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

New York Times article on paid reporting

Not sure if this belongs here or on the talk page. This New York Times article article mentions many items that are of interest to us. For example:

Maine Business Daily is part of a fast-growing network of nearly 1,300 websites that aim to fill a void left by vanishing local newspapers across the country. Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found.

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at what happened to Newsweek on WP:RSP after International Business Times bought it in 2013. It's certainly possible for the newspaper to have different reliability depending on era. Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And that article is published by the NYTimes? The same NYTimes that endorsed Joe Biden for US president? No way! ^[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 00:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You know better than that on this page. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Better than what? Trying to point out that a competitor is concerned about opposition to their POV? What's your point? Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Don’t even start... We don’t need to hear it all again. We know that your personal opinions on what constitutes a reliable source differs greatly from the current consensus, you don’t have to keep reminding us when its only vaguely on topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

CJR reported on this back in 2019: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-distributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php (t · c) buidhe 06:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that we view all Metric Media sites as, at best, questionable sources. This reporting indicates that the sites have minimal editorial controls, are directed by people buying articles, and are generally content farms. This clearly fails WP:RS and WP:V standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, just as we wouldn't want to consider Courier Newsroom sites to be reliable sources of news, it doesn't sound like these Metric Media sites would qualify either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Good work by the Times there, I'd say. This looks like an open and shut case: these sources should not be used. In fact if anyone has a full list of domains there should probably be an edit filter. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a start. Metric Media.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Here is a list with over 1,000 domains belonging to Metric Media: https://github.com/MassMove/AttackVectors/blob/master/LocalJournals/sites.csv (t · c) buidhe 06:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• New York Times has now published the complete list of the fraudulent "news" sites on Google Docs. I believe this these should be added as deprecated sources on WP:RSNP (do we need an RFC for that?), and a bot may be needed to create a list of wikipedia articles where they are currently used. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Does that mean they will be added to a filter of sorts? I can imagine that it will be hard for editors to keep up with all the different sources. Might be better to just block the URLs like a spam filter to pretty users from accidentally adding these pseudo-news sites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• As noted above, we need to be careful about blanket removal because these papers existed before being subsumed by 'pink slime'. -- GreenC 18:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Though it's certainly far too common among established media, it's also fair to note that they violate the copyright of Wikipedia contributors (see this talk page message I left one user whose CC-BY 3.0 image of a local school wasn't attributed) Vahurzpu (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax

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

Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. This RfC falls very clearly into that description - there are only two voices among 41 supporting anything other than Option #3 or #4. Neither of these advances any grounds for considering Newsmax reliable other than popularity. There is a clear consensus that Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" The only question, therefore, is whether the deprecation procedure requirements are fulfilled. The arguments in favor of deprecation have a clear preponderance so the strength of the objecting arguments becomes very important. In this discussion, however, the arguments for Option #3 and/or against deprecation are mainly objections to the deprecation process itself or to the frequency of deprecation's usage. Since the deprecation process is currently community-approved, these are not barriers to the consensus position. There is therefore a moderately-clear consensus for Option # 4 - deprecation (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

---

With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source, their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc. I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints as their viewership has increased post election. Here is a source that gives numbers https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/newsmax-tv-surpasses-fox-business-cnbc-key-ratings-newsreal-blog/ BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Newsmax

Which option best describes the reliability of Newsmax?

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

(t · c) buidhe 10:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Newsmax

• Deprecate: "High viewership" does not equate to reliability.

1. "their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc." - That would be because Newsmax is a propaganda outlet unconcerned with factual accuracy.
2. "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources." - Your belief is your belief, but Newsmax as an outlet produces and promotes falsehoods with shocking regularity and disdain for human life and the consequences of spreading false information, such as their promotion of anti-vaccination propaganda. [1]
3. "and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" - Ahh, now we're getting to it. It's the spreading of disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election that you're wanting?
4. "they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints." - They may repeat what other parts of the extreme right-wing WP:FRINGE of American politics repeat, but that does not make their false claims, propaganda, or disinformation WP:RELIABLE.

Given the sheer unreliability of Newsmax, it should probably be in the same Deprecated category as Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, and The Epoch Times. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

NewsGuard's analysis is not positive. [2] Schazjmd (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards." Yikes indeed. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have some better sources than media matters? PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Following up on Schazjmd's comment, Ad Fontes Media (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/) rates the reliability of Newsmax at 31.76. For comparison, similarly positioned sources on Wikipedia that are already deprecated include the following:

1. RT / Russia Today: 30.65
2. OANN: 29.91
3. Epoch Times: 37.35
4. Zero Hedge: 32.53
5. Breitbart: 27.74
6. Daily Caller: 27.73

I know that Ad Fontes is listed as "should not be used in article space" because it is self-published, but it may be valuable information for analysis here. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Right but do we have other RS calling Newsmax those things. I personally like adontes for bias reports, not so much for reliability personally. PackMecEng (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: the poster of this (who moved it over from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) does not appear to understand wikipedia policy on sourcing, but there is a larger problem in that Newsmax - despite sharing similarities in both lack of credibility and a pattern of propagating falsehoods - is sitting at "no consensus" level and looking at the last discussion [3], @JzG: made the excellent observation that this status is because "what that means is that it's a crappy source but conservatives like it, basically." Even in 2013, it was looked at as unreliable [4] and I think at this point it would serve Wikipedia well to settle this status with the other sources it is so highly similar to that are already deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is editor opinion alone is not enough to deprecate a source. We need secondary sources giving examples and backing it up or it boils down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

all I want is this to be discussed because they are the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election and they are gaining in popularity. What IHateAccounts points out is that they don’t like there coverage of current events so it must be disinformation and propaganda. The only exception that I would buy into at this time is that they are not a reliable source for anything related to vaccine because they have peddled stories with questionable claims. To blanket state that they are wrong does in fact boil down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think the other MSM gets it wrong on a lot of things but that doesn’t make them an unreliable source. BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: you may want to read The Guardian's coverage of Newsmax as part of "The misinformation media machine amplifying Trump's election lies" [5]

Also, Daily Beast: "An even more overt suggestion of a deep-state plot to infect the president, however, came from Greg Kelly, a former Fox News personality who now hosts a show on Newsmax TV, the little-watched right-wing cable network run by longtime Trump pal Chris Ruddy." [6] The issue is that Newsmax is an unreliable source, that promotes conspiracy theories and other falsehoods. The fact that it's flown under the radar with few discussions until now is probably, as JzG suggested, because it was already listed as a crappy source and most reasonable editors stayed away from it, but simply leaving it there isn't wise given what it does and its lack of journalistic integrity. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

See that is kind of what I mean here. Do we have a source that does not require an asterisk when we use them. Both the Guardian and Daily Beast have the biased or opinionated source tag. PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I’d urge someone to pull something off their home page that is truly not factual.BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@BlackBird1008: There are several issues with your claims, starting with your lack of understanding of wikipedia policy, and your continued attempts to portray reliable secondary sources as "sides". To make something perfectly clear, though: my objection to Newsmax is not because I "don't like" them, my objection is that - again, just as with Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, The Epoch Times - they are factually unreliable. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

FrontPageMag is itself a discredited source; the fact that something has a particular level of viewership or readership has nothing to do with reliability. Lots of people can all be wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I’m not making the argument that they should be considered reliable because of their viewership, merely I’m arguing that they should be reconsidered because they are becoming a bigger player in the news market. I only used frontpage as a reference because Newsmax had the same article on their site and I thought it would be wrong to post their own article, Neilsons ratings put it above those other outlets BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to review WP:RS if you haven't read it in a while. "Number of people who read/view a source" is not an indicator of reliability. Instead, we focus on things such as the publisher's reputation for fact-checking, policies and practices related to correcting errors, and similar mechanisms and policies. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I’m not arguing that it’s is a factor in its reliability, merely pointing out that this discussion should be had because they are becoming a bigger player. WP:RSP has them listed as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". BlackBird1008 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@BlackBird1008: No, you're pretty transparently trying to argue that Newsmax should somehow be considered "reliable" merely because it is rising in ratings, which is an illegitimate argument. Further, Newsmax is currently (and has a history of) blatantly trying to spread falsehoods [7]. It appears that when you say "the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election", the "other side" you are referring to is simply false information:

"On Newsmax, voter fraud innuendo is everywhere. Conspiracy theory chatter is constant. And perhaps most importantly, Joe Biden is not the president-elect. The channel is tapping into a real vein of rage on the right."

"Over the weekend Newsmax pointedly said it had not called the race -- which was a meaningless claim since the channel doesn't have a decision desk. But the channel's hosts keep repeating this claim anyway, and it is sticking. If Fox is merely dabbling in election denialism, Newsmax is doubling down on it. "

"Taking a big picture view, Newsmax's sudden gains are about demand meeting supply. There is a demand for content that swears Biden is not president-elect; that Trump is not a loser; that Trump might even win a second term. Al Schmidt, the Republican city commissioner of Philadelphia, touched on the demand side when he told CNN's John Berman: "One thing I can't comprehend is how hungry people are to consume lies and to consume information that is not true." Think of Newsmax as the supply side."

I think it would be an absolutely terrible thing for Wikipedia to suddenly pronounce that outlets that peddle in false information were suddenly "reliable" simply because they had seen a ratings boost. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I guess we will have to agree to disagree because, Joe Biden is in fact, not the president elect until the electoral college votes (although I’m not opposed to articles referencing him as that), the allegations of voter fraud are neither valid or invalid because they have yet to be settled in court. To be perfectly clear, I believe Joe Biden has won this election so this is not some campaign to try to change that. You cannot say that readers and viewers are consuming lies and information that is not true when the outcome of those "lies" has yet to be officially determined. My goal in all of this was to make sure that the election article can have sourced information from newsmax to cover the disputes by the Trump campaign because they are covering it in depth regardless of how one feels about them. BlackBird1008 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to read wikipedia policies thoroughly. The things that Newsmax is trying to promote are all things that have been fact checked and quite thoroughly debunked by actual reliable sources. A "foot in the door" gambit, false equivalence arguments, and other attempts to try to shoehorn in Newsmax's absolutely unreliable and WP:FRINGE promotion of conspiracy theories and false information do not serve wikipedia well. Your assertion that "Joe Biden is in fact, not the president elect..." is not consistent with Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and indicates that your goal is to insert factually false information into Wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I am trying to do, at no time did I say I would try to include false information. Failure to document the legal challenges of this election would be considered revisionism by omission. Simply calling them false and disinformation is not accurate because nothing has been settled. After the court cases are completed, then we can say factually and with certainty that the fraud claims were false if the courts rule that way. I’m not trying to change any article, I’m trying to find a path to add to it with a source that doesn’t have a predetermined outcome already decided. And finally , regardless of a Wikipedia consensus or what any RS says, per the constitution, Joe Biden is not the president elect until the electoral college votes, that cannot be disputed, but like I said, I’m not trying to change that in any article because that has already been decided by consensus. (my last word because this discussion is going nowhere) BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@BlackBird1008: You appear still to not have read the policies regarding reliable sources. There are numerous reliable sources that document the legal challenges being launched by the trump campaign quite accurately. Those legal challenges are well documented, to reliable sources that do not engage in the promotion of conspiracy theories or fraudulent claims, at 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Controversies and List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election to name just two pages. Attempting to include FALSE information by promoting as dubious an outlet as Newsmax would do a disservice to Wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite certain editors' desperate attempts to paint an incomplete or misleading picture, we have more coverage today. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/fox-news-newsmax-competition/index.html

"Newsmax and One America News — which falsely claim Trump won the 2020 election — are two of the biggest beneficiaries of Trump and his supporters' ire. The channels' ratings have surged in recent days.

"Although Biden won the election — a fact Trump acknowledged Sunday — Greg Kelly, the highest-rated host on Newsmax, claims that Trump will prevail and that he will be president for another four years. The network has gone from about 100,000 viewers a day on a good day to about one million viewers per night for Kelly's show."

""Fox has never seen competition like this," CNN's chief media correspondent Brian Stelter said on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "There is demand for a fictional universe.... Reliable news sources are mostly moving on to cover President-elect Biden. There is an entire constellation of websites and talk shows that are in denial just like Trump.""

The picture is pretty clear at this point. While Newsmax is seeing increased viewership, it is gaining viewers specifically because those viewers want to hear things that are at odds with facts and reality. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think your posts might be better-received here if you cited specific policies that you thought your interlocutor was arguing in contravention of, rather than saying repeatedly that they should "read Wikipedia policies" (of which there are hundreds of thousands of words of text, most of them totally irrelevant to the issue at hand). jp×g 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate (Option 4) per IHateAccounts. They are a disinformation machine. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Depreciate. This paper lists them as a source that has repeatedly repeated false claims from another outlet (The Washington Free Beacon, which should probably also be depreciated) without fact-checking or verification, apparently for ideological reasons, and without a retraction or follow-up when it was found to be false; it was also one of several similar sources publishing false claims about ISIS trying to cross the US-Mexico border, again with no fact-checking, verification, or followup when it was debunked. This source describes it as spreading fringe ideas in an effort to make them mainstream. This paper lists them as a misinformation source. This paper lists them in its "junk news" classification, which is defined as These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information. (Also, that paper seems like it would be extremely useful in future discussions.) This source similarly lists them as one of ten sources known for pro-mulgating political disinformation in Facebook. More recently, they have hawked a dietary supplement as a means of fighting COVID-19 while advising readers to avoid any vaccine because it would "change their DNA." I'm not seeing any evidence they have changed at all. (And, as others have said, Frontpagemag is itself a depreciated source, so its endorsement is not helpful.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax is "Fox's new challenger. President Trump's fans who don't think Fox News is right-wing enough have another option on cable and satellite: Newsmax TV."

That's from Brian Stelter at CNN, who is an extremely RS. This tells us a lot. Newsmax is even more extreme right-wing than Fox News has become under Trump.

Because Fox has dared to tell the truth about this election, Trump's supporters are moving to Newsmax and other fringe platforms, such as Parler, that will keep lying to them. These supporters are moving even further away from reliable sources that can correct their delusional thinking and debunk their favorite conspiracy theories.

This placement on the media fringes, far from the facts, tells us all we need to know. Bias is irrelevant to determining reliability, but extreme bias does affect it,, and here we have an example of the deleterious effects of extreme bias.

Full deprecation is fully deserved. -- Valjean (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate Seems to be (at best) highly credulous. It clearly cannot be relied upon for basic facts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for election related coverage only at this time. More review will be needed for other topics. BlackBird1008 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate particularly for election coverage. Yes, they offer a different viewpoint -- alternative facts. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (deprecate). Newsmax lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that is required of reliable sources. There is an affirmative requirement to demonstrate such a reputation, and I don't see anyone attempting to do that. More to the point, it's clear that Newsmax has a poor reputation for accuracy, which it sacrifices in favor of partisanship, and has at times gone so far as to publish false claims & misinformation, and even laundered outright propaganda. In no particular order:
  1. Aquillion presents reliable sources showing that Newsmax rushed to publish a false story without fact-checking it, "likely because the report made the Obama administration look bad" (Silverman 2015); that Newsmax was likely patient zero in terms of pushing misleading and racist claims about so-called "anchor babies" (Ignatow 2011); that Newsmax is a "junk news source" (Narayanan et al. 2018; preprint); and that Newsmax is a "hyperpartisan disinformation source" and is "known for promulgating political disinformation" (Barfar 2019).
  2. The Guardian describes Newsmax's promulgation of misinformation and lies about the 2020 US Presidential election, in part by one of their hosts who was fired from a Trump Administration job for racist, bigoted, and homophobic commentary (Guardian 2020).
  3. CNN analyst Brian Stetler, who is reasonably reputable and an expert on the media landscape, writes: "On Newsmax, voter fraud innuendo is everywhere. Conspiracy theory chatter is constant."
  4. Newsmax was among the right-wing sites that unwittingly laundered foreign propaganda from a fictitious "contributor" (Daily Beast 2020).
  5. Likewise, Newsmax launders Russian state propaganda, allowing RT (Russian state-run media) to pay to display content on its home page (Wall Street Journal 2020).
• So the verdict of independent reliable sources seems pretty clear—Newsmax publishes partisan misinformation and falsehoods and has laundered foreign propaganda. That's a pretty steep hole to climb out of in terms of proving that it's a reliable source with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (in fact, its reputation is demonstrably quite opposite), and I don't even see people really trying to prove its reliability. More just resorting to false-equivalency fallacies and soup-spitting criticisms of the sources showing Newsmax's unreliability. The goal of this project is to to build an accurate summary of human knowledge—not to ensure that everyone's ideological whims and biases get equal time—and I'd like someone to explain how using a "hyperpartisan disinformation source" gets us closer to that goal. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Pay to display is a pretty audacious thing for a newspaper that was paid $20,000 a month to run propaganda for the Chinese government to complain about. Though don't think that is exclusive to the Wall Street Journal, the other two big broadsheets do the same.[8] And while we are on the subject of Russian propaganda supplements, The Daily Telegraph still seems to carry Russia: Beyond the Headlines. None of them are unreliable because of it, just the content inside. I'm not saying that NewsMax is reliable, I'm just saying that 'source X republished source Y which is unreliable' is generally a reason to have another look at source Y and is very rarely a problem with source X. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two different things. Some major newspapers have run paid advertising inserts funded by the Chinese government, but that's different from presenting foreign propaganda in a way that makes it appear as if it might be actual site content. Otherwise we might as well say that all media are unreliable because they're paid to carry advertising, some of which is of dubious quality or accuracy. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, deprecate. Would really hope that they aren't being used now to source anything in the Wikipedia. Newsmax has a decades-long track record of false news. ValarianB (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable The claim that Newsmax is unreliable has been substantiated sufficiently in my opinion. For factual information, it's simply too controversial. From a quick sample I did just now, it seems like they syndicate most content from newswires, so coverage of those events should be available elsewhere anyway. However, it may be useful for WP:RSOPINION related to politics with proper attribution. That fact that it is widely watched and read and has been endorsed by Trump and his campaign indicate that their viewpoints are not just held by tiny minorities. A blanket ban would be counter productive. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding WP:RSOPINION... It's called "RS"OPINION for a reason. It must still be from a RS, never an unreliable one. We do not balance opinions from RS with opinions from unreliable sources. "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable." Unreliable sources can only be used in articles about themselves. -- Valjean (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Whether we like it or not, unreliable people saying unreliable things in unreliable media are no longer at the fringe of political discourse. While a scientist that does not get published in a reliable source can easily be dismissed as holding an insignificant view, the underlying notion of WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE that all majority and significant minority views can be found in reliable sources seems harder and harder to maintain for politics. If we want to be able to understand and explain historical events that have been influenced by opinions such as those published in Newsmax, we have to have access to these opinions. There doesn't have to be a conflict with WP:RS, as it states that opinion pieces and the like are almost never reliable for statements of fact, regardless of its publication. That it is a workable situation that has received community consensus is evidenced by the Fox News talk shows entry in WP:RSP. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
      • But if something has not been mentioned in RS, we are supposed to ignore it completely. All our coverage of nonsense, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, lies, false allegations, etc. is predicated on mention in RS, and we then use those sources, never the unreliable sources where they originally appeared. That's how content and quotes found in obscure and fringe unreliable sources can end up in our articles. Our job here is to document the "sum of human knowledge," by using RS, and only RS. That is the foundation of all our content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, rather obviously. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, the evidence provided clearly shows they do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and instead have one of publishing fabrications. There is no reason why we should risk reproducing misinformation from such low quality sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - there is nothing to gain from using Newsmax as a source in Wikipedia, and much to lose, given its extensively documented history of fabrication, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: It's trash. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 plus a WP:NOTHERE editor. Grandpallama (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - deprecate - Per above. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 deprecate because it often aggressively promotes wild, and sometimes harmful/dangerous, conspiracy theories without any real attempt to even give mainstream opinions due consideration. It is a very misleading and unreliable news source. I watched some videos by this news source and definitely agree with the reasoning by other editors, particularly MastCell, above re. why it should be deprecated. They are extremely biased to the point that they pay little attention to and have little regard for the truth or factual accuracy of what they present to their viewers. Normally I have been resistant to efforts to deprecate ‘right of centre’ news sources on WP so my strong opinion on this news source should be taken as a sign to just how terrible, extremist bias and even dangerous this news source is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (Deprecate) per above. Publishes fringe theories and outright falsehoods. Armadillopteryx 11:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (Deprecate) per the arguments above, which I won't rehash. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (deprecate). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Unreliable. I oppose the wide spread use of the deprecation process. It has gone too far and needs to be stopped. No evidence has been presented that Newsmax is being widely used by editors as a non-about self RS. Deprecation should only be used if editors would otherwise treat the source as reliable. Springee (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The fact that you see no widespread use is a tribute to the fact that we have many informed and reasonable editors. This is to make it official and prevent those who are not informed and reasonable from trying to use it. If no editors above were defending it, we would probably see no need for this step, but the embarrassing fact that it still has defenders means we need to put a stake through its heart. They need to get the message. This is not blacklisting; it can still be used on its own article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    • So you are doing this to right great wrongs? Springee (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Your comment is definitely casting WP:ASPERSIONS. The reason multiple editors are supporting deprecation is because the editor who opened this discussion opened it by demanding that Newsmax "should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" based on fallacious arguments that rising viewership stats equate to reliability and that the promotion of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and false information counts as an equally valid "different viewpoint" to the facts as reported in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

That you claim there's no evidence that Newsmax is being used or would be used, when this discussion was opened by someone demanding Newsmax be deemed reliable so that they could use it, is facially absurd. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Once again, you completely miss the mark on my motives, my motives are purely to give access to a source that is covering the allegations of fraud from a different perspective than what the other MSM is giving. At no time did I "demand" it be labeled as reliable nor did I say that because its gaining viewership it must be reliable. I simply thought it should be reconsidered because it is getting more popular. As I have told you before, I will accept the consensus decision even if I disagree because that's how wikipedia works. BlackBird1008 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@BlackBird1008: "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum." Those were your words from above. I believe I have accurately represented what you said; you desire to include Newsmax because you think that their "perspective" (read: promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and false information that is popular with certain groups) is "widely ignored". You miss (or maybe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) the part where this "perspective" (or maybe alternative facts?) is "widely ignored by other reliable sources" because REAL reliable sources have to meet at least a basic floor value for accuracy and fact checking. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing support for this source (I offer none as I think it's a poor source) with concerns regarding the entire deprecation process. I feel it should be a requirement that before any source can be deprecated those advocating deprecation need to show there is otherwise a problem with wide spread use of the source. Else we should handle things as we did for many years, on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: "The reason multiple editors are supporting deprecation is because the editor who opened this discussion opened it by demanding that Newsmax be deemed reliable so that they could use it", I at no point demanded them be considered reliable. "you desire to include Newsmax because you think that their "perspective" (read: promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and false information that is popular with certain groups) (Your opinion) is "widely ignored" (My opinion). You misrepresent my motives and claim my opinion of a "perspective being ignored" is wrong because it doesn't align with your perspective aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also will make it clear...again, I do not think Trump will succeed in overturning this election nor am I trying to put false information into any article. I only brought up newsmax because they are not universally dismissing these claims as false because all the facts will not be available until these cases are resolved. If the consensus is that this source does not meet the WP:RS guidelines, then so be it. I Suggested that they be reconsidered because its getting a bigger following, I did not say because they are getting a bigger following it should be deemed reliable. (last word in this discussion because its going nowhere and is unproductive) BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@BlackBird1008:, your wordings:

1. "I did not say because they are getting a bigger following it should be deemed reliable."
2. "I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints as their viewership has increased post election."

You DID, in fact, say what you are now denying you said. The pixels are literally still on this page. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Ill reply only because since you have nothing better to do than make me look like something I'm not, here is the first line I wrote in this discussion "With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source". The word reconsidered is not synonymous with demand. When I say I believe or I think, that means it's my opinion which I'm still allowed to have in the United States. When I say its because they no longer represent fringe viewpoints, its because they don't, they are becoming more mainstream (aka not fringe) regardless of how you view them. I really don't see why you have the obsession with WP:BLUDGEON ing this to death, disagree and move on. BlackBird1008 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE, it's DEPRECATION, not "Depreciation". -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (Deprecate) Those that need to believe the lies they put forth as "news" can read them there. They have no business being regurgitated in wikiP articles. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (deprecate) prolific propagandistic news media organization. Acousmana (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (deprecate)- I don't believe there to be any argument that this outlet fails WP:RS   Aloha27  talk  21:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Clearly not a reliable source, per evidence presented above. We currently have over 1000 citations to Newsmax per Newsmax.com  , the vast majority of which are not aboutself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - per Aquillion, MastCell and Hemiauchenia. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (deprecate)—per Aquillion and MastCell --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 14:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: No point in keeping this open. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. For a procedure as serious as deprecation (which it looks like this is heading towards), it seems reasonable to allow time for evidence to come forward in the time allotted. It seems unlikely in this case, but it is possible that strong counter-arguments will emerge. Jlevi (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (deprecate)- Where it is reliable there are dozens of other sources but I haven't seen anything that would even bring it close to being an RS, particularly on political matter where it has become a repository of falsehoods (if it ever had any reliability in its reporting). Koncorde (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 (maybe 4) Clearly a poor source. Might not be such an aggressively poor source as to require deprecation. I need to look further into the arguments provided so far, but the first I looked at--the Lies, Damn Lies, and Viral Content paper--isn't very strong. Newsmax is noted as one out of several publications that both published claims about the statement "ISIS fighters were caught trying to enter the U.S. via the U.S.-Mexico border" and published more articles after that fact had been debunked. Buzzfeed and Fox News did the same. The paper notes that this particular claim was very commonly misreported, and it seems unsure of how to interpret it:

"The explosive claim that ISIS fighters had been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border was refuted within 24 hours and yet only 20 percent of news organizations that wrote an initial story came back to it. It’s possible that the partisan element of the claim led some conservative outlets to fail to update their articles with denials from top Obama officials. However, this is an aspect that requires more research."

Given that the paper itself seems unsure what conclusion to reach regarding this issue, it seems going too far for us to deprecate this sourced based on this publishing, especially given that it's not seen as so damning for BuzzFeed or Fox News. A variety of other publications are named doing similar things regarding other false-and-debunked statements: The Week, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.

To conclude, it seems likely to me that this source is pretty darn rotten--I'll check back in after I finish looking at the other references discussed. But when I look at one of the sources used to establish this claim here, it seems weaker than I expected given how vigorously folks are referencing it. So I'm not prepared to go for deprecation at this point, given that it would seem to apply deprecation of a whole range of other sources if we are to hold them to the same standard. Again, I predict that I'll switch to "deprecate" after I review other sources linked here, but looking at this first source makes it clear that I'll need to evaluate them closely.

One thing that would aid those arguing for retention of this source: does Newsmax ever produce original material? I'm not seeing that yet, so it makes me lean towards saying "deprecate: nothing lost here". Jlevi (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The New Media and the ‘Anchor Baby’ Boom paper does not itself describe the anchor baby framing as disinformation. The main purpose of the paper is to track the spread of the concept (and it's quite a cool paper). Indeed, the paper describes how the anchor baby concept appeared throughout many mainstream news sources, indicating that it is probably not 'false' from the perspective of Wikipedia. This certainly may be indication of bias of the source, but the 'anchor baby' framing device is more of an interpretive method than a direct statement of facts in any case. Aquillion describes the paper as "describ[ing] it [Newsmax] as spreading fringe ideas in an effort to make them mainstream". I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the paper, but I don't think this is admissible for claims about reliability. By very virtue of these claims appearing throughout mainstream sources, this is rather complicated from that perspective, and it seems better to just interpret this paper as a discussion of bias propagation, rather than of misinformation propagation. Jlevi (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the Facebook disinformation paper now. In general, we don't weigh social media posts of outlets in establishing their reliability. The paper notes that they are explicitly looking at social media posts and not news articles: "First, Sobieraj and Berry (2011)and Nithyanand et al. (2017) studied political discourses in media outlets (e.g., cable news) and Reddit respectively, whereas our work studied user responses to extreme conservative and liberal disinformation in Facebook." In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, the study looked primarily at user comments for sentiment analysis. I don't think this paper adds heavily to our interpretation of this source's reliability. Jlevi (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this might be heading for a snow close. To conclude, there is very strong evidence for unreliability about the 2020 election in particular. It seems that most arguments fail to make statements on Newsmax's reliability prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election. I support deprecation from 2020 onward and generally unreliable prior to that. ​ Jlevi (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: I think I understand but can you please verify this is what you mean? Aquillion's provided academic sources are from 2015 [9], 2011 [10], 2018 [11], 2018 [12], and 2019 [13] respectively, all of which would definitionally have to be arguments "prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election"? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I have addressed each of these sources other than this one in my comments earlier in this thread. Having read them, I believe that these sources speak not about reliability of Newsmax articles, but rather about bias, tone, and framing devices. In addition, one of the cited sources appears to be not about Newsmax articles, but rather about Facebook comments on Newsmax posts (if I'm interpreting it correctly). Thus, though it's pretty clear that Newsmax is unreliable prior to 2020, I do not believe current arguments make a convincing case for deprecation prior to 2020. On the other hand, the arguments regarding the 2020 election coverage as grounds for deprecation are quite good. Is that clear? Jlevi (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable We should treat any source as generally unreliable until reliability is established. But I see no evidence that they publish false or fabricated information beyond what reliable sources do. PolitiFact has only one entry for them and rated a claim they made in a mailing (not a news story) as "mostly true."[14] Snopes complained about an article by Ed Klein, "Ed Klein: Hillary's Plea Bargain" In it he cites a Clinton lawyer saying a Justice Dept. official said the department was considering offering Clinton a plea deal. While they should not have published the rumor without additional confirmation, they didn't actually state that it was true. And reliable sources occasionally do the same thing. Usually what editors complain of is their emphasis on conservative opinion which frequently is based on a misrepresentation of facts. TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 We have NEVER considered them reliable afaik, and they've gotten even worse over time. Volunteer Marek 21:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Back to basics. They don't have a corrections policy. They don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. So they can't be option 1 or 2. I think we over-use deprecation. It should be reserved for sites that are controlled by dictatorships, support genocide, or the like. They don't come anywhere near that level. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion and MastCell. Anti-science is less compelling to me, as all non-science specialist news media outlets are unreliable to some degree about science, but their reputation for promoting conspiracy theories, particularly now in the context of the false claims made by Trump, is sufficient that I can think of no justified context to use the source. — Bilorv (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for NewsMax website on the principle of generally opposing deprecation, Option 4 for NewsMax TV broadcasts because it seems particularly egregious, Option 2 for NewsMax magazine, nothing here seems to cover them but pushing generally unreliable on the grounds that neither of the other sources are. Open to changing my mind as I read more of this thread. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. There are clearly many examples of NewsMax promoting falsehoods. Upon checking their website today, I click on an article at random and am immediately presented with something which has clearly not undergone any sort of rigorous fact checking or editorial scrutiny. A line from Donald Trump about 'paying for the wall through fees paid when Mexican citizens cross legally into the United States' is reported, with no context included that it is false. It is hard to imagine any context in which NewsMax would be an appropriate source for wikipedia. Awoma (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, but this should hardly be necessary: no competent Wikipedian would use Newsmax as a source, surely? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG:, your query begs the obvious question: Why don't we topic ban those who repeatedly fail this most basic requirement, especially those who edit controversial articles, such as in the AP2 area? Any admin, citing DS, can do it without making a big deal of it.

This is pretty clear: "Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:... the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." We waste so much time because we fail to deal with them appropriately. -- Valjean (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, no indication of any interest in fact checking or correction, not considered Reliable by other RS, and the antivax is so literally deadly that it probably warrants two-and-a-half strikes all by itself. On the bright side, if Newsmax steals away Fox's more radical audience perhaps Fox will shift back to being usable on Science&Politics. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 − as others have said, I'm not aware of a vast issue with Newsmax being used to source claims (I cannot recall ever having run across it in an article). A search shows that it's cited 1,044 times across the entire encyclopedia, and backing up claims like His retirement became official on July 1, 2013.[101] for Ben Carson (in which case the citation is to an interview he gave to Newsmax). That said, Newsmax is obviously a huge crock on several important subjects (for this we can consult their valiant coverage of the "other side" of the blue vs. orange sky color controversy etc). This much should be obvious. However, deprecating a source is a pretty extreme action to be taken (note that Wikipedia did just fine for seventeen years prior to ever doing this), and will result in lots of distended gaping holes in articles. If it were acknowledged as generally unreliable, what would prevent editors from going through those search results and individually evaluating the sourced statements (and possibly finding better sources for them)? jp×g 12:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: Per Acousmana, Aquillion, MatnetteD, MastCell, Hemiauchenia and others.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (deprecate) for spreading lies and conspiracy theories about the US election. It should be illegal for these far-right hacks to call themselves “news”. Also, is it just me, or did I see a few flakes outside my window? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 (reliable) − it has been accurately reporting on the latest news during the September-November 2020 period. Yurivict (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 (deprecate) - many editors have made useful observations, but Aquillion and MastCell have been especially persuasive. Personally, I believe that the "Raphael Badani" affair and the things they have published about COVID-19 vaccines are sufficient to deprecate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: Newsmax

Procedural note: deprecating or declaring a source generally unreliable requires an RFC. See the top of this noticeboard. Moreover, the general purpose of this noticeboard is dispute resolution – discussing whether a source is reliable for a specific content in specific article – not general discussion about an outlet. Politrukki (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments in reply to Valjean's comment above: (t · c) buidhe 10:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: You lost me at Brian Stelter as an extremely reliable source, he is just another opinionated pundit. And no offense, because I value everyone’s right to their opinion, but I find it hard for you to consider Newsmax fairly based on your essay User:Valjean/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here. I understand the criteria for WP:RS and if we can’t come to a consensus based on those criteria, then so be it. That’s why we have these discussions. In my opinion, there has not been enough evidence to exclude their coverage of this election as unreliable. There may be branches of their organization, such as Newsmax Health, that should be depricated based on their coverage of vaccines. That can happen without deprecating their news section. It is also my opinion that their coverage of the election is within the bounds of the facts as we know them. The allegations they are covering have not been investigated and the facts have not been settled. It seems that conservative news organizations are automatically deemed unreliable on Wikipedia while known left leaning news organizations are given a pass with little resistance. I’d like to see that change however I also understand that consensus is key to keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. BlackBird1008 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The "basic criteria" for RS are accuracy and fact-checking. If a source disagrees with ALL the mainstream media, that's a red flag; be cautious. Newsmax pushes false narratives and supports Trump's counterfactual agenda on election results, vaccines, COVID-19, climate change, and pushes conspiracy theories (Red flags are favorable use of these words and phrases: Russiagate, Spygate, Steele dossier is fake and debunked, investigations are a Russia hoax, no collusion at all, "I'm the victim of a witchhunt," etc.).

Newsmax, along with Trump, are on the wrong side of history and facts, and what's relevant for Wikipedia and this discussion, on the wrong side of RS on these issues. (Read our articles and the RS they use. We are supposed to agree with RS and follow the evidence, including if and when they "change their minds." That is our obligation as editors. Opposition to RS is opposition to our policies here.) Newsmax and other fringe sources (Breitbart, Daily Caller, New York Post, Daily Mail, Fox News talking heads, Washington Times, American Thinker, The Federalist, etc.) provide the lying contrast (truth vs. lies) to what factual RS say, and we do not give such counterfactual, contrasting, views and sources any weight here because they are not accurate. They are false. We use better sources. That's why we only allow the use of deprecated sources, without undue self-justification, in their own articles. The mainstream view from RS always gets more weight (the last word). -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Unproductive personalized comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you are sourcing to a newsletter opinion article for all that? You used to be really good at trying to use the best RS. Now it's partisan things like this and sourcing things to Twitter.[15] PackMecEng (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Please focus on content, not contributor. Politrukki (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I think you are starting to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. It is not necessary to reply personally to every single point you disagree with; if the arguments are flawed in the way you say, someone else will see it and say something. (And if you are the only one who does, it is likely that your points are not as strong as you believe them to be.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I don't think that is true actually on the bludgeoning claim. Also yes someone else could call out bad arguments, or I could take a second and do it myself. There is nothing wrong with that. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC) It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own. That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) OMG! You know perfectly well that the tweet itself is not the RS. It contained the RS quote. Sheesh. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) No it did not. You cannot use as unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC) BS. That was a talk page comment not intended to be used as is in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC) BLP applies everywhere. Using unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP, even on a talk page is not acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC) There was zero BLP violation in that comment with the tweet. Look at the tweet. For article content I could have used many RS, such as this one. -- Valjean (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC) How about here where you just post a bunch of twitter links. You really should stop doing that, again Twitter is not a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I clearly stated in that thread that they were not the RS, but they pointed to them. (Any editor with a collaborative mindset would be able to figure out what to do, if they were so inclined.) At the time I couldn't elaborate and had to run. -- Valjean (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC) If you did not have time to post actual RS it probably could of waited. That is especially true since all the tweets appear to go to the same article. Finally we all have a collaborative mindset here right? Who does not? PackMecEng (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I don't need you to act like my babysitter. Not everyone has a collaborative mindset. Some try to understand (and stay quiet if they don't) and some just complain and criticize, without any attempt to be flexible. Their criticism is not constructive. They create more heat than light. -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments in reply to my comment above: --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Those are not terribly strong though. Your first source lists then in a column with other sources saying they repeated a claim that turned out to be false. The second source does give that one line then goes on to say things like stronger commitment to the bottom line than to presenting himself as an ideologue. Three not a fan of thesis in other languages but is just listing them in a table with a bunch of other sources lacking context or why. Which is again similar to the last source, they are just in a list. PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Corrections: The first source says they repeated false claims multiple times, without fact-checking or verification and then failed to follow up with a retraction or correction, all of which are core principles of how we assess WP:RSes. The second source straightforwardly describes their fringe nature; the third and fourth sources show that it has been classified as junk news and misinformation in peer-reviewed literature (with the final one using a definition that is almost word-for-word our definition of an unreliable sources.) These are strong, sterling sources to support depreciation, far beyond what we usually rely on; I'm unsure what else you would want beyond peer-reviewed papers that almost point-for-point go down our requirements for a WP:RS and say that they fail nearly every one. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Mostly things that specifically deal with Newsmax instead of passing mention or lumped in a group with no specific description. Which those fail to do. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong and heck it is a source I try to avoid. That said your answer does not address my concerns. PackMecEng (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am glad that we agree that Newsweek is a source that should be avoided, at least; that is, after all, the most important part of a depreciation discussion - beyond that it is mostly minor quibbling over how to word the discussion's summary. I don't feel you've raised any significant or policy-based concerns beyond that; I was merely correcting a few important omissions from your summary (to wit, the aspects of those sources that make them so brutal to anyone's attempts to argue Newsmax could be used as a source, given the way they focus almost laser-tight on the ways Newsmax fails our WP:RS policy and meets the standards for depreciation.) To me, the fact that numerous high-quality academic sources list it as what we would consider depreciation-worthy without further comment is actually a stronger argument, because it says that among top-quality sources Newmax's status as a source that deliberately publish[es] misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture is so well-established and clear-cut that numerous academic papers could use it as a benchmark for political disinformation without worrying that someone will object to that categorization in a way that would call their results into question. An extended essay in a news source would be someone making the argument that Newsmax is what we would call depreciation-worthy; whereas its unequivocal hard categorization as a purvayor of political misinformation in numerous academic sources using such lists establishes it as a commonly-accepted fact, at least within those academic domains. The fact that all these papers passed peer-review while using it in that fashion underlines this reality. By my reading, you don't even seem to be seriously disputing that basic fact (you haven't presented any sources of your own that I can see, and concede that it's a source you would try to avoid), you just wish we had some additional sources digging into Newsmax in more depth. By all means go an search for them; but it's not necessary to have such an in-depth analysis for depreciation when sources like the ones I listed make the general assessment of Newsmax in academia crystal-clear. We're trying to assess its general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy here; we're not trying to write an extended case-study on it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Again just looking for something on Newsmax specifically, it shouldn't be that hard for you. Passing mention and lumped into groups with little supporting the claim is just not that helpful here. Also just because I personally do not like using it, is not a reason to depreciate it. That is the kind of logic you would use to WP:RGW or pull a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of claim. PackMecEng (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Fortunately, I have provided five academic sources establishing the fact that this source is a well-known purveyor of political misinformation, all of which mention Newsmax specifically; no one has raised any policy-based objections to any of them, or presented any sources disagreeing with them, and the fact that they passed peer review establishes that they are decisive in discussions such as these. I am sorry you, personally, did not find this discussion to be helpful, but I'll direct you to WP:BLUDGEON once again: The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer you. You have adequately expressed your personal feelings about the numerous sources I've produced; now it's time to back down and let others add their own assessments. Weak arguments do not become stronger through repetition, while a strong argument only needs to be stated a single time to accomplish its goal. -Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Weak arguments do not become stronger through repetition Yet you keep repeating the same argument without addressing any of the concerns expressed about its flaws. It is really confusing and concerning why you would do that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  I have answered you thoroughly, whether you accept it or not; as I said above, I have no obligation to satisfy you specifically, and as you see above, people seem to be convinced by my arguments and the strength of the sources I produced. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Free Beacon is generally reliable. It has a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy and is used by others. According to McKay Coppins (2018), staff writer at The Atlantic,

  [Free Beacon] contains a fair amount of trolling—a running series of Kate Upton clickbait; winking headlines like "Greatest Living President Is Also Fantastic Painter"—but it has also earned a reputation for real-deal journalism. Its reporters run down leads, work their sources, call for comment, and issue corrections when necessary. If a partisan press really is the future, we could do worse than the Free Beacon."

  Politrukki (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Moreover, based on my quick reading (string search), what you say about Free Beacon making "false claims" is false. Your paper (A Tow/Knight Report) says the status is "unverified" and the Free Breacon reporting was repeated by USA Today and The Huffington Post, "to name a few larger online outlets". Would you suggest deprecating USA Today, The Huffington Post, and "larger online outlets"? What about other sources that publish unverified reports? Politrukki (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  The Free Beacon was already the subject of a previous RFC, here. It had low participation but was overwhelming in favor of depreciation. We could run another one but I suspect the results would be the same. Regarding the other outlets, we'd have to consider the overall coverage they receive, but the key for the Free Beacon in particular was that they were the source of the claim and were particularly called out for doing no fact-checking or verification whatsoever, which is a vital requirement of WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to say in regards to the opening statement:

1. A source gaining a sizable increase in viewership is a reason to reconsider its reliability.
2. Wikipedia should generally consider the reliability of a source in the context of other sources that share its opinions as well as in the abstract to determine whether it is reliable.
3. It does not follow from either of these things, or from a viewership of 287,000 that a source is reliable. 30 million Americans don't believe in the moon landings[16] and yet we still report them as fact because that is what is verifiable.

Basically, I agree with BlackBird's reasons but not his reasoning. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: Fair enough, all I wanted was this discussion to happen even if the majority disagree with me. BlackBird1008 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it's reasonable that this discussion happens even if it does end up citing a news rating agency that is funded in equal parts by US government departments, big tech, and arms contractors; and a logic on pay to print Russian supplements that would leave us with no RSes. I should have been around to raise these things when MintPress happened but hey 🤷‍♂️. Well, all the best, El komodos drago (talk to me) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"even if it does end up citing a news rating agency that is funded in equal parts by US government departments, big tech, and arms contractors; and a logic on pay to print Russian supplements that would leave us with no RSes" Those are some pretty weird aspersions you're casting, care to clarify? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so my apologies on the first point, NewsGuard isn't actually run by the Atlantic Council just run by ex-Atlantic Council and US government communication strategist types. For instance Richard Stengel, self-described chief propagandist [17] and Atlantic Council distinguished fellow [18], is on its advisory board. [19] While I know we have deprecated it, if you want a good rundown of some of the rest of its links backed up by references to NewsGuard's own website MintPress News did a good rundown of it. [20] Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red. As such if we are looking for an independent or neutral source for media reliability basically anyone other than NewsGuard such as either Ad Fontes or Media Bias/Fact Check would be better.

As for paid propaganda supplements, the Wall Stree Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph have all run Russia: Beyond The Headlines (paid for by the Russian government) and China Watch (paid for by the Chinese government). [21] If we applied the idea that running paid propaganda made a source automatically unreliable then we would have to deprecate a bunch of top tier RSes globally. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red." Wow, that's way into conspiracy theory territory. And yes, I read the Mintpress article, but I don't find anything of substance there; it appears more to be just complaining about being held to task for publishing falsehoods.

The biggest problem I can find real, reliable sources having with Newsguard is that if anything their bar to give a website a green label is too low [22][23]; noting that they still manage to give Fox News a green label DESPITE falling to a 69.5 rating, failing to issue corrections, failing to gather and present information responsibly, and failing to handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly. [24] IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason the bar is set so low for Fox News and the Daily Mail is because they toe the line, report, say, that a reporter from a commercial Russian news channel with a minority Russian government stake doing a piece to camera outside the base of a... controversial British army unit is a "spy". [25] It may sound like conspiracy theorism but if you have a look at where it places the bar for different sources it seems pretty evident that they differ depending on whether the source is friendly to US interests or not. As I said, I think the view that MintPress News is unreliable is wrong. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ON the subject of paid content, there is a difference between paid content and publishing as supplement you make no claim of ownership of. So does Newsmax make it clear its Russian?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely a relevant question. The ethical lines are twofold: first, is it clearly labeled as paid content and second, is it something that goes WAY over the line in terms of falsehoods?

My student newspaper's ad department got in trouble for accepting a set of "paid inserts" by the cult of scientology some years ago. The problem wasn't the inserts, it was that the cult went behind their backs and had the "Paid Advertisement" banner stripped off by the printing company. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that provided the content is clearly marked it shouldn't count. For starters, China Watch and Russia Beyond are probably not the model of accuracy. Secondly, viewing a source as unreliable because it in someway associates with another unreliable source can quickly lead to many other sources being unreliable. For instance, a while ago we decided that AlterNet was unreliable. Now I know nothing about AlterNet and can't say whether that was the right decision or not. But then when we had to decide on MintPress we deprecated that partly because it republished from AlterNet. Then when we talked about The Greyzone we decided that was unreliable partly because it cited MintPress News. If my memory serves me right we literally discussed a single story when we decided on Greyzone. Now we are using links to Greyzone to deem unreliable other sources. If AlterNet suddenly turned out to be the model of factual accuracy we'd have to reconsider 3 or 4 sources on WP:RSP. This can lead to really circular logic (Source A is unreliable because no reliable source cites it. Source B is unreliable because it cites Source A). El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing here [26] that matches your claim that "we deprecated Mintpress partly because it republished from AlterNet". I do see one mention that they republished no less than 340 articles from ZeroHedge, one of the worst disinformation sites available online and furthermore, a blog, which demonstrated that Mintpress had no reliability standards and was not bothering to fact-check what they republished? IHateAccounts (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I got the two confused. I know nothing about ZeroHedge, and I'm glad you are confident that ZeroHedge is a "disinformation site". I'm just saying that viewing sources as unreliable because of what they republish could very quickly spiral into a situation where we are deciding the fate of half a dozen sources on the back of the actions of one of them. Thank-you for correcting me, El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

El komodos drago, "viewing sources as unreliable because of what they republish..." is not what we do. Their bias is not a factor. We view sources as unreliable because they republish counterfactual content. It is facts, not bias, which we look at. (Obviously, extreme bias is noticed, because it's a red flag. Extreme bias tends to affect reliability.) Start noticing how those who get their views from unreliable sources will invariably deny the above (no matter how many times we explain this to them) and claim that their favored version and sources have been rejected because of the political bias of editors, rather than the fact that experienced editors usually reject sources because they are not factual, as our policies require us to do. There is a reason why controversial articles are often partially protected. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I was not talking about bias there, or anywhere else in my discussions on this subject. My problem is that regardless of accuracy, clearly marked republished content should not count towards whether or not a source is reliable. I do not know the specifics of this case because they are behind the WSJ's paywall but I am making a broad point that we at this noticeboard have started employing some very circular logic about what is not a reliable source and are increasingly looking at linkages as tenuous as who they share readers with instead of what their actual publishing policies are. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My question was does newsmax mark it, or does it claim it as its own?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant details are behind the WSJ's paywall so I can't answer that. But I think this is the right question. El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This article may be of interest to people participating in this RfC. Still looking for a reliable source to take a position one way or the other. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like this isn't accurate but I wouldn't swear by the reliability of any of those sources. Finding the truth about any news story in America is like swimming through treacle because the left-wing media and the right-wing media live in their own little bubbles and a large chunk of them can't be trusted to tell the truth. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Only one of those seems to mention Newsmax, and none (as far as I can tell) say anything about it reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

NewsMax states Georgia Democrat operative Stacey Abrams effectively placed a preemptive block of signature verification on ballots in Georgia's hand recount based on a claim from Trump and a republican Representative. The above sources say that this is rubbish. As I said, I can't see anyone reputable who settles this one way or the other but a lack of coverage from reputable sources seems to indicate that it is a right-wing talking point that has no basis in the truth. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think El komodos was trying to make an oblique repetition of the OP's claim that Newsmax provides some kind of reliable "alternative perspective", and then realized they stuck their foot in it by not really checking for more reliable coverage such as this: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/trump-launches-attack-georgia-governor-counties-work-recount-votes/RVKWG2SDFBEWRID75ST4AJRGW4/ After a further review, however, the analysis is showing exactly how bad Newsmax truly is. Responsible outlets - and even some that are considered less reliable by Wikipedia, such as Newsweek - correctly note that Trump's accusations are unevidenced and place them in the context of the various conspiracy theories that Trump, his administration, and his followers have bandied about. Newsmax chooses to completely omit context and necessary information, instead just breathlessly repeating the accusations made by Trump and by his campaign employee Doug Collins. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It was actually in response to BlackBird's request to pull something off their home page that is truly not factual but I should have been clearer about it in the original post. I was hopping that there would be an RS that roundly proved or debunked the claim but unfortunately there wasn't. WSB-TV doesn't actually say that Trump's claim was wrong and it doesn't have an RSP or MB/FC. But they look reliable and their tone of doubt is distinct. (plus it sounds outlandish so there is that). El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm still shaking my head because anyone can defend Newsmax, even claiming that their rapidly increasing popularity is a good argument for not deprecating them. The very reason they are becoming more popular is that they are an even worse source than Fox News, that they push even more false narratives, ignore even more facts that have debunked those false narratives, and push even wilder conspiracy theories.

They are even worse than Fox News, an already bad source for AP2, and the single biggest reason for that increased popularity is because Fox News made the mistake (in TrumpWorld) of telling the truth. That truth is anathema to so many Trump/Fox fans that their immediate allergic reaction to facts is to jump ship for another ship with a raging ©TellUsMoreLies epidemic. (Steward checking tickets: "Have you recently been exposed to the ©TellUsMoreLies #TrumpVirus (trending on Twitter)? No? Then you'll have a hard time here. Debunking of the virus is frowned upon by most passengers on this ship. They choose to be infected, and they came here just to get away from people like you. Light is not allowed to penetrate our darkness, so don't mention 'fact-checking'.")

Newsmax is a welcoming harbor for those who have no critical thinking skills, a fundamental requirement for editors here, and yet we have editors who try to defend such a source. Think about that. We already deprecate sources that rate better than Fox News. Why defend an even worse source? -- Valjean (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Some other sources came up as I was trudging through the referenced sources in this discussion, so I figured I'd describe some things that might aid future RSN discussions:

• For the FB disinformation paper, almost all sources described as misinformation are already redboxed on RSP. The exceptions are: Addicting Info, The Blaze, the Conservative Tribune, and RedState. I think most of these are obvious enough that they don't warrant discussion/RSP entries.
• The Anchor Baby paper does not describe things in terms of reliability. It orients discussion almost entirely in terms of partisanship, so I don't think it's a particularly useful source for these questions.
• The list of 'junk news sources' includes a variety of sources we consider OK-ish, as well as some sources we use fairly broadly: The Federalist (unlisted, >200 articles), National Review (yellow, ~3000 articles), Mediaite (yellow, ~800 articles), The Inquisitr (unlisted, >800), Hot Air (unlisted, ~200) and American Thinker (unlisted, ~200 articles). It also lists Rasmussen Reports, which we use in >700 pages. I believe that this is because that list is based on criteria that we do not consider, including partisanship and style. I do not think this list is entirely useful for the purpose of judging reliability, as shown by its disagreement with some of our yellow-listed RSP entries.
• The 2015 Lies, Damn Lies, And Viral Content paper does not describe sources overall as biased/unreliable. It instead evaluates on an article-by-article basis. Articles described as containing misinformation/debunked claims are discussed for sources ranging from the WSJ to the BBC to Buzzfeed to (yes) Newsmax. Interestingly, they mention Huffpost as among the best at addressing debunked claims and being transparent about this sort of thing, indicating that that source really stepped it up between 2012 and 2015.

If this is not an appropriate place for these comments, I'd be happy to have them moved somewhere else. Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The American Conservative commented on the 'list of junk sources' article (link). They didn't like it very much. Jlevi (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies would seem to apply, especially for low-reliability sites such as TAC that purvey ridiculous nonsense stories like this that start out by misrepresenting a photo and get LESS factual as they go on: [27]. But this discussion isn't about TAC, which is rated "for attributed opinions" only. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I agree. I include it not for review of this source, but because the article's hilarious in the context of this discussion. Probably too FORUM-y and tangential for this context, I'll admit. Jlevi (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

NewsMax: Close?

This has been open 7 days and is consistently in a single direction. Shall we call for a close? - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's snowing. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: proposed Wikipedia:Snowball clause, I second (third? fourth?) the motion. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To help out here is a quick count:

1. 31 responses for Option 4 (Deprecate). I don't know that I need to go through all of these but I think these highlights are indicative, if others confirm:

1. Schazjmd linked to Newsguard's analysis which described Newsmax as ""Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards.""
2. Numerically, Ad Fontes Media places Newsmax's reliability rating in the same general range as other, already-Deprecated sources such as RT / Russia Today, The Epoch Times, Breitbart, Zero Hedge and the Daily Caller.
3. Aquillion provided multiple academic papers regarding Newsmax as "as a source that has repeatedly repeated false claims from another outlet (The Washington Free Beacon, which should probably also be depreciated) without fact-checking or verification, apparently for ideological reasons, and without a retraction or follow-up when it was found to be false", "a misinformation source", and ""junk news" classification, which is defined as These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information.".
4. Mastcell provided multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources, including The Guardian, Daily Beast and Wall Street Journal, showing that Newsmax launders propaganda and promulgates misinformation.
5. Other responses generally tracked back to these ("Option 4: Per Acousmana, Aquillion, MatnetteD, MastCell, Hemiauchenia and others." -Magnus Dominus) or indicated incredulity that someone could see Newsmax as reliable in any way ("Option 4, deprecate. Would really hope that they aren't being used now to source anything in the Wikipedia. Newsmax has a decades-long track record of false news." - ValarianB, "Option 4 We have NEVER considered them reliable afaik, and they've gotten even worse over time." - Volunteer Marek, "Option 4, but this should hardlyt be necessary: no competent Wikipedian would use Newsmax as a source, surely?" - JzG)

1. 6 responses for Option 3 (Generally Unreliable)

1. Springee, whose argument against Option 4 is "the wide spread use of the deprecation process. It has gone too far and needs to be stopped."
2. Jlevi, who wrote "Option 3 (maybe 4) Clearly a poor source. Might not be such an aggressively poor source as to require deprecation. I need to look further..." but I can't find where they came to a firm conclusion one way or the other.

Updated, JLevi writes "To conclude, there is very strong evidence for unreliability about the 2020 election in particular. It seems that most arguments fail to make statements on Newsmax's reliability prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election. I support deprecation from 2020 onward and generally unreliable prior to that."

1. TFD, who wrote that they "see no evidence that they publish false or fabricated information beyond what reliable sources do."
2. Adoring Nanny, who wrote "I think we over-use deprecation."
3. ExcitedEngineer, who wrote "Whether we like it or not, unreliable people saying unreliable things in unreliable media are no longer at the fringe of political discourse", arguing that a WP:RSOPINION option should preclude deprecation.
4. El Komodos Drago, who proposed to split the baby: "Option 3 for NewsMax website on the principle of generally opposing deprecation, Option 4 for NewsMax TV broadcasts because it seems particularly egregious, Option 2 for NewsMax magazine, nothing here seems to cover them but pushing generally unreliable on the grounds that neither of the other sources are."

1. 0 for Option 2 (Unclear)
2. 1 for Option 1 (Generally Reliable); only commenter for this was Blackbird1008, the original proposer.

Please let me know if I got something wrong in my count or if there is disagreement to my synopsis. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Close requested at WP:RFCC - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Republic TV

Republic TV is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• The network has been identified as a source of false or misleading claims about Islam[28] and "fake news" 10.1109/CSPA48992.2020.9068673 Obviously it is known for right-wing, pro-BJP and Hindutva stance[29] (t · c) buidhe 11:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am unconcerned about bias, it is not a reason to reject a source, but if more evidence can me made for falsification that would render it unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What is it being used for? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the channel is not politically 100% reliable, but it is not also 100% unreliable. So it should be shown as 'Generally Unreliable' in political status. But for non-political reliability. It should come as 'Generally Reliable'.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be considered unreliable in most other cases as well. It's reporting around Sushant Singh Rajput would be one major instance of it. There is also a thin line between what's political and what is not. A channel which wouldn't even refrain from fabricating quotes (see [30]) is not usable for anything, imv. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK if it fabricate quotes its not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the Sushant Singh Rajput point. But, that was close to politics as it aimed at the Maharashtra government. But the other news on entertainment, sports, biography's, non-political headlines etc.. are 99.9% reliable. So non-political should be presented (in my opinion) as 'Generally Reliable'. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Tayi Arajakate I would like to point out that they had produced fake news on the Karnataka Home Minister's comments, as it was political. I wouldn't mind the politically unreliable statement. But the non-political matter is the matter. The Sushant Singh Rajput case, was related to politics. Even otherwise it was just 1 issue. Rliable sources like The Guardian also have shown unreliability in some issues. But their other articles were fair.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, If the Sushant Singh Rajput case was political then anything can be turned political, the case is also a very good reason why it should never be used in any biographies of living people. It's not possible to separate the junk from what's good without relying on other sources, at which point there is no legitimate uses anymore. This is the case with most of our deprecated sources. The Guardian (RSP entry) in comparison may have a political leaning but you will never find them outright manufacturing quotes for example, it's more comparable to the Daily Mail (RSP entry) if not anything else, perhaps even worse than it.

By the way, please don't copy my sign. Instead use Template:Reply to or Template:User link to notify me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate (talk), the Sushant Singh Rajput case is just an example. It just happened once, and could happen to any reliable source. But the other incident is 100% political, and I have accepted that they are politically unreliable, but what I suggested is that every NEWS website, would have presented their own view on a topic, and campaigned for it, as Republic did in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. One case shouldn't alone affect their reliability in non-political matters. I expect more comments on the topic.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not something "that happened" but rather something they deliberately do, persistently and consistently. The Sushant Singh Rajput case is also not the "only non-political case", although the case should be enough. See the list of examples below, there is a political twist to these but as it goes with Republic, anything can be turned political or manufactured for political purposes.

• [31] Fabricated story about Lara Worthington accusing Imran Khan of sexual harrassment.
• [32] Fabricated story about non-payment of dues by Jama Masjid, Delhi.
• [33] [34] Misinformation related to Covid-19 pandemic.
• [35] Editing tweets to sanitisize the image of another fake news site (see Postcard.news)
• [36] Fabricated quote, attributed to the journalist Rana Ayyub.
• [37] Hosting an entire debate on the basis of a fabricated quote.

I have listed this on the noticeboard for India-related topics which should bring in more comments. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic were on Republic Bharat TV, which is another channel, though they are the same brand. Also the rest are all either political, or about famous people in different field, who have a strong political career. For example- check out Arundathi Roy and also the fact that Rana Ayyub has been critical of the illegal encounters in Gujarat, which was ruled by BJP. Also see [38] on BBC doing fake news. Yet, they are considered to be politically reliable, as they generally are. That is by considering the general case. The same should go for Republic as they are generally reliablr for non-political matters.

I am asking the other editors about factors like entertainment, sports and such non-political events where Republic TV is reliable.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One of them is about Republic Bharat, the other is about Republic TV. Both of them fall under the same editorial hierarchy and republish each other's content. The Al Jazeera article is about BBC's historical use of propaganda in service of British foreign interests which doesn't apply to its current standards, the corporation became editorially independent from state interests around the 80s and 90s. We can't use British Raj era material from BBC for example. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please recheck the website you stated on the fake news on the pandemic, it is by Republic Bharat TV and not by Republic TV. It is true that they are of the same brand, but they have different editorial offices and employees, which is the reason that they can't be related in this discussion. I just can't understand, on why can't you accept that a channel is reliable in non-political matter, when it is the largest NEWS channel in India. The political case is valid, and I have accepted the fact from the beginning, but in the case of non-political matters, the case is different. If you would like to clear the Arundathi Roy matter, please watch today's NEWS, on how a University declined her book, due to her political influence.

The Times Of India is considered unreliable in non-political matters also, as it publishes unreliable work, if it is paid.. But Republic TV is clean there. So I would like to stress on the point that it should be politically shown as "Generally Unreliable", and non-politically as "Genrally Reliable." Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific article in which you want to use Republic TV? The Times of India (RSP entry) is considered close to generally unreliable for much less. As for why "I can't accept that the channel is reliable in non-political matter" is because a network which deliberately engages in fabrications is not one that is reliable for statements of fact, there is no reason to reproduce material which is possibly misinformation from that channel. Its reputation doesn't satisfy WP:RS and causes a whole lot of WP:BLP issues, if you want something like cricket scores or weather reporting, there are much better sources than this.

I have also cited two references for Covid-19 misinformation, the first of which is about Republic TV and the second one is about Republic Bharat, both of which share the same editorial staff; Arnab Goswami is the editor-in-chief of both, Gaurav Arya is the defense consultant on both, Aishwarya Kapoor is the political editor on both, etc etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion leads us nowhere.Let me end it. Without any conflict, let's just state that Republic is 'Generally Unreliable'. Problem solved. Now the question is - how does that work.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:GUNREL explains how generally unreliable sources should be used. Although, I'd keep the discussion open for other editors (as in other than just us two) to comment on if they are interested, there's potential for more discussion. There's also barely been any time since the discussion was started. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I request more editors to join the discussion.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• There is no dearth of authentic newspapers in India. The only reason to even consider Republic TV would be to peddle their opinions. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to peddle anybody's opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Republic TV is comparable to One America News Network (RSP entry), in that it is a new television network (3.5 years old) that has a tendency to broadcast misinformation and conspiracy theories with a strong political bias. Tayi Arajakate provided a list above, and there's one more topic not in the list that I'd like to highlight: Republic TV has been one of the most prominent promoters of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory. Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means, published by Routledge, includes a case study detailing how Republic TV (and Times Now) used "sensational" and "provocative" messaging to falsely portray the Love Jihad conspiracy theory as a real phenomenon. Examples include:

• "Both channels [Republic TV and Times Now] harnessed the power of repetition by incessant tweeting of the words 'Love Jihad' along with some negative and/or leading words (e.g., 'forced conversion,' 'reality'). [...] This constant repetition suggests that the channels aim to diffuse this idea to viewers that 'Love Jihad' is less of a myth and that Muslims are conspiring to annihilate the Hindu population and culture."
• "Both channels' [Republic TV's and Times Now's] news anchors encourage viewers to tweet using hashtags like #HinduGirlsHunted, #HinduGirlsForISIS, #LoveJihadNailed. Persuading audiences to use hashtags in their messages may give a false impression to viewers to see 'this media-fed thought process as ... [their] own' (Drabu, 2018, p.17)."
• "Deploying Twitter during its shows, Republic TV claims that it is 'the first ever TV' to 'expose' 'Love Jihad,' inviting audiences to watch 'The Debate' on its channel."
• "The prevalence of erotophobia and the perceived threat of Muslims (Berlant & Greenwald, 2012) reproduced by media outlets like Republic TV and Times Now facilitate actions and policies that are otherwise unjustifiable. In other words, the assailant took the responsibility of 'saving' Hindu girls from Muslim men and he believed that it would only be possible by enacting violence against them."

The above applies primarily to Republic TV's news reporting. Republic TV's talk shows, particularly The Debate with Arnab Goswami, are highly exaggerated versions of Fox News talk shows (RSP entry) that include an incredible amount of shouting. The New Yorker (RSP entry) explains: "Modi's supporters often get their news from Republic TV, which features shouting matches, public shamings, and scathing insults of all but the most slavish Modi partisans; next to it, Fox News resembles the BBC's 'Newshour.'" Fox News talk shows are considered generally unreliable even without the additional shouting, so I can't see any reason to consider Republic TV talk shows any more reliable than that. Altogether, there are enough issues with both the news coverage and talk shows of Republic TV that the channel as a whole is generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: More reviews please.

The result till now is 'Generally Unreliable'. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have seen Republic Bharat through my TV and found that the news reporters are enthusiastic supporters of BJP and Hinduism. They criticise the Muslims for almost anything. So, I can say that Republic Bharat is a right-wing pro-BJP pro-Hindu anti-Muslim news channel. But I don't disgrace the reliability of the news channel in non-sociopolitical topics. So I can rate the sociopolitical portion generally unreliable and non-sociopolitical portion generally reliable. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I thank @Soumya-8974 for her review, even though it is about Republic Bharat and not Republic TV. Yet as Tayi Arajakate stated that they republish each other's work and have almost the same editorial staff, the point is valid. She and myself have shared the same opinion on the matter. I look forward to more views as the present situation is still- "Generally Unreliable" in both political and non-political NEWS. The non-political reliability margins are narrow, so a result can't deduced. More comments needed.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: I am a male person, not female. Please use "he" to refer to me. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant sociopolitical, not political. See political sociology if you're unfamiliar with the term. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974:I apologize for my confusion with the name, but in the end our points are the same. Please continue editting.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable for KPop and Kdrama related news: Republic TV's website –republicworld.com reports about Korean dramas and Korean pop based on the information given by Soompi and Allkpop, which is considered unreliable by Wikiproject Korea (Link: WP:KO/RS#UR). Hence, Republic TV's websites are unreliable for K-dramas and K-pop related news. Examples include:

1)EXO's Chanyeol embroiled in cheating scandal, SM Entertainment issues statement "as detailed by All Kpop" "translated by Soompi"

2)Suzy and Nam Joo Hyuk starrer 'Start-Up's ‘dreamy’ second poster released by the makers "as per reports in Soompi"

3)EXO's Chen is all smiles for his first military photo since enlistment; See picture "According to a report by Soompi"

Closure: I was informed about this discussion on my talk page by Atlantis77177.

-ink&fables «talk» 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: Thank you for giving your opinion. The result at present is unreliable, please continue editing. We need more opinions.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The present result is 'Generally Unreliable'. Need more comments.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India

The Times of India is shown as politically 'no consensus'. But I believe that in non-political matters, it should be graded as Huffpost, where the articles by contributors should be 'gu' and for editorial non-political mattters- 'gr'. Please comment.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What does 'gr' and 'gu' mean? Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I presume gr=generally reliable, and gu=generally unreliable. Grandpallama (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would oppose this motion, at least as currently phrased. My primary exposure to ToI is going through their coverage of pop culture, and my overall impression is that this side of the publication is quite poor, with a lot of published content reading like promotional press releases. While I wouldn't consider them to be generally unreliable, neither would I consider them generally reliable, the articles need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• The previous ToI discussion was quite well attended. There would need to be a serious reason to overturn prior consensus. I agree with Rosguill that issues with pop culture coverage have also occurred. It may be useful for some content but first you have to check if it's pure PR. (t · c) buidhe 01:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Times of India is a proof on Times of India's reliability, but I agree to the point in political matters. What I argue now is on non-political matters, which are published by the editorial staff, and there has been general consensus around India that they are reliable.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We need more reviews please--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I initially thought TOI as a reliable source, like most Indians. But after going through the Kashmir-related coverages, I found some smells of POV in the news outlet. The pop culture concerns raised by Rosguill are also true. Therefore, I rate "generally ureliable" in political and pop cultural coverages, and "generally unreliable" in other coverages. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Times of India is generally reliable for factual news reporting, including political and entertainment news (provided they are part of the main newspaper). Traditionally, the Times of India, Hindustan Times and the Hindu have a large readership base and are generally respected. However, care must be taken to distinguish the news (Times of India) from the ETimes (entertainment/pop culture reports which often carry promotional content). Both are part of Indiatimes.com website which confuses editors sometimes. However, while TOI has news, ETimes is more like a web portal which carries entertainment/P3 related articles. Even the website for ETimes states "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising". The actual TOI can be accessed from [39] and the news articles can be differentiated from the ETimes articles. Another thing to be careful of is that the TOI website carries reader's blogs which should not be used as a reference for any content.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• What does Encyclopedia Britannica's article about journalism have to do with the reliability of the TOI? Regardless, I concur with Rosguill about unreliability in entertainment news and articles about film, music and other popular culture topics, and nothing seems to have changed since February to make the paper generally reliable for news. This does not appear to be a formal RfC, and no arguments have been given as to why the previous, fairly recent and very well attended RfC should be overturned. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I will concede that DreamLinker may have a point about "ETimes" coverage vs TOI coverage when it comes to entertainment news; I'd never really noticed the distinction before and can't make an off the cuff judgement about whether non-ETimes entertainment content has been of good quality./ _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Usually reliable for non-controversial topics: The Times of India (TOI) newspaper certainly has a pro-India bias in topics relating to Pakistan and China. However, bias does not imply unreliability. In fact, TOI is nowadays politically neutral and has a low story-selection bias. The bigger issue regarding TOI's reliability is improper/non-existent disclosure of paid content. However, please note that this issue is not limited to TOI but appears to be prevalent in most of the major news outlets of India in varying degrees. As a quick citation to bolster my argument, please note how easily both the CIA and KGB sponsored stories in Indian media on a massive scale during the cold war. So deeming TOI non-usable would make things difficult for Indian editors like me since it would censor a large number of useful reports whose reliability is otherwise unquestioned.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  As a side-note, TOI is so large that it cannot publish factually incorrect news without drawing attention/criticism.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

greekcitytimes.com

• Source: [40]
• My concerns: The chief of this website Paul Antonopoulos had been criticized he posted hate comments on a neo-nazi website called Stormfront (website). I think this person has anti-Turkish sentiment based on his "news" on that website, and he posted comments about denying a chemical attack, and racist comments (you can see here on the video). Is this source reliable? Beshogur (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but does someone want to use it on Wikipedia? What for? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone used in Pan-Turkism article. Beshogur (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Antonopoulos a known neo-nazi anyways? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A Stormfront contributor? Sounds like a good candidate for non-controversial removals. Spudlace (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

more Mail On Sunday

You might have thought we literally just concluded an RFC on the matter, but see Talk:Hugh Walpole. Is a Peter Hitchens blog post review WP:DUE use of a deprecated source? - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Staff reviews of deprecated sources should fall under RSOPINION and should be used where the source would normally be considered as part of the "expert" body of reviews for a work - eg Mail entertainment staff writers reviewing British creative works, but only for their opinion and not factual details of the work. Though I'm not sure of its need on this specific article as its only bringing up a book in passing and the review of that seems unnecessary. But if there were an article on said book, then that review would seem appropriate - it wouldn't count towards notability or other checks if there were no other sources to support the article, but if among multiple appropriate RSes and other reviews, that would be fine. --Masem (t) 16:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION requires that the opinion be in an RS - it's specifically about opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. That doesn't apply here - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and this was discussed before [41]. An example RSOPINION gives is of an opinion from an RS, but it does not say that the opinion must come from an RS. Obviously, though, we don't want Random John Doe's Blog to be used as sourcing due to RSOPINION, so there is a factor of UNDUE in regards to whether the DM's staff review is considered part of the expert body of reviewers in that topic area. In the case of the DM, its opinions on British entertainment is actually well discussed in broader sources (from research back at the time of that discussion) so it would seem to be inappropriate to ignore their reviews on British works, when relevant. (I don't it is for this specific instance). --Masem (t) 17:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion you cite is a discussion of your attempts to add a DM cite to an article on Dr Who, and having everyone else disagree with you and point out you're wrong. That is, it opposes your position here, rather than supporting it - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeeeah, that's not what that discussion looks like (And that was over a review of a Doctor Who episode from a noted critic that happened to end up at the Daily Mail, which I will agree that on the specifics is vastly different from this case here where I would agree it is undue). --Masem (t) 22:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It ended with a straw poll that said you were wrong, and your cite to the Mail remains out of the article. That you take this as a win demonstrates that you literally failed at counting votes in a straw poll - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The straw poll was on the question "Should we hold a request for comment on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews? " not about the use in that article at all. And you'll notice that some of the "no"s were worried about the specificness of that question to just the DM and to just reviews, so it wasn't rejecting the option of an RFC at all. --Masem (t) 16:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor, above, maintains that the policy on not using the Mail as a WP:RS means we cannot quote the opinions of music critics, art critics or literary critics from its columns. I see nothing in past decisions that justifies this contention - the policy specifically allows for exceptions, and as Mail pieces by writers such as Bernard Levin have later appeared in book form as collections of their authors' journalism it seems silly to say we can quote a Mail review if it is reprinted in book form, but not otherwise. The literary critic in question in this case is Peter Hitchens, though I confess I do not know if the piece has been reprinted in hard covers. At all events, quoting it seems to me wholly respectful of our policy on the Mail as WP:RS. Tim riley talk 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Riley. Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue. The deprecation of the Mail on Sunday was recently formalized in on this noticeboard. The source of the quote in the Hugh Walpole article is "Holiday Reading", a blog post by MailOnline columnist Peter Hitchens. Furthermore, the article is on "Peter Hitchens blog", a blog within the Mail on Sunday website. Newspaper blogs are typically treated with more caution than the publications they are under, and since the Mail on Sunday is deprecated, its blog is at least as unreliable. The due weight policy states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "Peter Hitchens blog" is not a reliable source, so the correct weight assigned to the opinions within is zero. WP:RSOPINION applies to "opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable", but does not apply here because neither the Mail on Sunday nor "Peter Hitchens blog" is recognized as reliable. — Newslinger talk 17:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That line "opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable" is clearly marked as one example of where RSOPINION lies, and does not set the bounds for it. --Masem (t) 17:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No unreliable source suddenly becomes reliable by labelling its claims as opinions. That interpretation would enable any low-quality source to make an end run around the verifiability policy by doing so. As a guideline, WP:RS does not bypass the WP:V policy (which includes WP:QS – and all deprecated sources are questionable sources). However, if the opinions are covered by actual reliable sources, then the reliable sources can be cited for those claims. — Newslinger talk 18:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are not reliable, period, per RSOPINION; they must be attributed and not spoken in Wikivoice, and whether they should be included depends on a number of factors with DUE/WEIGHT being a big one. An opinion piece published in the NYTimes falls under RSOPINION and is no more reliable than an opinion piece in the DM, but there is obviously something to be said that the NYTimes' political op-ed staff carry much more weight for including their opinion on a political topic than the DM political op-ed staff, and even that DM staff would have more weight than Random Joe's political blog. That's where knowing if the source or author is considered an appropriate expert voice in the relevant field that we'd have to consider an opinion they have published regardless of where it was published under WEIGHT among other policies. In terms of the DM, the only area that I'm familiar with where their staff have any weight is reviews of British media (film, tv, books, etc.) as some of the DM staff writers have notable histories from other papers and are considered experts.

There is nothing in RSOPINION that we would require an RS to source a deprecated or other non-RS for use of their opinion, since that would also apply to RSOPINIONS from otherwise RS sources (NYTimes op-eds for example). There's a reason we have DUE/WEIGTH is because it is extremely rare for there to be RS articles that summarize any possible RSOPINIONs for us, so we have to figure out the WEIGHT of available opinions ourselves, which factors in several elements. But whether the source is reliable or not is not an exclusion from RSOPINION at all. While the source may be questionable under WP:QS, things like reviews do not fall into any of the warning flags that QS warns against, so again, they would still be allowed only for these opinions-as-reviews, if they are appropriate for the subject area. --Masem (t) 19:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If a notable critic published his own blog, it would be a RS and could be used in "Critical reception" sections of Wikipedia articles. There is no reason to disqualify the blog just because it is included in the website of a newspaper that is a deprecated source due to its general reporting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hitchens is notable, but not as a critic. And even then, his blog wouldn't automatically be an RS. Someone who isn't notable as a critic, publishing a blog, in a deprecated source? - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION explicitly states that "opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable" are "reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact". That explicit qualification applies to opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable such as The New York Times (RSP entry), but not to ones in unreliable sources such as the Mail on Sunday. As a result, opinion pieces in The New York Times are generally assigned a higher weight than opinion pieces in the Mail on Sunday. Due to the unreliability of the Mail on Sunday, its opinion pieces are much more likely to constitute undue weight; opinions in the Mail on Sunday can still be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, or if they gain weight by receiving coverage in actual reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You are omitting the lede to that statement in RSOPINION: A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. This is clear that this is but one case where we consider the source to be an RSOPINION, but does not define the extent. There is no requirement stated in RSOPINION that the source has to be an RS. --Masem (t) 02:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but just because the reliable sources guideline fails to make the assertion that "opinion pieces in sources recognized as unreliable may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" does not mean that the assertion is true. If the guideline does not say something, then we defer to the related policies, WP:QS and WP:DUE. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind QS does not disallow unreliable/deprecated sources, as long as they are used creafully, are not used for fact, they are attributed, and not used in contentious places (BLP). DUE is definitely the guideline principle here to keep out random blogs from topics and allow opinions only from people generally considered experts for that specific topic area. As I agree with below, in this specific case of the Hitchens piece, he is not an expert in this specific topic area of Walpole so should not be used. But if we were talking a contemporary British media work, he and many of the other notable critics that write for the DM and in other deprecated brit tabloids like the Mirror/Sun would be fully acceptable as summarizing the critical response to a British work, in the context of UNDUE. --Masem (t) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, An opinion included from the primary source, if challenged, needs a compelling rationale for inclusion. Opinions are cheap, and outlets for opinions are often undiscriminating in what they publish now that the cost of newsprint is not an issue. So a primary-sourced opinion needs to be either an acknowledged expert or sufficiently prominent that it is discussed in third party RS.

This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a collection of opinions by random activists drawn directly from primary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That is where DUE comes into play to make sure that we're not just including every random blog that commented on a topic. If we are turning to RSOPINIONS from sources that are not typically RS for facts, it should be because the people making said opinions are considered appropriate experts to include their opinions for the specific topic. In the specific matter, if the topic were a work of contemporary British media, reviews from notable British critics - regardless if they were in the Guardian, Daily Mail, or their own web site - would be reasonable to include per DUE as an RSOPINION. In the specific case in point, which is NOT about a contemporary British work, that review is unnecessary. --Masem (t) 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The basic idea ("if the topic were a work of contemporary British media, reviews from notable British critics - regardless if they were in the Guardian, Daily Mail, or their own web site - would be reasonable to include") is sound, but there is a further complication; The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday might put words on paper or on a web page that claim to be the words of notable British critics and have bylines naming notable British critics but are actually either edited versions or complete fabrications. I have seen zero evidence that any other source -- including rival British tabloids -- has this problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

David's pointed out one example of that below, but the question becomes if this is really happening or not. The example that David gives (linking to [42]) could easily be explained that the writer at DM wrote it flowery at the DM and then in the book form backed off. It could be the DM editors flowered it up, sure, but there's other explanations as well, and given the other examples of how the DM altered others' work, this doesn't seem to be in the same ilk, but that's only one case to go on. (But I want to be clear, there are reason to remain suspect here). If this is a persistent problem at the DM, then we should have an RFC/discussion to specifically exclude DM commentary (outside when they are talking about themselves) from RSOPINION inclusion. --Masem (t) 15:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, seriously? Sigh. I wonder about the competence of some people. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Policy on this matter is given in WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Sometimes people forget that a source is not just the publication, but also the author; per WP:SOURCEDEF: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) / The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) / The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) / Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." In short, an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject is in itself a reliable source. If the question here is "Is an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject made unreliable by the publication source?" then the answer is no. As we tend to prefer our commentators on Foo to be experts on Foo rather than Poo, the true question for the use of the Hitchens quote in the Walpole article is "Is Peter Hitchens regarded as authoritative in relation to Hugh Walpole?" If he is, then all is fine; if he is not, then the quote is mere whimsy and the opinion is not notable (unless, of course, the opinion itself became the subject of discussion by reliable sources). SilkTork (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is the messenger notable? Yes. Is the message notable? Yes. The organ of delivery may be tainted, but the information is valid and viable. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:D38:19EF:CC6A:387C (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the message notable? Yes. This is not at all in evidence, and the prima facie considerations (deprecated source, messenger not notable as a critic) are against it - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens is a columnist who writes about contemporary British life and politics. His view on a nineteenth century author isn't relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For everything else said, this right here for this specific case. Pretty much, whether Hitchens was writing his opinion in the Guardian or the DM, as a contemporary critic, he is not an expert on 19th century topics, and thus would fail UNDUE. --Masem (t) 15:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, Peter Hitchens is a random blowhard. All the snark of his brother but without the incisive wit. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation means we cannot know if Hitchens actually wrote the article or if it was published as written. It is not the same thing as "generally unreliable," where exceptions could be made. As stated, it would not be a reliable source for facts, wherever published. Furthermore, per weight, opinions must be published or reported in reliable sources before they have any weight. We wouldn't include an opinion expressed in comments on a youtube video for example because it would have no weight. TFD (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That is nothing what deprecation means at all. It may be a source-specific question in regards to the DM , but I do not see anyone in the RFC challenging that the staff writers works were fictionalized (in contrast to third-party opinions which were objectively found to have been manipulated). And as I pointed out above, RSOPINION at no point requires opinions to be published in RSes to be used, it is just using an opinion published in an RS as an example of what would be an RSOPINION source, not setting the bound there. UNDUE is the place where we judge if the person behind the opinion makes it appropriate to include (which random YouTube comments would clearly fail but a notable critic would likely not). --Masem (t) 18:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The DM does fictionalise staff writers' works. There's an extended flowery quote in Death of Keith Blakelock that an editor really wanted in because it was "a very moving description of what the men did to try to save Blakelock". However, it seems to have been fictionalised - the bylined journalist also wrote it up in a book, and the book version was vastly less flowery than the DM version. The book version is now in the article, the DM version isn't. That is, the DM jazzed up, i.e. fabricated, quotes attributed to a person, in an article by a staff writer. So yes, the DM does in fact do that thing - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Fool's Errand

Above, Masem writes "I do not see anyone in the RFC challenging that the staff writers works were fictionalized (in contrast to third-party opinions which were objectively found to have been manipulated)."[43] This was immediately followed by evidence that The The Daily Mail does indeed fictionalize staff writers' works.[44]

Trying to decide in what areas The Daily Mail is reliable is a fool's errand. Again and again well-meaning editors have tried to figure out some area where The Daily Mail is reliable, and again and again The Daily Mail has published fabrications in those exact areas.

The problem with The Daily Mail is systemic and affects everything they do without exception. They always choose whatever behavior maximizes profit. This keeps fooling Wikipedia editors who try to read the tea leaves and predict what areas they are reliable for.

If publishing accurate football scores maximizes profit, they will publish accurate football scores. If they ever decide that telling lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week will be profitable they will tell lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week.

If publishing articles that appeal to Conservative and Unionist Party members maximizes profit, they will do that. If they ever decide that suddenly switching to supporting the Liberal Democrats will maximize profit, they will start doing that instead.

If publishing retractions and corrections makes money, they will publish retractions and corrections. If publishing retractions and corrections loses money, they will stop publishing retractions and corrections.

If telling lies about celebrities brings in more money than they lose through fines and lawsuits, they will tell lies about celebrities. If telling lies about celebrities starts costing them more in lawsuits than they make in increased circulation, they will see that they are losing money on the deal and stop telling lies about celebrities.

Note that they do whatever maximizes profit, not whatever maximizes readership or makes the readers happy, although those things often overlap. If they ever decide that offending 90% of their readers will maximize profit, they will happily offend 90% of their readers.

Because of this basic truth, trying to decide in what areas The Daily Mail will decide that being reliable will turn a profit is a fool's errand. You are holding yourself hostage to their judgement as to what will maximize profit, and assuming that just because so far telling the truth in some limited area has been profitable, it will necessarily remain profitable. The Daily Mail is not to be trusted in any area, even areas where you think that they have a history of being reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I still think the crowning glory was when we discovered that you literally cannot trust dailymail.co.uk to represent the past content of the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So we now know we now know that we can't even trust WP:ABOUTSELF material (TDM lies about what is contained in TDM). There are other ways that TDM can lie that we haven't caught them doing yet but the basic principle above still applies. You cannot trust TDM to present the same content from the same URL to different users or to the same user at different times. We haven't caught them doing this, but it is technically possible, and If they ever decide that serving different content to different users is profitable, they will serve different content to different users.

You also cannot trust TDM's printed version sold in West London to be the same as what appears to be the same issue sold in East London. Again, just because we haven't caught them doing this, that is a piss poor reason to assume without evidence that they never will.

I remember reading about a paid TDM writer who published the same material elsewhere and it was obvious that their words as published in TDM were edited. Was that you who wrote that? Does anyone have links to that? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Except, the RFC for the DM did not end on this note. Absolutely unreliable for any factual reporting expect about itself, yes. But the RFC did not say anything about its opinions from staff. If there needs to be another to say its staff opinions itself can't be trusted because of upstream editors even manipulating those, so be it. Knowing that the DM is generally conservative politically, we know its opinions likely won't be used in most articles per UNDUE. The only place that is really being challenged here is in reviews (opinions) of contemporary media, where the DM has been bringing in notable critics from other publications over the years, and who still seem respected as individuals for their reviews of British works. Could those reviews be manipulated? Possibly but as many have example works from other publications it would be easy to see that type of manipulation as well. This is probably the only area I can tell where the DM should not be readily dismissed, and that's still within the allowances of RSOPINION and UNDUE (in that British papers reviewing British contemporary media are pretty much expert sources). --Masem (t) 15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks like we are going to have to go through Yet Another Daily Mail RfC to stop editors from playing Whac-A-Mole with arguments like "the RFC did not say anything about its opinions from staff" or "so far they have never lied about rugby scores". I am thinking of wording it

"Proposed: The post-1970 Daily Mail cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia, with no exceptions. This specifically covers WP:ABOUTSELF material, because The Daily Mail has been known to lie about itself, and it specifically covers direct quotes and material published under bylines, because The Daily Mail has been known to fabricate both. Citations that would be otherwise acceptable under policies such as WP:SELFPUB are not allowed if the only source for them is The Daily Mail."

I hate to put us through that again, but as long as editors decide to go on The Fools Errand described above we are going to have to arrive at a consensus that they need to stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If we have two or more confirmed cases of staff opinion being altered, I don't think even a full drawn out RFC is needed, just a straw poll to include that language. That said, there probably still be a carve out when the topic is specifically something about the DM itself, and commentary from the DM upper echelon is required and we can't get that from anywhere else, as long as we be clear that that's what the DM stated. Ideally, if it is true controversy that the DM is at the center of, more reliable sources will report the DM's position and we don't have to touch the DM but I can still see the need to use them very limited and judiciously if we need to provide a non-self-serving counterpoint to an argument. But that's literally it then for DM stuff we can even start to us. --Masem (t) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It lies, it does not matter what it tells lies about it cannot be trusted for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You can't rule out the possibility that the DM quoted top DM management as stating the exact opposite depending on who accessed the webpage or where they bought the print edition. All it would take is for them to decide that doing that will increase profits. We cannot use the DM as a source for statements by DM management. They really will lie about anything, including fabricating statements from their own top management. I say no exceptions. I say wait until another source reports what DM management said. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Canary

Would editors mind having a look at the designation of The Canary as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? [45] The summary says "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary". I counted 6 editors voting for GU and 4 editors for GR with appropriate attribution. As far as I can tell the editors who considered Canary as GU didn’t raise any significant specific examples of how it was unreliable. My feeling is that the GU tag does not adequately represent the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. I would suggest 'no consensus' would be a closer summary. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Always unreliable except as a primary source. For anyone who's unaware, The Canary is the house journal of the British lunatic fringe. I can see no circumstances in which they'd ever be a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source for their own writers' opinions; on those occasions where they're correct then a legitimate source will have published the same story and we can use that instead; if no legitimate source has covered the story, it's a good indication that either the story isn't notable in Wikipedia terms or that The Canary has made it up. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments, which will be factored into a source's entry on WP:RSP after the discussion is archived or closed. To call for a reassessment of previous discussions on a source without new arguments, the correct venue would be WT:RSP. — Newslinger talk 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• A mere difference of 2 participating editors + zero clear examples provided of unreliability ~ hardly seems = justify the current GU tag. Just because you do not like a source's political stance is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question here on this board is the source reliable. Basic Stuff. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Doesn't look like the 'generally unreliable' statements provided significant proof (though perhaps they were based on consensus from the two previous discussions that were linked). Mostly GU arguments came from bias/POV, rather than reliability--not a valid argument in this venue. Supporters of 'reliable' put forward a couple of points that didn't land, including some statements about audience size or audience trust. They did describe indicators of a stable editorial staff and editorial policy, which is good for their position. The arguments in general were not very convincing either way, and I'd probably discuss the results only of that conversation as 'no consensus' based on the existence of basic editorial processes. Jlevi (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Before we run away with effusions over the wrong done The Canary by prejudice, let's peruse:
    • "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Topple, Steve (27 September 2017). "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference". The Canary. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • Lewis, Helen (27 September 2017). "The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks". New Statesman. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • "Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 2020-11-19.

Another complaint in 2018 was also upheld. See here. Now that their darling Jeremy Corbyn has been deposed and ostracized, they've gone completely off the rails, and continue to be wholly partisan. See, for recent example, here. GPinkerton (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The were a rough consensus that the source in unreliable and the examples brought by GPinkerton is only make it clear.The WP:ONUS for these source was never met so it cannot be used in WP --Shrike (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your wording is a bit odd but I think I know what you are trying to say. WP:ONUS talks about when a specific item of information can be added to an article. That isn't relevant to the determination of a source's general reliability. Pink didn't take part in the discussion on The Canary's reliability but the Laura K. incident, which Pink provides four links to, was mentioned in the discussion. In regards to achievement of a "rough consensus", if you referring to the 6-4 vote, my question was in part whether the 6-4 vote did indicate that "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary" or whether 'no consensus' is a more accurate description of the discussion. Burrobert (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I participated and said attribute and use with caution. The discussion got a bit mixed I thought, with evolve and squawkbox, 2 other left leaning sites. I think generally unreliable is not really an accurate reflection of the convo. No con would be better, maybe rerun it by itself?Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable due to bias and free mixing of opinion and fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical that it really has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. What's the evidence that such reputation exists? (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. Burrobert (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the first three examples posted by GPinkerton, and I frankly don't see how they support the "generally unreliable" label. The first example is a criticism of The Canary's criticism of Israel. The second is a Canary article criticizing a BBC journalist for agreeing to speak at a Tory conference fringe event. This article was corrected after publication (to make clear that it was a fringe event), which is exactly what we want to see reliable sources doing. The third example is an opinion piece in the New Statesman that criticizes The Canary's criticism of the BBC journalist. The author in the New Statesman claims The Canary's criticism was sexist (the only ground given by the author for this accusation is that the BBC journalist is a woman - make of that what you will). This looks like completely normal back-and-forth between publications with different political leanings: a publication that supports Israel criticizes a publication that supports the Palestinians, a publication that opposes Corbyn criticizes a publication that supports Corbyn, etc.

A determination of "generally unreliable" has to be based on stronger stuff than that. There has to be actual unreliability, not just differences of political opinion with other magazines. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the discussion has petered out. There are some editors who have reiterated their previous position that The Canary is GU. However, of those who commented on the previous discussion, most seem to believe that 'no consensus' is a more accurate description of that discussion. Does anyone have any objections to me updating the list to reflect this? Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The discussion has only been open a few days and there are contributions here dated yesterday. The last discussion referenced two or more previous discussions and taken together these three discussions indicate a strong consensus that it should not be considered generally reliable. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to show that more clearly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The April 2020 discussion[46] included 6 editors who argued that it is generally unreliable or has been deemed such in prevous discussions (Buidhe, Shrike, myself, Hippeus, JzG, Iridescent) (plus arguments against the policy basis of the reliability case put forward by and Hemiauchenia & JungerMan Chips Ahoy! who didn't themselves express a position), vs 3 editors who argued it was generally reliable (Burrobert, Bodney, Jontel), plus 1 editors who argued for a "use with caution" approach (Selfstudier).

The April discussion in turn referenced two earlier discussions. In September 2019, a question about The Canary and other similar sources elicited responses from 9 editors for unreliability ({u|The_Land}}, Bondegezou, Bangalamania, Icewhiz, Sitush, Kirbanzo, Sceptre + JzG, Shrike, already mentioned) vs 2 editors for reliability (ZScarpia, + Jontel, already mentioned), plus ambivalent or "use with caution" responses from David Gerard, Newslinger, Bellowhead678, Selfstudier.

In July 2018,[47] 2 editors argued for unreliability (Ritchie333, + Icewhiz) and 0 for reliability.

The September 2019 in turn referenced two more local discussions on the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page. In February 2019,[48] the debate was more about due weight and included The Canary along with other sources but 5 editors specifically commented on the unreliability of the Canary (Alssa1, + Icewhiz, Bondegezou, Bangalamania,me) although 2 arguing for inclusion who seemed didn't express doubts about reliability could be counted on the reliability side (RevertBob and Deb.

In July 2018,[49] 5 editors argued for unreliability (Absolutelypuremilk, Dweller, ThatMove + Icewhiz, Bangalamania) vs 2 for reliability (Jonjonjohny, G-13114).

Removing duplications from those who expressed an opinion more than once, that's 17-19 arguing for general unreliability vs 8 for general reliability, plus 4 ambivalent or "use with caution". The discussion above has brought 1 additional unreliability advocate (GPinkerton) and 1 additional reliability advocate (Thucydides411). This seems to me like a fairly strong consensus for unreliability generated over multiple discussions. If this isn't enough, I think there are further examples of unreliability not mentioned yet which I can outline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

While I was unaware of this particular discussion, I can stand by position regarding the Canary and its reliability as a source. The Canary is repeatedly criticised by prominent figures across the political spectrum as being other the 'purveyor of fake news'; and is recognised as such by organisations like Stop Funding Fake News (which is itself a project of the Center for Countering Digital Hate). I know we don't make a habit of using twitter as a source, but as of 18 August 2020, the Canary (as well as another organisation that will remain nameless) was still referred to as a "fake news site" (source: here). Alssa1 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Alssa1, Stop Funding Fake News is, however, a fake group set up by people criticised by The Canary specifically in order to attack it. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: do you have a source for that? Because the evidence actually is that "Stop Funding Fake News" is a project by Center for Countering Digital Hate, which in itself is supported by a number of celebrity figures (though I know they're not particularly relevant) as well as Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here). So frankly I don't really buy the suggestion that this is somehow a 'fake group' that purely exists to attack The Canary. When can I expect you to provide some evidence backed up by reliable sources to support what you've said? Alssa1 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Alssa1, SFFN have never, so far as I'm aware disclosed their criteria for declaring The Canary as "fake news", so we are in the dark as to how or why they may have reached that conclusion, it may be that they simply dislike it. Given that The Canary is fully regulated by IMPRESS and has been given a pass rating by NewsGuard. One could well regard the claims of it being a "fake news" website as being at best completely baseless, and at worst an open smear campaign by political opponents. G-13114 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@G-13114: Firstly, simply being a regulated publication on IMPRESS does not in itself make it a reliable source. It was during its of membership of IMPRESS that it broke the rules. As well as this it was during this time that it made the claims about "political Zionists", which is not a statement made by a reliable source on Wikipedia. As for NewsGuard, I inform you that Guido Fawkes passed all the conditions of NewsGuard's assessments (The Canary failed one on “Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly”) and yet according to many, including our very own Guy (among others), "Paul Staines is not a reliable source." (source: here). So I ask again, where is the evidence of a "smear campaign" and/or why are the claims "baseless"? Alssa1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't actually recall participating in any discussion on this topic; if I did, it would have been without any in-depth knowledge of this website. If you look at it in the context of the general right-wing bias of the British press, I think it would be hard to demonstrate that it's any more unreliable than, say, the Express or even the Telegraph. We accept citations from those papers for items such as obituaries and the reporting of non-political events such as disasters, murders, etc. Where we are generally more careful is in accepting their political reporting as impartial, because we know it's not. I don't think any of the evidence produced above is conclusive, but it does not preclude further discussion of the topic. Unfortunately, Burrobert, it is normal on Talk pages for any attempt to revert a decision to be met with reiterations of previous arguments by the same people whose opinions contributed to that initial decision, regardless of how many or how few participated first time round. I think you will have to wait a little longer if you are hoping that people will be ready to take a fresh view of the topic. Deb (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is confusion between reliability and a strong political opinion. It is partisan, but so is much of the UK quality press. The Canary article references two inaccuracies, one minor (the headline on Kuenssberg, which was soon corrected and where the article text was correct) and another adverse adjudication has been mentioned whereas, for example, the article on the Jewish Chronicle, widely quoted on Wikipedia, lists a dozen adverse adjudications and law suits. In the previous discussion on The Canary, I did not see examples of inaccuracies, but expressions of dislike for its political line. I think I am right in thinking that we should go on the evidence rather than have a simple vote. There is a campaign to shut down The Canary and some editors may be influenced by that. Moreover, it has a distinct political viewpoint so is likely to provide information for articles not available from the generally conservative mainstream press. I agree that No consensus is the best description of the outcome. Jontel (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"There is a campaign to shut down The Canary and some editors may be influenced by that." Where is the evidence to back up this claim? Alssa1 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

CounterPunch, Other98, and People's Democracy [by CPI(M)] on Left, and The Daily Wire, Blaze Media and Rebel News on the Right

These sources have consistently faulted on political news. While doing any academic writing, I had to cross check them with at least one more independent publication. My bottom line is based on the Daily Mail and The Sun. As to source progressive or conservative views, the mainstream outlets give ample voice to both sides on that note. I move the request to deprecate these sources for at least political news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:a87:34bd:1dd8:9588:6b:8c73 (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, Other98 and People's Democracy have never been discussed on RSN, and so are not eligible for an RfC. The other sources have already been discussed a fair bit, and deprecation never came up. In any case, deprecation for only one domain seems rather odd. If a source needs to be deprecated, it probably needs to be generally deprecated.

This suggestion seems overly broad and doesn't engage at all with past discussions/policy. For these reasons, I do not think engaging with this would yield useful results. Perhaps you could focus on a specific source and bring up specific reasons for changed status or discussion? Jlevi (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, we cannot lump a ton of sources together and judge them as a whole.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Political position is not a useful criterion - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Lumping all the different news sources together might to lead to some not being properly evaluated in the discussion. Political positions *should be irrelevant* on this board, the only concern here relates to a particular source's reliability, their fact checking, how they resolve any errors. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's usually best to avoid discussing multiple unrelated things together. This principle holds across different types of discussions on Wikipedia: see WP:TRAINWRECK for details. At a minimum, it would be best to have a section or subsection heading for each distinct source if the entire source is being examined. — Newslinger talk 14:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

CounterPunch, The Daily Wire, and Rebel News are probably worth mentioning for their opinions when talking about media coverage and may be worth mentioning for their opinions in other cases. CounterPunch was founded and run by professional journalists and is rated "Mostly Factual" by MB/FC on grounds of inadequate hyperlinking [50] which generally means fine for Wikipedia but should be used with caution and avoided were possible. MB/FC notes numerous failed fact checks for both The Daily Wire and Rebel News so they probably should not be used. Jacobin and The Federalist may be better source on the left and right respectively. In my opinion, best sources in US politics are either wire services or foreign broadsheets though check WP:RSP. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In past discussions, editors considered Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) generally unreliable, so it is probably not the best benchmark to use by itself. — Newslinger talk 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikiblog

I noticed https://wikiblog.org/ given as a source for our article on Sean Michael Kyer. I'm curious if the site itself would be considered reliable or if it would be considered ineligible since the site itself appears to cite no sources for its claims and as a wiki could be open to interpretation. The specific use in this case is as citation four in the following sentence:

"Sean Michael Kyer was born on July 31, 2001 in Vancouver, British Columbia,[3] where he began an minor acting career as an infant.[4]"

Frankly I'm of the mind that our article itself really doesn't demonstrate notability as it were (i'd redirect the article to the odd squad page) but setting aside my personal opinion here I am at the moment more interested in the source. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This has got to be the least legitimate-looking source I've seen in a while. Every article seems to be written by the same person, and the articles don't cite any sources at all (Did they talk to the subjects? Did they completely make all this stuff up? Who knows). I'd be inclined to believe that it is just based off scraping Wikipedia, but there seems to be additional information not featured in WP articles -- for example, their post on Aleister Black (picked at random from posts made today) has a very familiar-looking table of contents and infobox, but mentions that he went to a "Davenport West High School" which appears nowhere in his en.wp article. It seems unlikely to me that this random person has been in contact with the wrestler. The whole rest of the site is a mess, as well -- no more information about this mysterious author, no "about" page, no parent organization, nothing. This stuff might as well be written on a bathroom wall, as far as I'm concerned. jp×g 04:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• It looks like the usual content farm garbage. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SomeBodyAnyBody05: Against my better judgement, but because I know that I like to be kept in the loop on developments that concern me and my areas of interest, I'm drawing your attention to this post. If you have anything to add, or if you wish to defend your choice of sources, feel free to do so, otherwise it may be best to consider this a poor source and refrain from using it moving forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:TomStar81, So you're involving me in a discussion that's not really about me but about a petty source I used, What is your reasoning behind posting this? To make a WP:POINT about my poor choice of selecting sources when on his offical website he confirms he was doing minor acting since he was 2 years old,Source P.S he writes that section in the third person. And if that's not enough there is literally many other internet sources mentioning him starting at an infant age. Let's end this dicussion please. And originally I chose that source becasue it looked pretty legitmate and you can usually trust .org sites more than .com ones not to say they are 100 percent reliable and factual. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The website seankyer is a primary source, which is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Those are usually the worst sources you can get for living people because they are always favorable to the subject matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

But where do you see an quote on quote "favorable subject matter"? And it's not really a blog but more of memoir in the simplest terms. And isn't that how most people get there word on word sources from interviews with the subject answering the question the same way they would express in a online auto-bio like this one? And if you still want to fight that source, I have found another source from an interview with the actor where he tells the interviewer when he began an acting career Source 2.ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It would still have to be in a RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a blog, its about page list one mentally handicapped girl who writes to make herself feel better. She's not a journalist, she not an expert, she is someone whose website isn't qualified in our eyes to be cited as a source. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree its not an RS, but I suggest a close reading of wp:blp might not go amiss.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you want to talk about the interviewer themselves but you still can't dispute the fact that it is a legitamate interview and shouldn't be mixed in with the other content farm garbage. It wouldn't be reliable source when quoting about the person who made website which is what we're not doing here, we're talking about the actor himself.ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Sound advice, but I'm not sure its going to help. I've pissed off this editor twice already by coming in hot, and now it appears they are drawing a line in the sand against further incursion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 12 subsection Aleshia Allen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Daniel Bolden as examples). A look on the talk page shows COI notices and some of the past contributions could be considered iffy or outright bad faith replies. This whole thing increasingly looks to pivot toward an OWN battle over poorly written biographies with bad sources on articles that quite frankly are either here WP:TOOSOON or shouldn't be here at all, IMO. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Then take it to wp:ani, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:TomStar81, You were wrong to bring a different dicussion in a reliable source discussion. Don't get me wrong I was a little upset you deleted the page in the first place but I know when not to hold grudges against editors. That editor has nothing to do with the other dicussions, so you have to stop the canvassing to them. And I read RS, I've read it a million times but there comes a time when you must know to be WP:CALM. Bringing this to ANI is not necessary. And Keep in mind your partly the initiator of this editing quarrel by starting a deletion discussion on a notable actor that I mentioned on deletion review about a completly different actress and the current discussion you just started where you ping "me" into the discussion to talk about a petty source I used. You have to take WP:ADMINACCT. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Then you would know that it does not support the claim that just because the subject of an interview says something that means it passes RS. We judge RS based upon their reputation, not who they write about or interview.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right about that but they're still WP:Questionable sources and we can't just immediately throw it out just from the interviewr being a blogger. And when does it come a time when we look at the person's offical website themselves and the interview and can determine if the statement on the article belongs or not, Because editors sometimes use autobiographies when quoting a subject personal life or trivial info about the person. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I would say you can, as we have no way of knowing how the interview was edited. That is why it says "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves". I really think you need to stop this and find RS compliant sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

But again since you since you said should be used a "sources for material on themselves" what about the offical website made by the subject at seankyer.com where he mentions on the acting section about starting an acting career at two as well? The source is above at source 1, That's my RS complaint sourcing. And this discussion within itself is just extraneous because the admin Tomstar81 starts a dicussion about a different source I used for one sentence in the article which turns into a quarrel about a unrelated topic that we were talking over. I'll just remove the sentence to end this fracas. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Might fall foul of "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim".Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Plus Source says it is based on IMDb, which anyone can contribute to, so definetly not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Plus here we do not discuss editors, we examine the quality of sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial, again

• thepostmillennial.com  

I know there was an RfC on this 3 months ago, though I'd like to add some recent coverage of The Great Reset ([51][52][53][54]). I recently started a draft for an article on the subject and found the "Top Stories" tab of Google littered with sources supporting conspiracy theories related to the proposal (consistently, too), most of which were from it and RT. I suggest we be bold and challenge this conspiracy-mongering source. I'm not taking their narrative as fact. Start checking out the option of deprecation again and use reliable sources unlike The Post Millennial. --Username⁶⁸⁹² _(P/R) 02:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

While I agree TPM is garbage, it's unclear whether anyone is trying to use it as if it's factual. If not, it may be ok to leave it rated generally unreliable for now. (I would vote to deprecate in a RfC). (t · c) buidhe 04:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The reliable source board is not for righting great wrongs. Wikipedia does not care what google is doing. We are not owned or employed by them. I don't know much about The Post Millenial, but if you don't like them don't use them. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice work on the page! Agree that deprecating TPM is unwarranted. Today I removed ~10 cases where it was used for facts and left ~10 where it is used for relevant attributed opinion. I don't think there's significant need to discuss this source for deprecation. Jlevi (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Is review of a TV series by Global Times reliable?

"Global Times was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories." Link to the discussion

Source of web page which has been used: You who came from Korea

Article in which used: My Love from the Star

Yu Zheng, Chinese screenwriter and producer, found My Love from the Star worthy of being studied, and thought the plot was "simple but has tension. A good combination of outdoor and indoor scenes." Variety show director Pang Bo remarked that the makers of the series paid attention to technical details even in the shortest scenes involving special effects.

The content is neither controversial nor negative in any sense.

-ink&fables «talk» 09:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The following source was used earlier for the same context but the citation was removed by an user on 10 October 2020 without removing the content. Link

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources: [...] Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. [...] Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. [...]

So, I ask if the source should be cited or should be removed. -ink&fables «talk» 10:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to use a more respected publishing source. I supported the deprecation of the Global Times on that RFC. However, the support for deprecation was for content where nationalism/propaganda could lead to falsification of the facts. The material in this case is not controversial and is an individual's opinion. The opinion is from Yu Zheng a noted Chinese screenwriter and producer, so I'm fine with the sources use in such a situation. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I myself prefer other sources, but at that time critical reviews of K-dramas were less written as compared to the present. As I am planning to take this article for GAN, it is kind of necessary for a TV series article to include a section of Critical response of a respectable length, and this is one of the few critic reviews. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 11:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625: the author is Wei Xi not Yu Zheng. Nothing I see suggests that Wei Xi is a noted screenwriter and producer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I think Guest2625 is clear of this fact. He wrote that "[t]he opinion is from Yu Zheng" not that the author is Yu Zheng. -ink&fables «talk» 16:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

But if Yu Zheng isnt the author of the piece then we cant use this per WP:BLP and the point is moot. We would need the Yu Zheng quote to either appear in a WP:RS or be in a piece covered by about self for us to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia." Common sense indicates that the provided quote doesn't in anyway harm Yu Zheng. Also it doesn't make sense why the source would fabricate Yu Zheng's opinion. I'm fine with including this noncontroversial entertainment-related material. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Common sense doesn't override WP:BLP. Its also not possible for us to know which quotes or opinions in unreliable sources are fabricated, thats why we have deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Does the Global Times have any history of fabricating quotes? I don't recall any claims of fabricated quotes in the RfC. Most of the concerns were about the editorial slant of the Global Times on political issues. From what I've seen, there's no risk that this quote is fabricated, and I can't see why the Global Times would possibly fabricate a quote about a South Korean TV drama. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. The September RfC deprecated the Global Times with no carve-out exceptions for its entertainment coverage. The proposed text does does not meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPRS because it contains claims about other living persons: "You who came from Korea" is written by Wei Xi, a non-notable person, and not Yu Zheng or Pang Bo themselves. — Newslinger talk 14:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the article was not written by the screenwriter Yu Zheng or the director Pang Bo, both of whom are living persons. It was written by Wei Xi. If Wei Xi were writing about themself or their own opinions, then the Global Times piece might qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF in a limited number of situations. However, in this case, Wei Xi is making claims about other living persons in a deprecated source. This is not an acceptable use of a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Yes, Global Times was deprecated with no exceptions for its entertainment coverage, but nothing was discussed about entertainment coverage in that following RFC. I am not talking about the source to be used perennially for all entertainment related articles. It is clearly written in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources: "In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not." This is the fact that the mentioned source was cited earlier in the article and only source was removed (after its deprecation) without removing the information from the article (as I already mentioned above). I am asking that - Can this source be used in this following context? - due the fact that it was there before. -ink&fables «talk» 16:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The subjects of the claim are different from the author of the article, so the context does not justify the use of the source. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Perfectly fine to use: Deprecation is not a ban on usage. A review written by a famous Chinese screenwriter is perfectly usable. None of the concerns voiced in the RfC about state propaganda apply here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that Yu Zheng (the screenwriter) is not the author, but is cited in the article. Others have raised BLP concerns. Nothing being proposed for inclusion here is in any way derogatory towards a living person, so I don't think these concerns are justified. There's no ban on usage of Global Times as a source, and this is a case in which its use is completely unobjectionable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the basic premise of BLP. It covers all material about living people "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” not just the derogatory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't material about a living person, and negative material of course is subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. Yu Zheng gave his opinion of a TV series to the Global Times. There's no BLP risk involved in citing his opinion. It's a completely unobjectionable use of the Global Times. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is material about Yu Zheng, a living person, including quotes attributed to them. Per WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Please actually check the use on My Love from the Star before saying whats in it or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The use in My Love from the Star is completely innocuous:

Yu Zheng, Chinese screenwriter and producer, found My Love from the Star worthy of being studied, and thought the plot was "simple but has tension. A good combination of outdoor and indoor scenes."

It's really ridiculous to consider this a BLP concern. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats a quotation... Per BLP *all* quotations fall under BLP. Where is the ridiculousness? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP is meant to make sure that living persons are covered accurately, and especially to make sure that there's no libelous material on Wikipedia. Do you actually think there's a risk that Global Times fabricated a Chinese screenwriter's opinion on a South Korean drama, and what do you base that suspicion on? There's nothing even remotely derogatory or controversial here about Yu Zheng. It's a relatively harmless quote from him about a TV drama. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you making some kind of WP:IAR argument that we ignore the BLP policy? Whether or not you and I agree with the BLP policy its ironclad on this issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that the claim that this is a BLP concern only makes sense if you're claiming that the quote is fabricated - and there's no indication whatsoever that it is. This rationale for removing the quote just seems incredibly contrived. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable, I have yet to see anything that suggests their entertainment coverage is of a higher quality than other areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliability needs context. In the context of verifying an opinion with in-text attribution (and especially a direct quote), the single MOST RELIABLE source POSSIBLE is the original publication that contained that opinion - ie its primary source. Even if that source is completely deprecated as a secondary source, it can NEVER be deprecated when used as a primary source. EVERY source is reliable for itself.

Sure, there are lots of policies and guidelines that limit what should and should not be included in an article (WP:DUE WEIGHT for example), and not every opinion should be included. BUT... if we DO determine that the opinion should be included, then we MUST be able to cite the primary source where it was published, to verify that we are quoting or paraphrasing it accurately... even if that source is deprecated in other contexts. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per Blueboar, RSOPIONION absolutely allows opinions like reviews to be used from deprecated sources (unless those were specifically excluded at deprecation), but the controlling policy becomes UNDUE, whether in this specific field is the Global Times reviewers considered part of the expert body of reviewers for this type of film. That I don't know and a question to be determined. If this is a one off review they did, probably not appropriate to include, even if it is one of the few reviews that exist for this film. --Masem (t) 16:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it depends a lot on Yu Zheng's reputation. If he is known as a film critic and we would cite a blog if he had one, there's no issue with Global Times. If we wouldn't cite his blog, we shouldn't cite global times either. (t · c) buidhe 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yu Zheng is a well known Chinese screenwriter and producer. He won the "Best Screenwriter" award at the Asian Television Awards, though there's no longer any source for this claim on his page, because the source has been removed. As I said in the recent noticeboard discussion on mass removal of sources from China-related articles, ill-considered blanket deprecations are damaging the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

But I see above that there is a concern of misquoting what he said. I agree that is a fair concern. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A fair concern based on what? Are there any known cases of the Global Times fabricating quotations? The RfC was mostly concerned with political bias. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Remove We do not trust deprecated sources for quotes, full stop. Find a RS, not a deprecated source. Reviews of popular culture by deprecated sources prima facie fail WP:UNDUE - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There is nothing about deprecated sources that automatically disqualifies them from RSOPIONION, nor anything from RSOPINION that disallows deprecated sources. If the deprecated source is known to falsify its staff reviews, then that has to be established as part of the reasons to deprecate and that would be reason to not allow their use. That may be the situation at DM now but hasn't been shown here. (Whether the deprecated source should be used for RSOPINION is still guided by UNDUE however). --Masem (t) 18:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Here's the chain of guidance: WP:DEPS states, "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." WP:QS states, "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below." And finally, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts questionable sources to use in very limited situations, with one of the five criteria being that "it does not involve claims about third parties". The usage of the Global Times proposed in this discussion does involve claims about third parties, so the policy and guidance proscribe this usage. — Newslinger talk 00:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to highlight a very important point raised by Thucydides411: "Yu Zheng is a well known Chinese screenwriter and producer. He won the "Best Screenwriter" award at the Asian Television Awards, though there's no longer any source for this claim on his page, because the source has been removed. As I said in the recent noticeboard discussion on mass removal of sources from China-related articles, ill-considered blanket deprecations are damaging the encyclopedia." The following source was also from the Global Times. -ink&fables «talk» 03:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  That might make a difference if Yu Zheng wrote the Global Times article. However, the author is not Yu Zheng, but Wei Xi. For comparison, if a writer for Breitbart News (RSP entry) wrote about another notable living person's views, the content would also be unusable under WP:BLPRS. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

False equivalence. The Global Times was deprecated because of concerns regarding nationalism/political propaganda. Breitbart News was deprecated for other reasons. Focus on the article/source under discussion and not whatabout some other source. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Global Times was deprecated for publishing "false or fabricated information", just like Breitbart News. Substitute any deprecated source (including the Global Times) for Breitbart News and the results would be the same: if a writer for Breitbart News the deprecated source wrote about another notable living person's views, the content would also be unusable under WP:BLPRS. — Newslinger talk 15:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that was not the reason for deprecation. I've looked over the RfC again, and the close only says, Global Times is deprecated and is now considered an unreliable source. In the RfC, the discussion was primarily about the editorial stance of the Global Times (see, for example, the sources that you provided at the RfC) - particularly its nationalistic editorials. The default wording for "deprecation" in all RfCs is, "4. Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail", but that does not mean that a deprecated source has actually been found to publish fabricated information. "Deprecation" has more and more become a catch-all for disfavored sources, and the wording of the question has little to nothing to do with the actual reasons for deprecation. In the case of the Global Times, nothing remotely like fabrication of a quote was discussed at the RfC, as far as I can see. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• This has been brought up already by Thucydides411 who correctly predicted that these types of debates would be the inevitable consequence of deprecating Global Times: "I don't think most users realized just how much completely mundane, factual information would end up being unsourced (and could end up being scrubbed from Wikipedia). I think there should be a pause on these mass removals of sources, and a discussion about whether or not this is what Wikipedians really want to happen." Root problem is that Wikipedians who vote in favor of deprecation doesn't follow policy which states: A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation ... is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues It's too bad that Yu Zheng's quote can't be included in Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There have been multiple discussions proposing stopping removal of deprecated sources from Wikipedia, and they all failed - mostly because WP:V is policy. But if you want to start another one, feel free - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I argue that most of the sources so "deprecated" on this noticeboard shouldn't be considered deprecated since they have been "deprecated" by votes cast in violation of Wikipedia policy. "Consensuses" on this noticeboard does not override policy. ImTheIP (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You'd need to actually argue your case and get people to go along with it. Deprecation is an accepted procedure here. If you want to claim that deprecation as it's done substantially violates, WP:RS, I think that's what a judge would call a novel argument - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
        • The comment you replied to is an argument. People apparently are going "along with it" since what the argument is based on is established Wikipedia policy. ImTheIP (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: The problem is that deprecation is being used too broadly. We begin with concerns that the Global Times publishes nationalistic editorials, and is therefore propagandistic. That turns into a vote for "deprecation". That then leads to completely mundane information, like a Chinese screenwriter's opinion on a Korean TV drama, being removed from Wikipedia. But the original concerns about the Global Times (nationalistic editorials) has nothing to do with the type of material being removed (a review of a TV show). It used to be that WP:RSN dealt with the reliability of sources in context. That seems to have gone out the window for a much blunter approach, in which outlets are labeled either "generally reliable" or "deprecated". The idea that a source could take a strongly Chinese nationalist point of view on international politics, while also publishing art reviews that contain real interviews with well known Chinese artists and critics, does not seem to compute any more on this noticeboard. The result is that all sorts of information about China (and I'm sure not only China is affected in this way) is being stripped from the encyclopedia, for no actual good reason. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You're just repeating the point you made last time this discussion came around, which was rejected then too - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The deprecated article in this deprecated newspaper says The day of the first snow should be a time for fried chicken and beer. Maybe, this bunch of nationalist fabricators have twisted the original scenario, which was about samgyetang and makgeolli? Enjoy another bowl of letter soup after your chimaek. Pldx1 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Emmanuel Maillard's Medjugorje, the 90's - The Triumph of the Heart

I need an assessment of how reliable this author and her book is.

What I found about the author is only from her website, which gives following bio [55]:

Sister Emmanuel tells that after receiving her first calling to the Beatitudes Community in 1976, she received another calling – to serve Our Lady in Medjugorje. Sent by her community, she initiated the first branch of the community in Medjugorje in 1989. During the Balkan war in the 90s, Sister Emmanuel became known for her regular faxes about the situation in Herzegovina, always related to the mission of Our Lady. She has had an enormous impact on France, stimulating an extensive response to Medjugorje among French pilgrims, but her apostolate has broadened as her books have been translated into 22 languages and she has traveled widely to make Medjugorje known, particularly in the United States. Today, “Les Enfants de Medjugorje” and “Children of Medjugorje, Inc.” allow her to be connected everyday to thousands of people around the world, who are motivated by and spreading, the messages of Our Lady in their own humble way. Sister says that her greatest joy is to be part of a family formed by Our Lady, and being Her extended heart and hands for her children, especially those who do not yet know the love of God.

Thus, we learn she founded and heads the organisation called "Children of Medjugorje", dedicated to "spreading the (Our Lady of Medjugorje's) messages out" (paraphrasing).

Maillard wrote several books. However, I want the assessment on the reliability of this particular book, which was translated into English under the title "Medjugorje, the 90's - The Triumph of the Heart". Dražen Kutleša writes in his Serbo-Croatian language book titled "Ogledalo pravde" about her book: "Her book, Medjugorje gli anni '90, is sold in Italy with an attached tissue so the reader may wipe tears" (Serbo-Croatian: "Njezina knjiga Medjugorje gli anni ‘90, 1998, u Italiji se prodaje s priloženim rupčićem da čitatelj može brisati suze.", p. 283).

That put aside, I cannot find her book being used as a reference in any scientific paper [56]. Moreover, I cannot find any of her books being used as a reference anywhere [57].

The same author had a list of statements affirmative towards the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje, attributed to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Ratzinger assessed as "mere fabrications" (Ich kann dazu nur sagen, dass die dem Heiligen Vater und mir zugeschriebenenen Äusserungen über Medjugorje frei erfunden sind) (Ogledalo pravde, p. 283; Nacional (weekly) [58]).

--Governor Sheng (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: previous discussion of this source at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje, though just between two editors Vahurzpu (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well its all very SPSy for a start.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• How reliable would we expect a book about a celebrity by a superfan to be? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, that's why I asked for your oppinion. At first glance, I'd say it's unreliable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of articles authored by former MEK members

Are the following sources reliable for the statement at People's Mujahedin of Iran:

The MEK has been described as a "cult" by former MEK members.

Sources:

• Khodabandeh, Massoud (January 2015). "The Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Its Media Strategy: Methods of Information Manufacture". Asian Politics & Policy. 7 (1): 173–177. doi:10.1111/aspp.12164. ISSN 1943-0787.
• Banisadr, Masoud (2009). "Terrorist Organizations Are Cults" (PDF). Cultic Studies Review. 8 (2): 156–186.

The authors of both of those articles are former MEK members. Both journals claim to be peer-reviewed, though the second journal looks less well-known. Some users have said that MEK members who have defected should not be considered reliable sources on the MEK.VR _talk 14:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think with attribution would be fine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• What Slatersteven said. This sounds like an obvious case for WP:BIASED - they're a source with a clear point-of-view on the subject publishing in an otherwise reliable format. If the journals are reasonably reputable, then they're clearly citable, but being a former MEK member is something that would certainly require a mention in an in-line citation. I definitely disagree with the assertion that being a former MEK member automatically renders unreliable every single thing anyone ever publishes ever again, in any venue. It wouldn't hurt to dig up a secondary source if possible, though that probably wouldn't change the wording (the result is "these former MEK members say this" either way.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• The journals that are being cited are reliable sources. I'm unable to access the first source to read the article. The second article is by a former MEK member. He is not a reliable source for determining in wikivoice that the MEK is a cult. He is obviously biased. He can, however, be used to provide his opinion (with inline indication of his former MEK status) of what a former MEK member thinks. Little weight should be given to his opinion as far as due weight. I'll assume the first source is another former MEK member, otherwise, there should be no 's' in "described as a "cult" by former MEK member(s)". It's also not quite clear to me why cult has been placed in quotation marks. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• This seems like more of an original research or "undue" problem, than a problem from a reliable source perspective. Like User:Aquillion said above, a secondary source would be better if this is something controversial. Spudlace (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

arlingtoncemetery dot net

This WP search [59] gives us 600+ results for arlingtoncemetery.net. From what I see, the website is user-generated. And other than the website URL and e-mail address I see nothing about who publishes the website. It seems that people can e-mail info to the webmaster, but we can't see how the info is vetted. MOREOVER the url is not secure/unsafe. And a "https://" does not work on it. I recommend that we add it to WP:RSP. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. arlingtoncemetery.net is a self-published website. The welcome page states near the bottom: "This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. As such, it has no affiliation whatsoever with the United States Government or the United States Army. Accordingly, the content here is solely the responsibility of the Webmaster. This Site Is (c) Michael Robert Patterson 1994- 2013, Except Where Noted." The website contains a description of Michael Robert Patterson, which does not claim that he is a subject-matter expert. Also, much of the content on the website is copied and pasted from other sources (e.g. newspapers); those pages are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. arlingtoncemetery.net might be useful for research, but it is not a reliable source for direct citations.

  I do have to note that the lack of HTTPS on the website, although less than ideal for web security, does not affect the website's reliability for Wikipedia's purposes. — Newslinger talk 09:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's a self-published source. There are better sources. The website does a fairly good job at indicating where it is getting its information. It appears with many of the names to provide a newspaper obituary. Use the obituary given and do a newspaper archive search, and then cite the newspaper in which you have confirmed the material. If you want to confirm just that the individual is buried in Arlington cemetery, use the find a grave feature of the official government website. I'm not sure how people want to give credit to Michael Patterson for his original research in finding the obituaries and compiling all the material, but it is kind of important. It's not a copyright violation, however, it can be considered plagiarism by some academics. I do think that the replacement of the citations should be done properly. Blind stripping of war veteran material from biographies is a sensitive topic in many countries around the world. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes reliable for actor biography details?

WP:RSP says Rotten Tomatoes is reliable for review aggregation and news coverage, but maybe not for blog articles and critic opinion pages. What about its pages that list biographical information for an actor, eg. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/katherine_parkinson - is that enough to source a subject's date of birth and birthplace to a level that WP:BLP is happy with, or is this being aggregated from somewhere unreliable? --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Good question. I found this at [60]:

"Your movie/actor information is wrong!

Thanks for catching that. We work hard to make sure all of our movie and actor information is correct, but sometimes this is not the case, due to studio changes, data import errors, etc. We also list wide release dates, which may look wrong to users who live in areas with previews and limited release showings.

If you do find inaccurate data, please​​ tell us here​, and we will check the data against our sources and contact the publicist or distributor if necessary."

I'm leaning not that good for WP:BLP stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

My instinct is that BLP requires a higher bar, and that this probably falls below that. There should be a better source available in many cases. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is fine. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the media conglomerate Comcast. They have access to databases that have birthdays of actors/actresses. There is no indication that the biography information is user generated.

Who owns Rotten Tomatoes? Who is the parent company?

Answer ID 1340 | Published 03/31/2019 10:59 AM | Updated 03/31/2019 11:00 AM

In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were acquired by Fandango (which is owned by Comcast). Warner Bros. retains a minority stake in the merged entities, including Fandango.

Also the fact that they have a corrections feature is essential for a media site. All newspapers have a way of providing corrections. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per the information provided by Gråbergs Gråa Sång. A hallmark of a reliable source is the willingness to correct inaccurate information. The fact that they do so is a sign that they are reliable for this very information. Sources that insist on their own perfection, and provide no mechanism to correct problems, are suspect, however I have much greater confidence in a source that provides a mechanism for correcting inaccurate information. It lets me know their information is more trustworthy. --Jayron32 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as not user-generated and corrected subject to checks, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Yale Climate Connections reliable for list of groups criticizing Planet of the Humans

@Femkemilene:

Is this story in yaleclimateconnections.org reliable for a list of groups criticizing Planet of the Humans. It is being used with other sources to say that "was criticized by climate scientists, enviromentalists, and renewable energy proponents for what they claimed as being outdated and misleading."

As I understand it, Yale Climate Connections is regarded as a best source for climate energy but User:173.198.134.98 points out that it is sponsored by The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment [61] and that Jeremy Grantham is shown in the film to be someone who invested in timber and gave money to environmental groups. Given that the alleged conflict of interest is that Grantham is trying to promote wood biofuels I feel that the fact that the article says that the film has "a valid critique of wood biomass" shows that any conflict of interest is not influencing its reporting but I would just like to hear other people's feelings on this, thank-you. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well even if it is an SPS, its an SPS by experts. So (at worst) its usable if attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is fine. The journalist writes for the Guardian. They state "Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist and risk assessor" --Guest2625 (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would say so, with attribution, per Steven above. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dražen Kutleša's Ogledalo pravde

I need an assessment of how reliable this author and his book Ogledalo pravde (written in Serbo-Croatian) is.

Dražen Kutleša is an archbishop of the Catholic Church and is an expert in canon law. He's an alumnus of the Pontifical Urban University in Rome. He mostly writes about inner-church issues, such as Herzegovina Affair or the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje.

Regarding the first issue, his approach is historical and regarding the latter issue, in his book Ogledalo pravde he comes out as a skeptic.

Ogledalo pravde was published by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, while he was still a priest. This book was used as a source for scholarly works ([62]) at Charles University (Prague, Czechia [63]), University of Osijek (Osijek, Croatia [64]), and Bursa Uludağ University (Bursa, Turkey [65]). It was also used as a refrence in at least three other books - Belaj, Bulat and Perić. His book is mentioned by mainstream media in Croatia ([66]) such as Jutarnji list [67] (2nd most read), Slobodna Dalmacija [68] (9th most read), Večernji list [69] (4th most read), Express, published by 24 sata (Croatia) [70] (17th most read); in Bosnia and Herzegovina [71] such as Slobodna Bosna [72] (9th most read).

--Governor Sheng (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Australian-Charts.com

For Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, is Australian-Charts a reliable source for commercial release dates? It seems to be definitive in terms of them however, I noticed that users can apparently submit songs.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:BCAE:63F:A7D2:B29B (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) https://australian-charts.com/index.asp

Can you give an example please? I can only see chart entry dates on there, not release dates. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If you click on most singles posted, they give you the release date (i.e. CD-Maxi).2603:8081:160A:BE2A:95B9:B0EB:9723:1D15 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have my doubts... I don't know whether the dates are user-generated or not, and there's no guarantee they're correct. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the information on the Hung Medien australian-charts.com site is user generated from posts on its forum pages. It's unclear where the details for entries under "AVAILABLE ON FOLLOWING MEDIA" come from or what it actually refers to: is the date in the "Format medium" the date became available to radio stations, the public, just in Australia, or ? Sources, such as announcements in trade publications such as Billboard, professional reviews, artist bios/music reference books, record company/management press releases, etc., are usually used for this type of info. (It may be helpful to add a link to this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Record charts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs for more input.) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Lots of sources I have doubts about in an FA, I'd like a second opinion about them

Okay, so the background to this is this talk page notice. Something (Beatles song) uses a number of sources I have significant doubts about, as well as one (Discogs) that is currently deprecated (IIRC). Additionally, it also includes a book from a publisher that may only have published one book, and one from a publisher that seems to have only published one author. My instinct is that these probably shouldn't be used in a FA, with the possible exception of the one-author publisher, as that author (Bruce Spizer) is considered by some to be a subject-matter expert. Since this is an FA, and I'm not very familiar with music sources, I'd like some additional input. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to judge "a ton of sources" as one lump. But they all do look like they might not pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources re: Andy Ngo

From Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

On May 1, 2019, Ngo attended demonstrations and counter protests in Portland associated with International Workers Day or May Day. He reported being punched and blasted with pepper spray while filming two separate May Day events.

In August 2019, a video of Ngo surfaced where he is seen laughing, while standing next to the members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they plan an attack on anti-fascist patrons at Cider Riot following the May Day protests. He later followed the group to the bar where they attacked the patrons. The video is part of the court documents in the ongoing lawsuit against Patriot Prayer members for causing the riot. One of the victims of the attack was knocked unconscious with a baton and suffered a broken vertebra—Ngo later posted a video of her being attacked and identified her online. Portland Mercury quoted an undercover antifascist embedded in Patriot Prayer saying that Ngo has an "understanding" with the far-right group, that the group "protects him and he protects them".

References

It seems to me that The Oregonaian and Portland Mercury are valid sources here, but The Daily Beast, Vice News, The Daily Dot, Inquisitr and Jewish Currents? I don't think we should be using those. What's the view here in respect of controversial content? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion Guy. I think the Portland Mercury is a poor source given the specific content comes from a wp:NEWSBLOG. However, it was re-reported by others so, even if NEWSBLOG applies coverage by others give's weight to mentioning the blogtown commentary. My bigger concern is that what we really have is limited hard facts (Ngo is visible in the video and clearly near the PP member, the person who provided the video makes claims X, Y and Z) plus commentary (Ngo did X in response to..., Ngo could hear Y). Several other sources offer similar descriptions of what their authors say they saw in the video. At the same time Reason ran an article which was critical of the analysis performed by these sources [[73]]. Reason is again a mix of commentary (like the other sources the author watches the video then assesses what he sees) and factual reporting (reaching out to both Ngo and the PM for comments/confirmation of facts). I'm generally OK keeping the sources like The Daily Beast and Vice News but I think we need to also offer Reason even if with less WEIGHT. I'm less comfortable with the Daily Dot as this isn't basic internet culture. I recall previous discussions being critical of Inquisitr but I don'r recall the disposition to Jewish Currents. Do they offer anything beyond repeats of the comments of other sources? (edit conflict) A lot of editors felt this general text was critical for inclusion in the Ngo article (in particular the discussion of the video was, per a recent RfC, required to be in the article lead). I think the weaker sources could be trimmed without cutting text from the article. Springee (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, we say at RS/P: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article" and "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications". I don't quite see what would be wrong with Jewish Currents, they relaunched as what appears to be a serious magazine with Peter Beinart as their editor-at-large. What exactly is the problem with Jewish Currents? Vexations (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, I am not a huge fan of tabloidish sources, which Daily Beast and Vice both are IMO. None of these sources seem to have much in the way of gravitas. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, well, I prefer serious sources over tabloid-y sources too, but Jewish Current seems to be a bit more serious than the others, not less. Vexations (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, probably, yes. But it's recently undergone a serious change, and that probably colours my view of it (it was previously distinctly lightweight). Guy (help! - typo?) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just trying to find if anyone else reported on this brings up a source from Reason that should be included as well [74] which criticizes how those sources are describing the video itself and includes Reason's responses from Ngo. Also Rolling Stone.

But at least Daily Beast and Vice are generally reliable sources, and going by these sources, the only thing I would say is they should be named here, eg "Ngo is seen in the video to be alongside the Proud Boys, according to the Daily Beast and Vice". --Masem (t) 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Reason is also outside the "green box of joy" on the Ad Fontes chart (gets the same reliability rating as Sputnik). The problem with biased sources is that no partisan source is going to be anything other than partisan about Andy Ngo. His mission to attack Antifa and his apparent fondness for actual fascists make him a polarising figure, which is why I think we should stick to the most reliable and least biased sources rather than casting around for sources to "balance" low quality partisan sources on one side or the other. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The way this is being presented (what the video presents) is only apparently coming from lower quality sources. But the video seems important to be describing. That a video exists that includes Ngo with PBs in the hours before the May incident does not seem to be in doubt (that's coming from the Portland paper), what is in question is exactly what Ngo was actually doing in it. Which is why falling back to attributing by name those describing Ngo's "laughing" helps to set that that's an opinion of those sources, and the Reason article, specific quoting Ngo, is Ngo's claims against what Daily Beast et al were asserting he was doing. A they-said, he-said situation that we're not saying who was right or wrong. Perhaps the phrasing order in the sentence is weird, as the video should be explained to be part of the expose from the Portland paper, and then go on to explain the interpretation of it, all with attribution from that point on. --Masem (t) 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I tend to agree, and it should probably be excluded altogether. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

See the (current) last comment in this thread that I made (17:07, 24 November 2020), in which this section is actually duplicative of the Quillette dismissal section. There are parts of this to document that are directly tied to his dismissal, and which as a PUBLICFIGURE, we should document fairly within BLP concerns, but they may already be documented there in the dismissal section. --Masem (t) 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think we need to be careful about the "green box of joy". Reason is well within what Adfonts considers to be a "good" source and scores similar accuracy and less bias than the Huffington Post. The chart also puts Epoch Times (deprecated I believe) as more reliable and less biased than generally allowed sources like Vanity Fair, Daily Beast, and Salon. Springee (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee, sure, it's a pointer, not an authority. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The sources are fine, there do appear to be issues with the text... For instance "an attack on anti-fascist patrons at Cider Riot” fails verification, I can see sources which say the bar is affiliated with antifa but the ones I’ve looked at so far havent explicitly described the patrons as such. (Update: I don't think we should be using the article from the Portland Mercury’s Blogtown vertical, thank you to Springee for pointing that out to me) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better to replete the claims that the bar is popular with anti-fascist patrons and separately that there was an attack on the patrons. I'm not overly happy with the term "attack" vs "brawl" (used by the Portland liquor commission and a number of sources). [warning OR here] In watching the videos of the event it appears the PP showed up both sides talked a lot of trash then finally one side or the other almost timidly threw something or sprayed pepper spray. This wasn't something where group A sees group B and immediately starts swinging. Springee (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see "the bar is popular with anti-fascist patrons” in the sources either, which one you pulling it from? I see that the bar is associated with antifa but I don’t see blanket claims made about their patrons (it seems to be in most aspects an ordinary bar, I’m not sure blanket claims about its patrons even could be made). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall as this was from memory. However, a number of sources support the claim (based on quick web search). These say the brawl involved antifa or Rose City Antifa [[75]], [[76]]. This article just says antifa friendly [[77]]. Regardless, your caution with phrasing is prudent. Springee (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see "pub patrons, possibly with ties to the antifa.” from OPB and "left-wing patrons at the pub,” and "A number of anti-fascist, or antifa, activists were at the pub on May 1” from Oregon live. Neither of those to me support the claim. I think we need to stick to descriptions of the business’ affiliation and leave broad statements about the patrons out entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Reason" (gigglesnortlaugh) article is from their "media criticism" section, which is editorial content. Not reliable in any way, shape, or form. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah the Reason article is a joke... But as far as I can tell no one is seriously suggesting we use it. Also perhaps you meant to put this comment somewhere else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The only use of the Reason article is to capture the quoted Ngo's claims of what he was doing to counter the claims of what Daily Beast/Vice are saying (a BLP/NPOV requirement) We don't have to describe the "media got it wrong" angle the author presents. --Masem (t) 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem called it "a source from Reason that should be included as well" [78]. I felt I should check and from everything I see and remember Reason is somewhere below Sputnik or Epoch Times in terms of reliability. Reading the last RFC, the arguments against it are far more compelling [79] given "Reason"'s connections to holocaust denial. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I will recant the need to include the Reason's writer's statements for this, since I can't find anyone else claiming that the "media was wrong" about the video and that it is an op-ed more than the other pieces. But what did strike me were Ngo's statements quoted in that which can't be ignored. While Reason is a source that should be very carefully used if used for facts in politically charged articles like this, using it to source Ngo's counterclaims is perfectly fine and actually required. But again, I recant what I said earlier and don't think any MORE of that Reason article is needed. --Masem (t) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Another issue with this article is the subject is notable enough to get some attention but not notable enough to really get detailed scrutiny from all sides. Their are plenty of examples of the media getting things wrong but since only a few stories cover it we don't have a bunch of articles saying "this isn't right". In this case Reason decided gap between the hard evidence and was was reported was significant enough to mention. Springee (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if your gut tells you the media is getting this wrong, that doesn't change our WP:RS policy; there's absolutely enough coverage for us to reflect the overall consensus of reliable sources. In fact, saying "well, yes, but I think the reliable sources are getting it wrong" is an appeal to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - an admission that the perspective you want the article to cover is not citeable and does not accurately reflect mainstream coverage. Arguing that we should put our thumb on the scale and use a source we otherwise would not based on your personal gut feeling that the media has not portrayed this subject the way you would prefer is obviously not reasonable. If you think the media is getting things wrong, the thing to do is send in letters requesting corrections, or to wait to see if Soave's opinion is covered in more fact-based reporting. (Also, I don't agree that this hasn't gotten much coverage - there are eight sources above for this relatively narrow aspect of the topic; they vary in quality, but some are quite good. There's no actual reason to think they got it wrong or made mistakes outside of your personal gut reaction.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Reason's assessment of what the video shows is just as valid as the other sources. That the video exists and shows Ngo is not a disputed fact. It is disputed that Ngo overheard and thus was aware of plans to attack Cider Riot. All the sources are basically watching the video and trying to decide what they think Ngo was doing/listening to. That is analysis/commentary, not factual reporting. That they came to different conclusions is significant. Springee (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As you say the Reason article is "is analysis/commentary, not factual reporting.” Since Ngo is a living person thats not gonna fly, we have to be strict in our adherence to WP:BLP no matter what our opinion of him may be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reason is not accusing Ngo of wrongdoing or similar. Other sources who are doing similar commentary/analysis are accusing Ngo of wrongdoing (ie knowingly hiding foreknowledge of a crime). Why are we less critical of their commentary/analysis? Part of what we are dealing with here is the problematic blend of factual reporting (video from this day showing Ngo in same shots as PP members, "under cover antifa member "Ben" saying X") and analysis/commentary (Ngo is doing X in the video). Why should we only include commentary that says X but not commentary that says Y? Consider that the other sources did not reach out to Ngo for comment nor did they include reference to Ngo disputing the claim (PM only added it after the fact). Reason actually did reach out to PM and Ngo for comment. Springee (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not they are accusing Ngo of wrongdoing is irrelevant vis-a-vis BLP, remember BLP applies equally to "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” information. I dont see any other analysis/commentary pieces, the others all appear to be factual reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is. Claiming someone was complicit in a crime or aware a crime was about to occur yet failed to mention it is an extraordinary claim and thus requires stronger sourcing than saying they weren't. Any time a news source moves from clear description to subjective description you have analysis. PM's Blogtown says "Ngo can be seen laughing at jokes". That is analysis of the video. So why would we accept Blogtown saying that but refuse Reason saying "Ngo is not laughing at jokes"? Blogtown includes testimony from "Ben" but is "Ben" a reliable witness? Ben is a self declared under cover antifa operative. Any chance they have bias? Springee (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed that the Mercury article was from their Blogtown vertical, to me that does change how we can use it and I have updated my original comment accordingly. Thank you for the shockingly relevant whataboutism, I think thats the first time I've ever seen it be constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As I was about write more here to check what the Ngo article states, I see that what we're talking about here in Guy's OP post is also duplicating to a point text in Andy Ngo#Departure from Quillette which is using some of these sources in question but from the standpoint of how they related factually to Ngo's departure. In other words, I would try to find a way to reduce the May Day section text (what's quoted above) and focus more on the the latter with the cavaets already in play, which the departure section already covers. There, the sources that are being questioned here are being used very appropriately (in that the publication of certain things triggered events hence their inclusion). In the May Day section, one might just have to forward section link to say "Ngo's interactions with the Proud Boys during the 2019 May Day led to his departure from Quillette in August 2019, as described below." and leave it at that. --Masem (t) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• So what is the summary here? My feeling is people question the use of Blogtown. Ngo's counter arguments are DUE per ABOUTSELF and perhaps some sections need some heavy rework? Springee (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, Ngo's comments definitely don't pass WP:ABOUTSELF, since they're unduly self-serving. For stuff like that we should wait until it's covered in a non-opinion source (and, ideally, a neutral one, but definitely a non-opinion one.) It absolutely can't be cited to Reason, which WP:RSP notes is a biased source that introduces weight issues - something that can only be cited to an opinion piece from there isn't really usable. (Also, by my reading, you have been arguing for using that particular weak source for months now without success? I would argue it's well past WP:DROPTHESTICK time on that - if Soave's opinions on the topic are noteworthy they should be reflected somewhere more usable eventually, but ultimately one person's WP:BIASED opinion-piece saying "well I disagree with the mainstream analysis" isn't really all that notable on its own. Who is Soave and why is it such a big deal how he feels about the topic?) --Aquillion (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of sources for the ethnicity of a medieval muslim scholar

Hi, I would like to know if the following sources are to be considered as reliable when they make claims about the ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan :

• Ragep, F. Jamil; Ragep, Sally P.; Livesey, Steven John (1996). Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-Modern Science Held at the University of Oklahoma. BRILL. p. 178. ISBN 978-90-04-10119-7.

• George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Pub. for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, by the Williams & Wilkins Company, 1931, vol. 2 pt. 1, p. 1044

• William R. Newman, Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution, Harvard University Press, 1994. p. 94

Thank you very much.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The first source mentioned above by Wikaviani should be: Newman, William R. 1996. “The Occult and the Manifest among the Alchemists” in: Ragep, Jamil F.; Ragep, Sally P. (eds.). Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-Modern Science held at the University of Oklahoma. Leiden: Brill, pp. 173–198, p. 178. preview online

Now of course William R. Newman is generally a very reliable source. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is rather whether it is appropriate to cite a source like Newman on the ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan, a question which lies far outside of Newman's field of expertise, when we could equally well cite sources like the following:

Kraus, Paul 1942-1943. Jâbir ibn Hayyân: Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam. I. Le corpus des écrits jâbiriens. II. Jâbir et la science grecque. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

Nomanul Haq, Syed 1994. Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jābir ibn Ḥayyān and his Kitāb al-Aḥjār (Book of Stones). Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 33 n. 1. (preview)

Apaugasma (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps even better:

Delva, Thijs 2017. "The Abbasid Activist Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār as the Father of Jābir b. Ḥayyān: An Influential Hypothesis Revisited" in: Journal of Abbasid Studies, 4(1), pp. 35–61. preview, see introduction

For context, note that Jabir's ethnicity is fundamentally uncertain, and as a consequence has proven to be a very controversial issue among the editors of Jabir ibn Hayyan.Apaugasma (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment : please note that the uncertainty about Jabir's ethnic background is already mentioned in the article : [80], the only question here, is to know if the 3 above sources are to be considered as being reliable when it comes to Jabir ibn Hayyan's ethnicity.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment : all the sources mentioned are reliable sources. The question is figuring out which ones are the best. This really does require a thorough investigation of the sources. A quick google book search indicates that some books say that Jabir is Persian other books say that he is Arabian. The best sources will be books or academic articles that solely focuses on his life. Also it is useful to follow the footnotes in the books to the original sources for the statement of his ethnicity. My feeling at the moment is that whether he is Arabian or Persian cannot be determined. In the wikipedia article, it wasn't clear to me why the one block quote towards the end had a whole sentence in bold face, seems a bit excessive. Perhaps italics. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment in cases like these its usually best in my view to substitute in the lead sentence ethnicity/nationality for language of literature. So Ammianus Marcellinus was a Latin historian, and Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek geographer, even though both were Romans of non-Roman descent. So Jabir ibn Hayyan might be, for brevity, an "Arabic author (who may have been) of Persian origin". I would say most sources look OK, but one from the 1940s is probably too old by this point. This field has moved on hugely since then. GPinkerton (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: First of all, thank you for commenting on this. Note that the work of Kraus (1942-1943) is still the standard reference work in the field (Newman 1996: 178 as referred to above calling it "the brilliant work of Paul Kraus in the 1940s"; Nomanul Haq 1994: 31 n.1 as referred to above: "this powerful work of Kraus (Kraus [1942-3]) has been followed by a period of relative indifference"; Delva 2017 as referred to above n. 21 "[...] Paul Kraus in his monumental studies that were published in the thirties and the early forties of the previous century"). Also note that it is very misleading to state that the field has moved on hugely since then, because quite the opposite is actually the case (note how many sources from the 20s and 30s are cited in the sources mentioned above, and in the article's bibliography section). Apaugasma (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys

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

---

Opinion or Fact?

Is Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys by Samantha Kutner (International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 26 May 2020) a reliable source for the claim that the Proud Boys are fascist? Note the question is not whether this is a reliable source for the Proud Boys in general or whether they should be called fascist in the article, but whether this source can be used to support the claim.

Kutner has a bachelor's degree in psychology and a master's degree in communications, has studied the Proud Boys and has appeared in major media to discuss them. The publisher has been considered reliable in previous discussions.

While the paper's focus is on the communications style of the Proud Boys, Kutner concludes they are fascist by comparing them with Laurence Britt's "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" included in his op-ed "Fascism Anyone?" (Free Inquiry, Spring 2003.) Britt "is a retired international businessperson, writer, and commentator," according to the information in his op-ed.

I see several problems with this source:

1. Kutner is not an expert on fascism writing in a reliable source for the categorization of fascists.
2. The definition of fascism provided by Britt is not generally recognized by fascism scholars. He bases his 14 characteristics on a comparison of "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia." But there is no universal agreement that any of these regimes except the first two were fascist. The one source by a fascism expert that Kutner cites in her article (The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton) says there were no fascist regimes outside Europe, hence ruling out indonesia and specifically says that Spain, Portugal and Chile were not fascist. He doesn't mention Papadopoulos' Greece at all.
3. Kutner's conclusions should be seen as her opinion. She has compared the Proud Boys with Britt's 14 characteristics and determined they meet the criteria.

TFD (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an extraordinary claim, in fact it appears to be the position held by every WP:RS I’ve been able to find over the last ten minutes of searching. Does anyone seriously dispute the claim that the Proud Boys are fascist or neo-fascist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely Reliable, the arguments are laughable facially. There's been a push by an IP (Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64) seemingly connected to a "Wilfred Reilly" and trying to push some very WP:FRINGE stuff from an unreliable website that couldn't even get the text of Reilly's tweets right, which was blocked for a month on October 19th for spreading disinformation on wikipedia. Right after the block expired it came back, leaving rants on multiple people's talk pages [81] [82][83] and spamming four sections at once onto the Proud Boys talk, editing alongside a couple other editors making some pretty outrageous claims and using some sexist attacks (such as trying to impugn her by listing her standard speaking fee rates and then accusing her of "COI" for being an expert who actually makes a living doing her research). And there's been a WHOLE lot of WP:OR and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stuff thrown around by editors who are attacking Kutner.

Further, TFD just reiterates some of the more ridiculous stuff here. For instance, Kutner is most definitely an expert on the Proud Boys, so they switch tactics and create an imaginary high bar by claiming that someone has to be an "expert in history" or an "expert in fascism" to make the determination about whether or not the group is fascist, and by trying over and over to attack definitions of fascism as a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

There's also the fact that in a recently concluded RFC Talk:Proud_Boys#RfC:_Statements_in_lead (which ran all the way from October 10 to November 11th), TEN sources supporting the term were provided, and the RFC concluded a consensus for the term to be included. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The question is not about the ten other sources, but about this one. TFD (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. This doesn't appear to be a particularly difficult call. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, but should be named in the body (attributed) with the other sources that have called the group fascist while listed as a source in the lede. I note in checking the article that the only point where the PBs are called out as fascist is presently in the lede and there is nothing in the body about this, which is a big problem in terms of NPOV; why they are considered fascist (as well as the other terms) needs to be spelled out with the sources given to justify the use in the lede at a minimum. That's a wholly different matter from RS however. --Masem (t) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. I see nothing particularly wrong with the source. Looks good to me! --Jayron32 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable ICCT is a reputable organization and should be considered WP:RS. Acousmana (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for the claim in question. ICCT is a reputable organization and the source in question is a scholarly work by an expert on right-wing extremism and the Proud Boys specifically. The gist of the question here seems to be that TFD disagrees with the criteria that the author uses to define "fascism". I'm not sure I agree with them either, but the personal views of an individual pseudonymous editor don't trump reliable sources written by subject-matter experts. In this case, an expert has identified fascist characteristics of the Proud Boys (and explained them in depth) in a reliable academic published source, so Wikipedia should reflect that whether or not an individual editor personally agrees with the source's conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mastcell, the claim in question as I posed it was whether it is a reliable source for determining that the Proud Boys are fascist. Among other things, that means accepting its definition of fascism and categorization of other groups as fascist. If you are right, then we need to change our articles to reflect this new definition and articles about, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Indonesia since we now have a reliable source that they were fascist. I'll provide a link in the talk pages of some of the dozens of articles this could affect. TFD (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe there's a policy about those sorts of rhetoric and actions. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, particularly when your "point" is nonsense. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Noting here, it appears TFD has followed up and pasted identical text including the wording "Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys" to multiple talk pages at once:Talk:Fascism#New_definition_of_Fascism, Talk:Far-right politics, Talk:Right-wing politics, Talk:Francisco Franco, Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar. I believe that Beyond My Ken is correct that this is crossing the line of WP:CANVASSING. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  It does not, please note WP:APPNOTE. Specifically lines like The talk page of one or more directly related articles which the topic does relate to. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not the case. This discussion only concerns those other pages if we accept TFD's false reading of the situation that Kutner's definition of fascism is only acceptable to use in this particular instance if it is the definition of fascism, that if it used in relation to the Proud Boys, it must be used everywhere else. That is absolutely not true. We can say "According to Kutner's definition of fascism, the Proud Boys are a fascist group" without being required to usurp every other possible definition of fascism in every other article on Wikipedia with that definition. In point of fact, unless Kutner specifically mentions the subjects of those pages (and some of them she does, so the notification was justified -- although a discussion on those article's talk pages would have made more sense), there's absolutely no reason to ring the alarm bells and call out the fire brigade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion is not whether we should say "according to Kutner's definition," it's about whether we should accept her definiton and conclusions as a fact. Should we say "The Proud Boys are a fascist organization" and source it to her article? I absolutely agree that saying "according to Samantha Kuchner, the Proud Boys is a fascist organization" meets rs. Notice I added "Opinion or Fact?" to the top of the article. Is it an opinion or a fact? Please answer. TFD (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• The more I look into this the more it comes across as promoting WP:FRINGE. PackMecEng (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is a very reliable source for saying that Kutner believes the Proud Boys to be fascist... but not for saying they ARE in Wikipedia’s voice. It is opinion. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is something more than a mere "opinion", given that it's based on an examination and comparison of other fascist regimes. I do agree, though, that it should not be in Wikipedia's voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @Blueboar: there were TEN sources in a recent RFC (that concluded less than two weeks ago) supporting the term in the lede, and the citation is to four different sources in the text currently. It seems those who are dissatisfied with the RFC's result have resumed attacking Kutner directly for... reasons. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. As long as it's clear that the claim that the Proud Boys are fascist comes from this particular definition of fascism (of which there are many), and the bona fides of the claimant are also made clear, I see nothing wrong with it.
  TFD has asked on a number of article talk pages if this definition of fascism now becomes our definition of fascism, which is, of course, an entirely different question given the disagreements and disputes between the many subject experts who have studied fascism over the decades. Whether this particular definition is reasonable, and the source is reliable is one thing, but it does not imply that it is now the ne plus ultra of definitions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Her classification of the Proud Boys relies on her definition of fascism, which differs from that of fascism scholars. If we accept that her classification in reliable, then we are accepting that her definition is also reliable and should be treated as a fact, not an opinion. On the other hand, if her reliance on the definition is her personal opinion, then so is her conclusion. TFD (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  You're speaking as if there was a single accepted definition of what fascism is among "fascism scholars". There is no such thing. There are multiple competing definitions, moswt of which have elements in common, but no one definition that all "fascism scholars" agree on. So that fact the her definition is different in some ways from others is really not relevant, it's par for the course. As long as she's qualified as a subject expert, then we can use her definition, as in "According to the definition of fascism developed by Samantha Kutner, the Proud Boys qualify as a fascist group." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I agree there is no single definition of fascism. Can you explain why we should use Laurence Britt's definition to state as a fact that the Proud Boys are fascist? TFD (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable - Certainly Samantha Kutner is an academic subject matter expert working specifically on research around this particular group. The ICCT is a respected organisation with a focus on and expertise on the subject more broadly. That's a gold standard high quality academic source...I'm not sure about Laurence Britt, I can't find much about the fellow, but Kutner isn't about to reference total BS, she's a serious academic. Having said that, Britt's "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" was published by a reliable source with peer review and a respected editorial board...and it's not really that different to Paxton's "The Five Stages of Fascism". P.S. I know Paxton's work very well and he was saying there were no fascist regimes outside Europe during WWII and that specific time frame. Bacondrum (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit, the "there were/are no fascist regimes outside Europe" thing, when you read the details, often sounds suspiciously like "it's only fascism if it comes from the fasces region of france, otherwise it's just sparkling violent ethnonationalism." IHateAccounts (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

On reflection I see that I misstated my perceived problem with Kutner's article. Should her conclusion be treated as an opinion with intext citation (as in "According to Sarah Kutner, the Proud Boys is a fascist group") or should it be treated as a fact (as in "The Proud Boys is a fascist group?)" TFD (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Still Reliable as a factual citation, no matter what level of moving the goalposts occurs. MULTIPLE Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not just Kutner, are cited to the wording in the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• The source has been deemed to be reliable by a consensus of editors here, therefore the question of how to use the source should be discussed not here but on Talk:Proud Boys. RSN is not a substitute for the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  I was actually interested in your opinion rather than your opinion of what other editors have said, but thank you for your contribution. If you would like to explain and express your personal opinion, lots of readers would like to hear it. TFD (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think it should be included it labeling of fascist comes from the definition created by someone with dubious historical merit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be used with attribution, since "fascist" is a value-laden, subjective label. Even if it reflects a large number of reliable sources including the one in question in agreement that identify the group that way, the term should not be spoken as fact in Wikivoice and there are ways in general (eg not having to list out all sources in the lede) to generally refer to that, eg "PB is considered to be a fascist group", whereas in the body, as I noted in my comment above, this is where you have time/space to go into attributed statements of why they are considered fascist and by whom. --Masem (t) 06:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Source should not be used for complete redefinition of fascism, it may be cited in connection the particular isses (e.g. Proud Boys), or similar, but we should not reinvent the wheel based on one work (I've read into, some parts seem POVish).(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC))

This new question is completely off-topic for this noticeboard and should - must, actually - take place on the article's Talk page where all editors interested in the question can more easily participate. ElKevbo (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)}}

• The above comment by ElKevbo was originally the closing notice when they closed this sub-thread, as it was appropriate to do, as the question now being asked is no longer within the ambit of RSN -- the reliability of the source having been affirmed by a consensus of editors -- but should be dealt with on the article talk page. ElKevbo's close was inappropriately undone by The Four Deuces, who re-factored the comment to make it appear to be part of the normal stream of the discussion. TFD did not mark the thread as having been closed or re-opened, as they should have, nor did they label ElKevbo's comment as having originally been a closing notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason for noticeboards is to engage editors who do not follow an article's talk page. TFD (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Claim can stand on it's own with a peer reviewed academic source, certainly no need for attribution - Samantha Kutner is an academic subject matter expert working specifically on research around this particular group. The ICCT is a respected organisation with a focus on and expertise on the subject more broadly. That's a gold standard high quality academic source. Bacondrum (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not a peer-reviewed source (in so far that it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal). Not to diminish its reliability, but this does stress the need that it should still be attributed in the body directly to explain why the PBs are considered facist. --Masem (t) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This [84] by TFD was highly inappropriate, and combined with the large crossposting of language to multiple pages asking which Beyond My Ken observed to be " to garner negative reactions to the new definition so they would filter back to the RSN discussion and support your position that the Proud Boys aren't fascist, disregarding the results of an RfC", I am sure has hit the level of Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP problematic behavior, especially since the last RFC on Talk:Proud Boys closed on November 11, barely two weeks ago, with arguments over Kutner restarted by a returning problem Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64 that was just off a block for "(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)". IHateAccounts (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

defence-blog.com

Is defence-blog.com a reliable reference? An editor claims it is, despite there being zero evidence it's anything more than a website edited by a single person with no expertise. The about us page lists a single person (Dylan Malyasov) as "co-founder and editor-in-chief", and no other staff. I cannot find any evidence, other than claims by Dylan Malyasov himself, that he means the recognised expert part of WP:SPS. FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say not, its just a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven - the website is well-named, it looks like a blog about defence stuff. Not reliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

John Hunt Publishing - A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson

This relates specifically to the question of Peterson's understanding of "cultural Marxism." Discussion here appears to suggest that Peterson knows what he's talking about when he conflates cultural Marxism with postmodernism and so called "neo-Marxism." It would be useful to cite a source that addresses the confusion. One such publication exists, would it be reasonable to cite it? Or at the very least cite Slavoj Žižek's overview (a valid expert opinion on the topic) of the matter as detailed in the book's introduction. Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, Ben Burgis, Conrad Bongard Hamilton, Matthew McManus, Marion Trejo, John Hunt Publishing, 24 Apr 2020 - Political Science - 256 pages. Acousmana (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Acousmana, I'm involved in that discussion but I don't think I understand what you are asking here. Is your question, is this book reliable? How are you suggesting it should be used? On what grounds should we consider it reliable/not reliable? The heading suggests you are asking if books published by John Hunt Publishing should be considered reliable. However, your reference to Slavoj Žižek seems to be asking if Žižek's opinion should be DUE in the article. If that is the case why would we filter that view through the authors of the book? Ultimately, even as an involved editor I'm not sure what you are specifically trying to understand here. Note that means I'm not supporting or objecting at this time. Springee (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)\

non-expert editors are offering personal opinions on a matter they are not qualified to assess. Žižek, who has actually engaged in a high-profile debate with Peterson, is a notable authority on this very subject (where postmodernism/poststructuralism/Marxism may or many not intersect and what exactly it is Peterson means when he uses the term 'neo-Marxist'). Couldn't be clearer really. Acousmana (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

But I don't understand what question you are asking here. It sound's like Žižek would be a fine expert to refute some of Peterson's statements. That can be done as attributed expert opinion. However, that would be independent of John Hunt Publishing. That is why I'm confused. It's just not clear what you are specifically asking or how a "yes" or "no" would apply to the article. Springee (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"that would be independent of John Hunt Publishing," could you please note that the introduction of the publication is written by Žižek (indicated in the original comment), a cursory glance at the book's contents would have established this. Acousmana (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, what is your actual question? Is the question about the publisher or Žižek? Is Žižek the editor? I don't have a copy of the book so I can't exactly just open it up. That Žižek had involvement with the book is not clear. Is your actual question, can we use this book as an expert opinion on Peterson? Personally I wouldn't be sure. While the authors have reasonable academic standing the publisher doesn't appear to be academic press. I'm assuming you mean for Žižek to vouch for the book but I don't think that is a normally acceptable way to establish the bonafides of this book. If you want Žižek to counterpoint Peterson why not just find material by Žižek? Springee (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

there's a link above, you see it right? there's this thing, Google Books Preview... so just to be clear, are you disputing the reliability of the publisher, and Žižek's contribution to said book? Acousmana (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I did follow the link but what am I supposed to do there. Ultimately I haven't disputed or confirmed anything yet because you haven't asked a clear question. Springee (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Friend User:David Eppstein has relevant thoughts on John Hunt Publishing and its somewhat unique business model, past expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burgis. Might like expanding on that here, with his characteristic gruffness. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Gruffness? Anyway, as I said there, John Hunt Publishing has a business model in which some books are published through the traditional editorial process, some are pay-to-publish, and they won't tell us which are which. Because we can't tell which of their books are properly edited, we also can't tell which ones are reliable, so I think we should treat them all as unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Gruffness, yes, but it's endearing. I come part of the way to your view. Apparently most books they publish in a vanity press sense are in fiction, which we wouldn't cite. Would still take anything in the nonfiction space with a grain of salt. Maybe a whole pinch. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

    David Eppstein, I agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Uttar Pradesh Volume 7 of Chib, Sukhdev Singh Volume 7 of This beautiful India, Sukhdev Singh Chib

Author:- Sukhdev Singh Chib

Publisher:- Light & Life Publishers

Page.no.:- page no.137 [85]

The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text

They were of mixed Ahir and Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan.

And I want to change it to

"They were of Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan of Rajputs"

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.

Here [86] is a more accessible version. I'd say no, but it's possible it could be used to insert something like "Some sources do not mention mixed Ahir and Rajput descent." Maybe. The University of Chicago Press source in the article is, from the WP-POV, a good one, and there is no WP-good reason to exclude what it says, so my advice is to give up on that particular point, you've been WP:Beating a dead horse long enough. However, this is a discussion for Talk:Udal of Mahoba. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sam Sloan § Removed most anusha.com citations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sam Sloan § Removed most anusha.com citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

It would be great to get some input on not only this discussion, but also on the reliability of Familypedia in Talk:Sam Sloan#More children?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)