

T...No comment, I was going to be sarky (see Draft:Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are).Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Section should be called "Aggrieved Wikipedia editor given a platform by furiously unreliable source to write critical articles". His summary is of course, almost right but not even right. Koncorde (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You could say it is alt-right. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, TDA again? Not going to open a Breitbart article. Guy (help!) 22:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, JzG. He mentions you and several other editors by name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Annoying, TDA "quotes" the usernames of certain editors EXCEPT for Guy and Lee who they call by their full name. Lee may not be an issue but that's likely be OUTING in Guy's case. --Masem (t) 23:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's really outing in this case. I remember a recent comment by Guy where he discussed the German equivalent of his surname, which by looking it up on wikipedia you could very easily find out what its english equivalent was. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a precedent that if it's not explicitly mentioned on Wikipedia, it's a violation of OUTING (even if connecting the dots is obvious), though if Guy doesn't care about it, then there's no harm done. Sceptre (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, no, it's merely a shitty exploitation of the fact that I am open about my real world identity (and TDA is not). Guy (help!) 21:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic - Happy TV

TV show is source for this information "paternal Serbian descent".[66] This TV show is Ćirilica and from Happy TV.[67] I don't know where it is spoken about "Serbian descent". Is this source RS? Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say is it an interview with Novak Đoković?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Nikola Pilić and father of Novak Đoković. Mikola22 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So its an interview with someones father? The source would thus be a primary source for information about his family. But yes would be an RS for his claims (assuming its there).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will not watch the video now, but which information we must find? I guess information in which he states that he is a Serb or Serbian origin? Mikola22 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, to claim "Serbian decent" it must say that. If he says he is Serbian is he referring to his ethnic background his nationality, or (like Kennedy) making a statement of some kind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, can I enter information that he is ethnic Serb in the article if he says that he is Serbian or I can only enter that he is Serbian. Mikola22 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I would need to see the context, Kennedy said he was a Berliner, he neither came from Berlin nor was he a doughnut.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have this for now, "Ali Novak je Srbin, rođen je ovde".(But Novak is a Serb, he was born here) and "Mi smo Srbi i ostali smo Srbi do kraja"(We are Serbs and we have remained Serbs until the end). It is said in the context that Novak almost became an English because of England's offer to play tennis for England. Mikola22 (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Enough to say he is a Serbian national, just.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! Wait... did I say Sharknado? I meant The Daily Mail 3: Fight Over Every Word.

To be fair, Sharknado 3 and the repeated relitigating of our article on The Daily Mail are both multi-part disasters...

The latest round in the ongoing battle to stop Wikipedia from saying bad things about The Daily Mail involves this paragraph:

The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations.

...and the discussion is at Talk:Daily Mail#Sourcing concerns. The latest bone of contention is this article:

Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row --The Media Fund.

Author's bio.

So, are the sources reliable, and do they support the claims in the article?

References

Changing the subject with a lurch, our article at Media Fund is for a completely different organization and should be disambiguated. Also, Sharknado (film series) says "In his quest, Fin fights Nazis, dinosaurs, knights, and even takes a ride on Noah’s Ark." I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course if you want other shark-related cinema, check out my userpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I might have torpedoed myself by attempting to be lighthearted and fun. I really do want an answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• You also torpedoed yourself by posting a long list of sources which are going to have different answers. #1, for example, is an article from a reliable source but is essentially about how we, Wikipedia, banned use of the Daily Mail. It should be pretty obvious that we can't use ourselves as a source? #2 is under discussion below but I don't see any reason it should be reliable - just reading it says the DM is the least reliable, but only just above The Times which is a highly respected and reliable source. That makes it problematic in a different way. #3 isn't clear which bit of it is being cited: it's from The New Yorker, a highly reliable source, but seems to be about how the DM is powerful, rather than its reliability. The list is just too long without being more specific. --GRuban (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are newspaper articles never considered reliable for history?

To my knowledge, there is no guideline, policy, nor consensus that articles from major news organizations were considered unreliable for history.

There is an RfC here about a passage concerning a statement about the history of Demchok (historical village). The passage was previously removed by Kautilya3 (at Demchok (historical village), at Demchok, Ladakh, at Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) on the basis of Newspapers are not reliable sources for history citing the essay WP:HISTRS. For this case in particular, there are no academic sources or other reliable sources that contradict the removed passage.

The essay advocates for preferring academic sources over news articles, which I agree with, but I don't see it suggesting that news articles are inherently unreliable. Aren't news articles acceptable for use in history coverage on Wikipedia, particularly when there are no academic sources contradicting them? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

wp:primay implies that a newspaper to close to the events is a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles by good academic historians in papers should be treated as reliable. Later coverage by journalists should be treated with caution, though of course many of the best-respected journalists later write books. Current news reporting may or may not be primary, but should be treated as a last resort, though for very recent events it will usually be the only option. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've come across a lot of nonsense in history articles, up to and including claims that Michael Davitt was the inspiration for Gandhi's nonviolent strategy. So I recommend avoiding them, unless the article was written by an expert. Newspapers also are more likely to have an axe to grind in ethnic/national conflicts, although that may not be the case here, I don't know. (t · c) buidhe 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification for this particular case: it's two newspaper articles from 2005 and 2017 about what happened in the 1950s and 1960s. So far, nobody has found academic sources about this particular claim. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ahh I see, then I would ask, is the issue an ongoing one, such as a contested claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This particular claim is not an ongoing issue, but is related to the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute. It's about a claim regarding the physical control of a village before and after the 1962 Sino-Indian War. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Then yes it is about an ongoing issue, establishing a claim. As such the newspapers fall into wp:primnary category.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This is one of the few things that both sides agree on and is about the current de facto situation, rather than about establishing a claim in the modern conflict. There is also an absence of competing claims from either side. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Then use another source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So far, nobody has found academic sources about this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

India is not the only place that publishes newspapers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani newspapers are particularly prone to unreliability in any circumstances, and if this is yet another part of the long-running saga you and Kautilya3 have been engaged in then partisanship is indeed likely to be a big problem with such sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You could have saved us all some time if you had been more specific. This is the edit you are referring to and, yep, for example, Indian Defence Review is definitely not reliable for anything to do with a conflict involving India. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: I linked the diffs and discussion if anyone wanted to look at this particular case. However, this thread was intended to be a general question about the broad claim that Newspapers are not reliable sources for history. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you sort of hid the diff a bit but it gets worse, doesn't it? You've just come out of a situation where you were called out for abuse of procedure etc and now you seem to be doing it again between here and an RfC. I've just see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#RfC_on_Demchok_pre-_and_post-1962_Sino-Indian_War. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: What are you talking about? I opened an ANI thread about Kautilya's personal conduct in a different (and now-settled) content dispute. The RfC that you refer to and that I linked at the beginning of this discussion is me opening a formal discussion about a separate content dispute. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous, I think. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. My stated question is still Aren't news articles acceptable for use in history coverage on Wikipedia, particularly when there are no academic sources contradicting them? — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would not say that newspapers are never reliable sources for history. If there are established scholars who write about particular topics and provide background that they know from their scholarship, I would not mind taking them to be reliable. But in the particular case that the OP brought here, that is not the case. Luv Puri has written about India-Pakistan issues on Kashmir but his background on Ladakh affairs is not known. His column is based on a day trip to the region in question. Claude Arpi is knowledgeable about the Sino-Indian border dispute, but there is considerable WP:SYNTHESIS in OP's claims regarding what Arpi said. We also have to account for Arpi's own POV as a Tibetologist. How do you like his book title: "Born in Sin: The Panchsheel agreement and the sacrifice of Tibet"? Should I pick up random claims from that book and insert them as facts in Wikipedia?

Particularly troubling are the OP's claims that there are no academic sources contradicting them. I would like to know where he looked. There are plenty of sources on the Sino-Indian border dispute as well as the 1962 war. There is a troubling pattern on the part of OP in throwing up dubious claims and waiting for them to be contradicted by some other alert editor. This amounts to POV pushing by attrition. One has to make an honest-to-goodness effort on one's own to find out what the facts are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have spent hours (an "honest-to-goodness effort") searching through Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and a university academic library. I haven't seen a source contradicting this claim, which both the given Indian and Chinese sources agree on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to show the Chinese source that supports the claim "Demchok were physically controlled by India from 1953 until its effective split in 1962", or even "By the mid-1950s, India physically controlled the settlements in Demchok on both banks of the Charding Nullah".Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: An article from Headline Daily:

到了1956年的時候，印度當局再一次出兵占領了典角村等中國領土 1962年，10月23日，我國邊防軍隊在雪地急行700公里到達了典角村，順利的消滅了入侵印軍，成功收復了失地。但是後來，印度還是趁機侵占了典角村以西500公里土地，並且還恬不知恥的將此地稱為「碟木綽克」。
[In 1956, the Indian authorities once again sent troops to occupy Chinese territories such as Dêmqog. In 1962, on October 23, our border troops rushed 700 kilometers in the snow to reach Dêmqog. They successfully defeated the invading Indian troops and successfully recovered their lost ground. Later, India seized the opportunity to invade and occupy the land between Dêmqog and 500 kilometers west of Dêmqog, and they shamelessly call this area "Demchok".]

— MarkH₂₁^talk 01:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That does not support either 1953 to 1962 or By the mid-1950s. At best it could be used to say "in October 1962". It might possibly be usable for saying "1956 to 1962", but some might say it does not really say that, only implies it (please read wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As I anticipated, this thread is now just relitigating the RfC on the specific instance the original poster referred to. It isn't a general enquiry, nor is RSN a particular great place for generalised queries because pretty much all sources do have at least some limited extent of reliability and so context matters. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion to adhere as closely as possible to what is supported by the sources is a good one, and that may mean that the article reflects a bit of uncertainty and ambiguity around these questions. On general principle, if there are no higher quality reliable sources that explain who possessed this territory and when, then it may be alright to rely on news sources. It's very odd that no academic sources can be found to help settle this question one way or another.TheBlueCanoe 15:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Something else to consider... If there are no academic sources (and barely any media sources)... it is likely UNDUE to even mention it. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic - Nova S

TV show Balkanskom Ulicom from Nova S.[68] The mother and father of Novak Djokovic were guests on that show. This is TV show on YouTube.[69] The presenter says that it is important to know from which family we are, who our grandparents. In that sense, the mother of Novak Djokovic talks about an anecdote when she become a "singer". Conversation: mother of Novak Djoković speaks: "where is the bride from?(someone from the relatives asks), she is Croat, (relatives answer) a "singer"? because she did not hear well and the words are similar. (min 9:22-9:23).

• Dijana Djoković was born in Belgrade and does not say that she is from Croatia, she say just a "Croat". In this context she said minute earlier that "at that time we did not hide who we are and what we are." (this is usually said in the context of mixed marriages), (min 8:54-8:59). I am interested whether this is RS and whether its mention of Croat, can be used in the article as her nationality? Mikola22 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Just so I understand what's going on: the point is that you're trying very hard to find some sources in order to support adding content to the article Novak Djokovic about the subject's ethnicity, right? In particular, that you are unhappy with a situation in which the article mentions only his nationality? The big takeaway from the policy WP:BALASP is An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. So if you are stretching to these great lengths to find something reliable commented on this, that is a good indication that it should not be included, even if you are successful at finding something reliable. --JBL (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not looking for sources I am looking reliable sources. Novak Djokovic had an Croatian interview where he said that his mother was a Croat from Vinkovci, then we had Serbian sources in which the father says that his mother is Croatian, then we have this source, then we have the latest interview from grandfather Novak Djoković in which grandfather says that he is of Croatian nationality (origin). Someone constantly denies these sources that they are not RS, I want to know which source is reliable. Therefore Wikipedia offers this possibility and I ask that it be discussed. Which WP:BALASP etc,etc. Is it forbidden to put information about the origin of his mother if RS exist? If that source does not exist, this information will not be in the article. Mikola22 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad we agree: you are going to great lengths to argue that a few minor mentions constitute something meaningful. But this kind of stretching is exactly what policy warns against; the quote from Jimbo in just above WP:BALASP is in a slightly different context, but I think it is very relevant: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. It this were a significant aspect of Djokovic's life, it would be easy to find quality sources that discuss it. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

All an up:undue rather than RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: @Joel B. Lewis:I'm interested in whether this source is RS and whether this information is usable, if is not, then say so. We go to other sources. If other sources are not usable they will not be in the article. If some source is usable(information) and RS then I will put that information in the article. If there is any problem with this information or my edit(undue,WP:BALASP) then you will come and state the reason why you are removing that information from the article. I came here to seek advice for RS. The sources in Novak Djokovic article are same and for Novak Djokovic's father, so I don't see anyone removing them from the article (undue,WP:BALASP). You can edit this article right away because it’s the same thing, and to see what the problem is. Mikola22 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Its not that black and white, wp:primary come into it, so it would be an RS for a stated opinion by the person being interviewed. But it would not be an RS for it being true, nor would it trump other sources that contradict it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So it is not a quality RS, ok. Mikola22 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic Jutarnji List

The president of the Croatian Tennis Association states in the Jutarnji List newspaper "S obzirom na majku Hrvaticu, vjerujem da ima uvjete za hrvatsko državljanstvo".."Considering his Croat mother, I believe that he has conditions for Croatian citizenship". Jutarnji List. [70] and information from this newspaper (2006)[71] Is this RS and is this information useful for information about mother nationality. Mikola22 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Did it exist as a country when she was born?Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

She was born in Yugoslavia, Serbia ie Belgrade. Mikola22 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we have Problem, we can say "president of the Croatian Tennis Association has said she was Croatian".Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, in the article about Drazen Petrovic, in the newspaper, some private person say that Drazen Petrovic is a Serb. In this article is also said that he is ethnic Serb although ethnic is not mentioned in source(newspaper) and in article there is no information that this person says that Drazen is a Serb. If your explanation is correct it means I have to edit that article according to your advice. Mikola22 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic, Slobodna Dalmacija

Interview of Novak Djokovic in the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija (2006). "Kad sam ušao u četvrtfinale Roland Garrosa, osobno me nazvao premijer Koštunica, čestitao mi na uspjehu. Šokirao sam se jer je znao baš sve o meni. I da mi je majka Hrvatica, iako je rođena u Beogradu, jer su svi njezini iz Vinkovaca i tamo imam puno rodbine.".."When I entered the quarterfinals of Roland Garros, Prime Minister Kostunica personally called me and congratulated me on my success. I was shocked because he knew just about everything about me. And that my mother is Croat, even though she was born in Belgrade, because all of her are from Vinkovci and I have a lot of relatives there". Slobodna Dalmacija newspaper [72] and information[73] Is Slobodna Dalmacija RS and is this information useful for his mother nationality. Mikola22 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

We still have the problem of Croatia was not a nation at the time. So I am not sure we can say it was her nationality. Maybe "Said she was of Croatian decent". Not I am sure why this matters and is taking up so much time.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand so please clarify. Novak Djokovic said that his mother is Croat even though she was born in Belgrade, I don't know what it matters whether Croatia was not a nation at that time, which time? Please explain. You said that Serb is "if he says he is Serbian is he referring to his ethnic background his nationality" and this is same thing Croat. Mikola22 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise you said that if the source doesn't mention decent, neither can we. Mikola22 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You cannot be born in a country that does not exist.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Croatia exist at the time of birth of Novak Djokovic mother, but you probably think she wasn't born in Croatia and she can't be Croat nationality? Is that a problem? You suggest what we can state instead of nationality. Here we talking about ethnic origin , Croat. We can't state decent because source does not say this. The same thing is and in the Dražen Petrović article, the source only mentions Serb and in article writes(His father, of Serb ethnicity), If Novak's mother is a Croat, then she is of Croat ethnicity . Mikola22 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mikola, Slatersteven is saying that she can be called an ethnic Croat. It’s just that you cannot say her nationality is Croatian as she never registered for it nor was Croatia an independent country but a state within Yugoslavia at the time of her birth. That’s all. OyMosby (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then let him suggest what to write. If is decent then and article of Drazen Petrović must have such a determinanton. However when it comes to "Croat", it has the same ethnic meaning as the "Serb". We must have identical informations(in these two articles) because they are identical facts. That is my opinion. Let someone say what is most correct and so it will be in both articles. I edit Dražen Petrović article ( He is of paternal Serbian and maternal Croatian descent), this information was from article of Novak Djokovic and explained on talk page. Same editor remove this information from the article and with help of another editor in one article (Novak Djoković) keep "descent" fact and in Dražen Petrović article they keep ethnic "Serb ethnicity" fact. And it's about the same thing Croat-Serb. Otherwise I personally in my life never heard or read that someone from Dražen Petrović family sad that his father is Serb or Serb ethnicity. Someone else is talking about it(private persons not from Croatia, newspapers) and it is an integral part of the article. Otherwise Dražen Petrović is a symbol of Croatia and everything is known about him but this information does not exist in Croatia. Mikola22 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do you have to repeat that a million times? There is no place here to discuss that article, nor do you use correct comparisons. We don't have a reliable English source for Djokovic. In English, Serb = ethnic Serb and Croat = ethnic Croat. The term “Serbian / Croatian descent” refers more to the country. Petrović's father is not from Serbia (Bosnian Serb), but Djokovic's mother is from Croatia.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: "Djokovic's mother is from Croatia" Where does it say? She is from Serbia, Belgrade. Mikola22 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. She is from Serbia, but her parents are from Croatia. We do not have a clear source for ethnicity.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: That's why we have additional source from grandfather interview which confirms that Novak Djoković's mother is Croat (Croatian blood and his nationality ie origin.) Cannot term, "from Croatia", "Croatian citizen" and Novak claim "my mother is Croat, even though she was born in Belgrade" mean the same, a person from Croatia. Person from Croatia is not born in Serbia, that person is born in Croatia. This is RS, for now we have two RS and if you wish I can start RfC with your and my proposal and that’s it, so let the editors decide. Mikola22 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The newspaper may be reliable, but that does not mean that it is always neutral. (WP:NEUTRALSOURCE) I think we should find a Serbian reliable portal that states the same claim. “And that my mother is Croat, even though she was born in Belgrade” - This is not a correct translation.

Serbian: Hrvat (Хрват) = ethnic Croat, citizen of Croatia; Srbin (Србин) = ethnic Serb, citizen of Serbia

Croatian: Hrvat = ethnic Croat, citizen of Croatia; Srbin = ethnic Serb; Srbijanac = citizen of Serbia

We also should to find a English source that explicitly uses the term Croat and not to translate arbitrarily. Furthermore, this is source from 2006. (WP:AGE MATTERS) Djokovic is a world-famous star who is in the media almost every day, there would certainly be a huge number of reliable sources of recent date in many languages ​​for any important information about him. To conclude, this article doesn't meet enough criteria to be included in this case.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For now this is RS, focus on this RS. WP:AGE MATTERS, in various articles there are many sources from beginning of 20th century and they are RS, as for WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, this could be said for any interview or article about someone from newspaper. If you think that this source is not RS then you have to confirm it here, for now it is RS. Everything else is for Novak Djokovic talk page. Mikola22 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGE MATTERS, in various articles there are many sources from beginning of 20th century - But not for currently current and world famous people, especially not for disputed situations.

WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, this could be said for any interview or article about someone from newspaper - Of course that could be said for any interview. Any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material. (WP:INTERVIEW) Again, we need to be especially careful when it comes to disputed situations..--WEBDuB (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For now this source is RS. "disputed situations", it’s an interview from Novak Djokovic when no one knows who he is, I don't know what would here be "disputed situation"? This is RS. So far no one has said that this source is not RS. Mikola22 (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Is The Media Fund a reliable source?

This is a narrow question arising from a discussion over here and as mentioned above:

Is The Media Fund a reliable source? --Guest2625 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djoković, Nova S

Interview with grandfather of Novak Djoković (from mother side). Interview is from Nova S. (2020)[74] "Ekipa portala Nova.rs posetila je Noletovog dedu u njegovom stanu na Čukarici... The team(journalist) of the Nova.rs portal visited Novak grandfather in his apartment in Čukarica", "kaže Zdenko i dodaje da Đoković ima puno pravo da se predstavlja kao Srbin, iako po majčinoj strani ima hrvatske krvi...says Zdenko and adds that Djokovic has every right to present himself as a Serb, even though he has Croatian blood on his mother's side", "Ja sam po nacionalnosti Hrvat i rođen sam u Vinkovcima..I am a Croat by nationality(ethnic origin) and I was born in Vinkovci", "Uvek sam govorio da sam Jugosloven ili Hrvat, Srbin nikad nisam bio...I always said that I was a Yugoslav or a Croat, I was never a Serb", "Normalno je da će biti više priklonjen Srbima i ja nemam ništa protiv toga. Ne bi bolje prošao u životu ni da se predstavlja kao Hrvat...It is normal that(Novak Djokovic) he will be more favor to Serbs, and I have nothing against that. It would not be better in his life if he had presented himself as a Croat."[75] I am interested is this RS and whether this informations can be used for the origin of his mother? Mikola22 (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Only in so far as "according to his grandfather". Why is this even important?Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Because some editors consider that in the Serbian sources when is mentioned mother of Novak Djoković as Croat it means from Croatia not ethnic origin and in other case Serb mean ethnic origin. I am editor on Wikipedia and I have to respect other articles(in this case Dražen Petrović article), there is also in the source mentioned Serb, but in the article states ethnic Serb. This source would be a confirmation for the ethnic origin of Novak Djokovic's mother ie ethnic Croat fact(same as in the case of Drazen Petrovic). We cannot have two different facts and the sources are the same. Mikola22 (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, its a confirmation its what someone thought. It might be best if all reference to anything except where she was born was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why we should move informations from the article about the origin of Novak Djokovic's mother or father if they are from reliable sources. In any case, a consensus is needed for that and if majority of editors decide, this informations will go out of the article. Otherwise we have and other articles from former Yugoslavia (famous persons) with such or worse sources so then it must be wider consensus and not just for the article about Novak Djokovic. In any case I am here for discussion, but all articles should be treated equally. Mikola22 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Please, stop with WP:BALASP and WP:BLUDGEON. You are really pushing for make changes every day for weeks, although other editors disagree. The source doesn't describe Novak's origin, but states what Novak's mother tells what Novak's paternal grandmother said. Also, you don't translate texts from Serbo-Croatian correctly. Tthe term Hrvati / Hrvatice (Croatians) is often used in Serbian and Croatian languages for the citizens of Croatia, not only for Croats as ethnic groups. Comparisons with Drađen Petrović's article are also wrong. There we have precise translations into English.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: "The source doesn't describe Novak's origin, but states what Novak's mother tells what Novak's paternal grandmother said." Show me in this source where Novak Djoković mother is talking about her mother ie paternal grandmother. Therefore if you came here without knowledge of what this source is talking about it just talks about you and your editing. Therefore you first must look at what the source is talking about and then accuse me, not the other way around because it could be characterized as personal attack. Mikola22 (talk)

Sorry, my mistake. I was confused by two sections about the Nova S. This is certainly RS. In this case, Novak's grandfather said that he has always declared himself a Croat or Yugoslav. That’s all we know about his maternal ethnic background.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(I was confused by two sections about the Nova S) this first source from Nova S is not RS, let's move on and not use RSN for personal attack. I forgive you. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no such as personal attack. I agree that the source could be included and it can be explained that Novak's maternal grandfather is considered an ethnic Yugoslav and a Croat. I have nothing against this information being mentioned.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If some person says that he is a Croat by nationality, then he is a Croat by nationality (ethnic), we must respect RS. As for "Novak's maternal grandfather is considered an ethnic Yugoslav and a Croat", he doesn't say that, he says that he always declared himself "or as Yugoslav or as Croat and never Serb" however, he clearly states earlier that he is of Croatian nationality not Yugoslav, and we must respect what the source says. Mikola22 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As you yourself said, in the same interview he said that he declared himself both a Yugoslav and a Croat. I think the source can be included, but it has to start with: “According to his grandfather...”--WEBDuB (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It is only an additional source, "declared himself" it is a term which does not mean something concrete, in that context we must also state that he was never a Serb. It makes no sense to state that because it has no concrete meaning and the article is not about grandfather but Novak Djokovic. You can suggest this sentence on RfC and editors will decide. And that's it. Mikola22 (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Does violence fall under WP:RSMED?

In global warming, the following sentence is supported by sources that don't meet the higher RSMED standards (primary research, and a newspaper article):

Links have been made between a wide range of violent behaviour including, violent crimes, civil unrest, and wars, but conclusive scientific evidence remains elusive.

. As violence causes ill-health; should I improve sourcing? I think a case could be made that it falls under Wikipedia:Biomedical information's Health effects. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is not biomedical information, unless I have to source information about violent massacres being caused by Nazi Germany to MEDRS compliant sources (!) (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• No. There has been a movement in society to place everything from gun ownership to voting preferences under medicine, but RSMED applies only to biomedical information. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• No... but with a question. In general I would say no. Certainly things like studies of violet crime rates vs say weather/the economy/etc are not necessarily the domain of what I think most would consider medicine or medical research. However, I think we might want a carve out for cases where it is claimed violence is due to or more likely in cases with a specific medical condition. So a claim that a brain chemistry imbalance makes someone more violet probably should be reserved for medical literature. Springee (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

vashivisuals.com and cinephiliabeyond.org

Hi, I found these two good sources for Raiders of the Lost Ark. They seem reliable, the first is by an A.C.E. member and the second has a full editorial team, but could someone give me their educated opinion before I rely on them too much? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millenial

I would like to propose the deprecation of The Post Millenial as a source of information used on Wikipedia. There have been enough incidents now to show that the source is not reliable:

• The site was posting United Arab Emirates propaganda from fake journalists. [76]
• Multiple instances of presenting hoaxes as facts. For instance, most recently, the website claimed a murdered protester shot a car five times [77], a hoax and fabrication which later had to be corrected by them [78]
• Site received criticism from Bellingcat [79]
• Site employs controversial bloggers like Andy Ngo ("editor at large") who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information.

The site should not be treated as a reliable source of information, the same way The Daily Caller isn't. BeŻet (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd think that's a good idea. Past discussions seem along these lines, e.g. archive 278 (their ethics policy was plagiarised), archive 289 (unreliable and undue), archive 296 (rating it "generally unreliable"), this CBC article on it as a source. If others concur, do you want to do this as a properly-formed deprecation RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent example ... MOST of the media covered this incident the exact same way. This is why we put huge warning tags on articles about recent events (and especially breaking news like in this example)... the press frequently gets it wrong for a few days.

The important question is: Does an outlet issue corrections once the facts become clearer? Reliable media sources do, unreliable sources do not. So, does Post Millennial issue corrections? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of past discussion is pretty clearly that it's a terrible source that shouldn't be used - the question is only if it should be more actively barred from being used. You're asking the question about corrections, do you have evidence to present that the answer is yes? Do you have, more generally speaking, fresh evidence that it isn't a terrible source, one given to fabrications and conspiracy theories, as documented in the previous discussions? - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• They do not issue corrections. In fact, per [80], after they were contacted about posting articles from fake personas, they were one of the ones whose reaction was: deleted their articles without any statement. That's almost a textbook way to be classified as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. They'd probably love it if we did it. Oh! The poor oppressed centrists who just want to speak the hard truth, cancelled by the left fascist cabal that runs Wikipedia. We'd be doing them a favour! Has thepostmillennial.com been used to support false claims? Not as far as I can tell. It's been used in 2018_Ontario_general_election to support the claim that they endorsed the PC, which they did. In Garnett Genuis it supports a claim that Genuis wrote something in the post millennial (he did). Its use in List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is unproblematic, but probably could have been sourced to something else. in Belinda Karahalios it support the claim that Tanya Granic Allen made an accusation (she did, in an opinion piece in the PM. In Marc_Kielburger it's one of three sources, and could probably be omitted. The writer makes the hilarious observation that "Canadaland has an obvious bias and activist bent to its publishing". Pot, meet kettle. In Barbara Kay it's pretty just linking to what Kay had to say about herself, and again, she did say those things. Same with Barbara Kay controversy she's used again, as a source in Edward Kruk for "national and international media have interviewed Kruk and quoted his research", and Kay does indeed say '"We ignore the problem of father absence to our peril," wrote Associate Professor Edward Kruk, from the University of British Columbia, in 2006.' That's a completely unnecessary quote used to inflate his importance, but the PM's use is is hardly controversial. I'm not a fan of the Post Millennial, nor of Andy Ngo, I just don't see how your proposal would do any good. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

10 uses in article space strikes me as 9 too many, frankly. What the deprecated source would think of being deprecated is in no way a consideration - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite an evident conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[81]. There is a problem of consistency in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. The examples listed by the OP for why it is not reliable don't strike me as particularly compelling: one of them amounts to an ad hominem fallacy, another was an error that they corrected (errors happen all the time in news reporting — corrections are a positive sign for establishing reliability). I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The check you linked was last updated over 6 months ago, before bigger controversies emerged. BeŻet (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And "Media Bias Fact Check" is, itself, not authoritative or even all that respected. Per WP:RSP, There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bellingcat says they publish disinformation, thats the line we use and they’re over it. I also see no good reason to keep them around, at best they’re a fringe low quality biased source and past consensus has clearly been to hold them as unreliable. Deprecate away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat cites one incident they published fake information, not that they constantly publish it. It also notes that "their article is much more carefully worded than those authored by Paul and Infowars" and "did not botch the basic facts". According to the CBC[82], The Post Millenial has links to the Conservative Party of Canada. You think that's fringe, Horse Eye Jack? Jeesh, from how far the other side of the political spectrum are you looking at this to see that as fringe? --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the text of that article (entitled "Canadian news site The Post Millennial blurs line between journalism and conservative ‘pamphleteering’") supports the argument for deprecation. Unofficial links to a political party doesn't make a source non-fringe. BTW I’m an American conservative (center-right on a global spectrum) so thats a swing and a miss when it comes to guessing my political affiliation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Starting an RfC, which is required for deprecation. Please use the following section as a survey. Horse Eye Jack; BeŻet, David Gerard, TheBlueCanoe, Vexations, Blueboar (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Post Millennial

Should The Post Millennial be deprecated? (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed to deprecation. Has a reputation for bias, but also overall accuracy. I would say we can use it, but with caution. Judge reliability on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation That's quite a non-issue with a source which is used just 9 times in the whole Wikipedia. Yes, they are WP:BIASED so anyone should be careful with due weight and attribution. I find many of the statements by the OP here to be exaggerations. I do recommend reading the pieces by the CBC and Bellingat. Neither article, while critical, is damning. Bellingcat says that they were more careful than other sources which were duped and that they did not "botch the basic facts", although they used the same framing as the fake articles elsewhere. The outlet was founded only in 2017 so it's possible they are improving, or then they will not. Either way this is jumping the gun and it's pointless to RfC a source that isn't even used. --Pudeo (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you'd need to show that they were improving to be convincing - merely stating it's a philosophical possibility without providing any evidence is adding text without substance - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I would flip that... for us to deprecate, you would need to show that it has gained a significantly poor reputation. Deprecation should be reserved for the worst cases, not relatively borderline ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The RSes describing and documenting the site as fabricating information have already been presented, so this has been done, and Pudeo would indeed need to present actual countervailing RS evidence of the site's alleged improvement before it counts as a substantive claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat also calls their editor at large a "prominent individual within the disinformation ecosystem", and though it's a little more ambiguous appears to call them "disinformation". Loki (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - it's already considered generally unreliable, its main line is controversial hot takes on others' stories, it propagates conspiracy theories, it fabricates information - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per evidence above. It is quite clear that better sources will be always available, and given the history of posting hoaxes and fake news, we run into a risk of controversial content appearing in articles which would then require a case by case discussion; and it goes without saying that a strong bias is present, which seems to often get in the way of presenting facts in a neutral and understandable way. BeŻet (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - repeating my comments above, despite a conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[83]. There is some inconsistently in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • mediabiasfactcheck.com is literally just some guy's blog - it is not considered a relevant source for assessing the quality of a source at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per the support !votes above, on the general philosophy of getting out in front of a problem before it can become worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• It should certainly be listed as generally unreliable , and I think nothing would be lost by outright deprecatation , though it may not be time for that quite yet. (There should probably be an RFC using the full "1-4 options" if this RFC specifically about option 4 does not reach consensus, or perhaps this RFC should be reconstituted to use the usual 1-4 options...?) They plagiarized even their "ethics" policy from other newspapers(!) and they've gone beyond merely being WP:BIASED into being inaccurate numerous times, as noted (with refs/links) a previous time the site was discussed on this noticeboard (and above). -sche (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the first time I looked at the website. The site looks horrendous. I would advice all editors to avoid using it. However, there might be some editors out there who know more than me about the site and when it would be appropriate to use. For this reason, I will not deprecate the site (aka ban it). I will have faith when an editor uses this site that they had a good reason and they will attribute the source. Also it might in this case be useful if people who care about reliable source minutiae were informed of its use, so they could look with unbiased eyes whether the sites usage made sense. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. I feel like we discussed this already? Here, at least. They plagiarized their ethics policy, for heaven's sakes: In fact, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. The quote from a journalism professor at the end in particular summarizes them as They claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering. More generally, pretty much all the coverage of them is sharply negative - there's just no indication that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RSN requires. Anyone can start a blog to repost the news with their personal political spin on it, but there's no evidence that they do any sort of actual reporting or fact-checking at all, so I don't see how they're usable as a source - and the plagiarized ethics policy is particularly alarming because it implies that they are trying to appear to be reliable and respectable when they aren't. That's exactly the sort of source we ought to be depreciating. Also see [84], specifically the fact that when contacted about a clear error they did not issue a correction but instead deleted their [article] without any statement. This is not how an WP:RS behaves. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. We have tons of reliable sources saying that they fabricate information. I don't know how anyone could oppose depreciation for a source like that. Loki (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Part of this is on principle I don't think we should reflexively deprecate sources. That is something that should be reserved for only rare cases and cases where otherwise the source might be widely used. That doesn't mean this is a quality source but that doesn't mean we should out right block it. No matter what some say, deprecation ends up being a out right ban on the use of the source. There is another issue here. This is a relatively new site. What if the issues are "growing pains" and we don't see the issues repeat? Well then we are taking a biased but "reliable" site off the table based on past sins rather than current performance. Note that so far these are rather universal arguments rather than specific to The Post Millennial. The concern about a early news source that might be making newbie mistakes is legit. The site is just 3 years old so we really don't have a long history to go on. If things are improving then 5 years from now we are going to prevent people from citing a possibly legitimate site for things they did when they just started. As for the specific issues, I find BeŻet's arguments far from convincing. The guilt by association with Andy Ngo is problematic and is not sufficient to prove the site should be deprecated. It is unfortunate that the news sources was deceived by a false source but a critical question is, did they correct? That the DailyBeast makes a fuss over this isn't surprising. The DB is on the muck raking side and is one of several sources that seems to go for click bait stories that make "the other side" look bad. Consider this line from The DailyBeast article in question, "The Post Millennial, founded by conservative writer Andy Ngo,". Is there any truth to that statement? The evidence offered by the DB is a 2019 story about Ngo leaving Quillette. Since the PM was founded in 2017 how does this work out? If Ngo founded the PM why isn't that mentioned in his BLP? This same source is telling us that PM removed embarrassing stories but they are making their own gross mistakes. CBC says the source blurs the line but that is true for many sources that we don't deprecate. Certainly this site hasn't earned a RS status but I think deprecating at this point is premature. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Things published in conference proceedings

Hello. I'm wondering about the reliability of things published in conference proceedings. For instance the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics prints the research papers that were presented at their conferences in the conference proceedings. Although their Wikipedia article says they "peer review" what they publish. It seems like what they publish would have questionable reliability though, because they have a vested interest in publishing and promoting papers that were presented at their conferences. WP:RS says "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs." Which I'm sure would apply in this case. Also, I don't think something being published in conference proceedings would qualify as being published in "Peer-reviewed journals" in the sense that WP:OR means it. Anymore then an art gallery booklet or tech conference brochure would be "Peer-reviewed journals." I'd appreciate other people's opinions about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• In general conference papers are considered less reliable vs a journal paper. What was typical in my area was initial findings were often published as a conference presentation. Then those results/research etc was expanded and put into a journal paper. Thus, in general, material in a conference paper would later appear in a journal. Beyond that, the review process in my field was typically less stringent vs journal publication. For example, a journal paper might undergo several revisions before being accepted to a journal. Due to deadlines for a conference the latitude for revisions was much smaller. Minor revisions might make it while majors might not. In general I would not discount a conference paper but I would feel better about a journal paper. Some of this might depend on the material in question and what is being cited. Springee (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Conference proceedings are a lot like journals, many of them are highly respected, others not so much. You have to look at multiple factors, such as whether the proceedings were published, what caliber of scholars participated, whether the proceedings are cited later, etc. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• ^^ What Buidhe said. We a lot of cites for historical matters relating to caste in India that simply do not pass the bar because they're obscure papers by obscure researchers at obscure conferences. I tend to treat papers presented at conference proceedings as works in progress that, if they survive the test there, should result in a full-published paper or book; the conference is a talking shop, the papers presented are effectively up for review, not past review. There are exceptions to everything, of course, but as a rule of thumb it has served me well. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• It depends on the field, I think. e.g., in cryptocurrency you can get almost any trash published as a conference proceeding, we are tending to peer-reviewed journal articles only (and those are bad enough) - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Field dependent, if it was a palaeontology conference I think it would be citable, if it was something biomed related then probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• To echo the other statements above, yes, it depends upon the field, and even on the conference within the field. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Conference proceedings are a lower standard than peer-reviewed publications - more on a par with preprints in terms of reliability IMO. Guy (help!) 11:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Does ebay and/or other auction-like/sell listings can be reliable source of fact something was sold there?

While editing a [[85]] page today I met some misunderstood with another editor about what can be used as reliable source of fact some thing was sold exactly at some date and by exactly some price via that services with my opponent which followed some edit war [[86]] and corresponding discussion.

As our disagreement looks like much wider problem as just article information disagreement itself he provided and I applying now discussuion about can ebay be used as reliable source:

1. Always.

2. Context-related.

3. No any way.

As you can see my opponent thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used as reliable sources any way. My opinion is that exactly in that case when I have to prove some exact thing (unique Jumanji game desk used while filmmaking) selling via that services (ebay/other selling service) with source ebay is primary (initial) source that information can be referenced from and I don't need any other information as some "news" that 'proves' that fact just roughly. My main argue is that ebay (and one more auction site) lot page where told item description (Jumanji original desk etc.), lot condition (sold) and lot price ($60800) exactly main source of information.

Trying to dispute I posted to my opponent a real news article [[87]] that telling us about that exactly ebay lot (I posted before as source) but not as "sold" one but as "still selling" and having price of $60400 (instead of $60800 after it was sold) so I cannot use it as source of "item was sold for $60800" any way because news does not have corresponding information there.

However combining a real news article that points to ebay lot (still not sold) and lot archived page that shows a information about lot was sold and price it had while selling telling us fact had place and is real. However no any information at 'major newspapers' about that event (thing was sold for $60800) being take a place was never found, but still was found numerous 'non-reliable' sources telling repeatedly telling that (blogs, imdb, etc) without any proving links.

So, main question now is can I use an ebay (or any other) selling listing lot page as a reliable source that proves a fact something was sold for some fixed price or I have to search what... bank transfer? cheque scan? to approve that fact ebay never hides and exactly writes at their site (not as news or blog or comment but as selling lot status).

Because with such strange source-reliability policy when I cannot use a sell-service (ebay etc.) lot page, that includes full item description date and time of purchase, photos of item and price of purchase, as prove of purhchase (reliable source) I never can approve a fact that obviously took place.

So, What is your opinion. Can ebay (or any/some other auction/sell listings) lot page be a Wikipedia reliable source of sell/purchase fact?

• If no RS reports on it, I just don't see how it's WP:due. Ebay and other sites are WP:UGC and really should not be used, ever. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• About weight of event - that's (thing was sold) rare thing that connected to the film.
• About WP:UGC - only thing there UGC is information posted by ebay-user (description&photos) that really can be a fakes (if not thinking about who dare to buy fake for $60800 and no any info about fakes was posted later). Fact selling operation was succeed is automated and is not UGC any way. From other side there's a news (Chicago Tribune) that points to exactly the same selling lot telling there selling exactly the same thing as at ebay lot description dated a day before item was sold. Newspaper is reliable source according to wiki rules but news article I found does not have info item was sold so it is not reliable source of fact item was sold but proves it really that thing ebay lot description telling about.

So.. Have I ignore that fact item was really sold and NOT post it to Wikipedia if full fact prove is 'divided' between a earlier newspaper article and later ebay lot link where below-mentioned newspaper article posted to because of strange RS Wikipedia rules, besides fact obviously took place? I thought Wikipedia does not ignore the proved facts. So I really don't know what is the right way to post a fact about something was sold but be obedient to Wikipedia rules if ebay is not RS anyway. 85.238.102.82 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's only acceptable if accompanied by a source talking about said sale. Otherwise, it's impossible for editors to tell whether the sale is WP:DUE or not. BeŻet (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean (in my case) combining Chicago tribune earlier article telling about selling is on the way but still not finished and pointing to exact ebay lot number URL [[88]] and same ebay lot number straight link archived after lot sale ([[89]]) approving sale had happen information as references can be considered as RS?

Ebay, no as it is wholly user generated. Respected auctions houses (even online ones) yes, but with artributation (they can make mistakes), bog standard auctions houses, same as ebay.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu

The Hindu is not mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It is described in its lede as a newspaper of record. I am opening this discussion in the hope that a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached as to how add it to that list, because IMO it should be in it.

It has been the subject of at least two discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Hindu (2010) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#The Hindu mirroring misinformation from WP (2020), neither of which seems to have reached CONSENSUS as to whether it is or is not WP:RS.

I have only used The Hindu two or three times as a source, and on those occasions I considered it RS. Their opinion pieces deserve the usual caveat, that they only reflect the opinion of the writer. The basic question I raise is, is or is not The Hindu trustworthy on matters of fact? Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on past info, I would consider it to be not better than Times of India, that is somewhere worse than 2 on the reliability scale. Mirroring WP is pretty bad. On the other hand, it's hard to find quality journalism from India. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A few instances of close paraphrasing and bad fact checking doesn't make a make a source completely unreliable. Even Oxford University Press has been caught doing this. Statements like "it's hard to find quality journalism from India" smell of casual racism. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms of India's journalistic standards, and particularly its English-language journalistic standards are pretty widespread within Indian discourse, I wouldn't write this off as racism. [90], [91]. There was a pretty big scandal about a decade ago relating to major newspapers engaging in paid news, to the point that we even have an article about it, Paid news in India. The Hindu, at least as of a few years ago, was actually one of the only English language news publications in India to regularly publish corrections, a practice that we generally consider as a bare minimum for reliability, making it one of the more reliable Indian publications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course the Indian media is in a bad state. But that could have been said in a better way than "it's hard to find quality journalism from India". Don't you think that paints too broad a brush? Many local newspapers are doing incredibe work and there are some great national outlets like People's Archive of Rural India too. Wikipedia is a popular target for spammers and if your only exposure to Indian media is through work Wikipedia, it looks much worse than it actually is. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Touche, the original wording could have been more generous. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that, The Hindu alongside The Indian Express were among the only two major english language newspapers which were not a subject to the scandal. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• MEH... Two discussions separated by 10 years is hardly “perennial”. That list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of good vs bad sources... it is intended to save us from having to have REPEATED discussions on those few sources that keep coming up (over and over and over again). That said... I do not know enough about the Hindu’s current reputation to judge either way on its reliability. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as far as I can tell it has high quality output and high standards of journalism and is one of the most reliable Indian sources. To question its reliability would require multiple concrete examples, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu has been discussed twice before see 1 and once for apparently plagiarising Wikipedia, which is never a good look. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not a consistent problem and Wikipedia is also plaguarised more subtly all over Western media, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So plagiarism is cool because Western media does it, alright. Anyway, from my experience I'd say it's reliable unless it's an opinion piece. That could be said of all news outlets though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, two instances of pretty superficial copying from wiki does not make it unreliable, although it is sad to see since you won't find a more reliable paper than this in India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Australian

Australian media tends to not recieve much coverage on this noticeboard, the only one I can recall being the Quadrant RfC. The Australian is a major national newspaper and has been cited over 8,500 times per theaustralian.com.au  . I wouldn't bring up a national newspaper like this unless I had concerns about its reliability. These two opinion pieces [92] [93] from 2014-2015 describe The Australian as a deeply partisan publication, essentially in lockstep with the Liberal Party of Australia. Is this an accurate depiction? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for most subjects but needs attribution for political stories in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable it's apparently one of the most trusted Australian commercial news sources, just behind Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. They may be partisan, but it's not clear that it's affecting factual accuracy of their reporting. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Blatantly partisan, but also a real newspaper - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, unlike the other Australian News Corp newspapers such as the Herald Sun or The Daily Telegraph, The Australian has a good reputation for factual accuracy, though it is definitely a highly partisan source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)