Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Just another partisan source. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without too partisan and opinion based sources. I absolutely don't think those who look at things from one side's perspective tend to have reputation for fact checking. Hence, I don't think it's a WP:RS.Magnus Dominus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Unreliable, and trying for deprecation - the conspiracy theory pushing suggests they've left tawdry conceptions of "factual reality" behind. Unfortunately, "factual reality" is where Wikipedia does its best to live, and so we can't follow RCP to where they're going - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This subject is an opinion aggregator, mostly using reprints of articles which appeared in right-leaning sources. The NYT article linked above by User:MastCell demonstrates that whatever "non-partisan" credibility they tried to hold onto was lost in the "sudden right turn" after Trump's election. These days they are just another source parroting "stolen election" lies. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - We can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as long as they are used in a neutral way or with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable - not a matter of bias one way or the other, it's a matter of uncritically reporting falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - as reliable in their political opinions as left-leaning sources like WaPo. We don't consider a source unreliable because we don't agree with their politics. Biased sources are acceptable. But like all online news sources in today's clickbait environment, we should exercise caution and use common sense. Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now per MastCell et al, but I would probably say that pre-2017 content might be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for now. The source has published a few questionable stories relating to the 2020 elections, but its news offerings are on the whole reliable; it should be treated as a mainstream news source. This may change in the future if its bias gets more extreme and starts causing the facts to get distorted.Jancarcu (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now (since at least 2020, and apparently since 2017), or at least "use caution", in light of their decision to ditch their reporting staff and shift from mere bias (which is OK, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES) into conspiracy-theory inaccuracies about several recent events, which I've seen and which MastCell and Aquillion go over above and which other RS called out, as noted above. -sche (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for news, reliable for sourced opinion, if attributed to it clearly. It might at this point ib time be the best source for its particular place in the spectrum of far-right opinion. The problem with extreme right sources is there is nothing to balance them with, for there are no equally wide-read truly left wing US sources as some of those on the right. The fact that far right sources mostly tell falsehoods is important, and the best way to establish it, is to quote them, not ignore them. There is, for example, no left wing equivalent in readership or influence as Fox. I'm not sure what might correspond to this one on the other side. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable – RealClear has frequently reported false information on many topics, usually in an effort to support the politics of Donald Trump. In the example citation given, it would make more sense for the cited source to be video or transcripts of Jeanine Pirro talking on Fox News. For example, "'Criminal cabal' and Jeanine Pirro's other controversial statements". (It's preferable to obtain video directly from Fox News, rather than a montage of Pirro's comments edited together and posted on YouTube. This example shows that the video in question is available in some form and doesn't require the use of unreliable RealClear media.) --Mr. Lance E Sloan (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable RealClearInvestigations has boldly published stories where others refused to. They have been cited by other outlets and have high quality reporters. Nweil (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

— Nweil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RfC: China Daily

Link: [19]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk)

MBFC Rating: [20]

02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Survey (China Daily)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-The China Daily has a gatfekeeping process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The WSJ characterized that passage as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The fact that other sources are also biased or also make mistakes does not make China Daily reliable. If you want to resolve the problem of systemic bias among reliable sources, you'll have to apply WP:Label and WP:Biasedsource to information gathered from reliable but biased sources. Alternatively, you could push for changes to the WP:Due weight policy to allow less reliable sources to be used in setting a due weight "framework" for facts to be filled in with more reliable sources, thereby allowing unreliable sources to be used in balancing out articles without introducing factual errors. Either way, the only thing that should be considered when determining the reliablility of China Daily is whether or not it is factually reliable, and not whether or not declaring it reliable would help reduce bias. Jancarcu (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2: The site did on occasion feature dubious claims (mostly about Chinese politics from what I can tell), though in the end, the majority of its articles have in my experience been very factual. It is true that you will not find articles criticising the Chinese government there, but for that there are plenty of other news outlets one can use; the debate is not whether China Daily should be the only source being used on Wikipedia and therefore it is pretty irrelevant what it does not cover. As the site provides reliable reporting on most non-Chinese topics it does cover, I see no reason for deprecation. As an example, look through its section about European news and whether it features factual information or not – as a German comparing it to the reporting in our media, it is. Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or lower: Piotrus got what I want to say - reliable when not of CCP interest, but outright Option 4 on things that clash with CCP interest (or benefits CCP in some case).--1233 ( T / C） 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. It's reliable as a source for the CCP's official position but not reliable for matters that contradict that or which show China/the CCP in a bad light. For matters where the CCP does not have an official position and there is no propaganda value in counter-factual reporting it is generally reliable (as with all sources though there are likely to be occasional exceptions). Thryduulf (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation. Surely for Chinese topics it's important to know what their government thinks, and this is the best source to establish it. I see no reason to not accept it for non-political content also, if we watch out for how they tend to slant things. Saying "Deprecate" is saying either, "We have an an enemy, and we want to pretend they don't exist" or, even more ominously, "We have an enemy, and what it says is sufficiently impressive that should we expose people to what it says, they might be convinced." DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with some of this comment, DGG. It should be noted that the views expressed in China Daily, generally reflective of various sections of the Communist Party of China, may also represent the views of hundreds of millions of Chinese people. Therefore when you write we watch out for how they tend to slant things, you should be cautious to specify who "they" are. This is an international encyclopedia and many editors may be Chinese. It's true that far-right nationalists or spooks [61] around the world might view other peoples or governments as the "enemy," but even the U.S. president, Biden, only goes so far as to describe China as a "competitor" [62]. -Darouet (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• This shows why blanket deprecation of the Daily Mail was always a bad idea - We can deprecate the Daily Mail as, being a publication from a free society, it does not have an army of trolls waiting to defend it, it does have to answer to numerous bodies that will expose any untruth published in it. We shouldn't have, because it was still potentially useful for a few things.

China Daily, on the other hand, is a propaganda publication run by the government of a dictatorship. There is no question that it is not neutral, there is no question that it has not published lies as fact for propaganda reasons, there is no question whatsoever that on any given issue, China Daily is going to be less reliable than the Daily Mail. Yet it won't be deprecated. Hell, as anyone who has lived as an expat in China can tell you, CD doesn't even exclusively employ professional journalists (source: I know people who got jobs there with zero experience and I could have done the same easily), makes up quotes - normally from foreigners amazed by something the CCP has done. It used to have a section of stories from around China that were all clearly made up - e.g., they were intentional hoaxes probably written by the expat staff as a joke, similar to the Ask Alessandro column in Global Times. It is known to have made up stories, omitted uncomfortable details etc.

If we are at all going to be consistent, China Daily should be deprecated in exactly the same way as the Daily Mail because it is far worse in every respect. We won't because we aren't being consistent, because banning the DM was something driven through by people insisting on "burning it with fire" without thinking at all about the consequences of what they were doing. FOARP (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Only 14 out of 48 editors commenting here have recommended deprecation as one of the choices we should consider. By contrast your comment, there is no question whatsoever that on any given issue, China Daily is going to be less reliable than the Daily Mail (emphasis in the original), implies a staggering lack of perspective. China Daily has the largest circulation of any English-language newspaper in China, a nuclear-armed superpower with a population of 1.2 billion people and, arguably, the world's largest economy. To write in earnest that there's no question whatsoever that the most notorious tabloid from the Island of Britain must be more reliable than one of China's largest papers on literally any topic — including politics and life in southeast Asia or China itself — requires at least some degree of motivated reasoning. For instance the Quartz article you cite is concerning, but Quartz is a low-quality source. Shouldn't the hyperbolic tone and conclusions of the Quartz piece have alerted you to the possibility that it might be no more reliable than the China Daily article it was criticizing? There are more measured critiques of China Daily publications (or social media posts) [63], but similar problems can be found in Western media organizations, and those problems are especially accentuated when it comes to their reporting on China. The takeaway is that you, as an editor, should consider biases when using a source, including the China Daily. I oppose deprecation of the Daily Mail, by the way, on the grounds that some of their reporting is valuable, and intelligent editors can work to decide when its content is useful for citation here at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Both those states are nuclear armed powers, I’m not sure how thats relevant to wikipedia’s reliability standards though. Perhaps you should try comparing freedom of the press and political interference in the media instead? Population, nuclear weapons status, and the ability to project overwhelming power have literally no influence on the reliability of media organizations within a county. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Slow hand-clap to everyone responsible for elevating the state media of an oppressive, genocidal dictatorship over what is (for its many, many faults) free, accountable media because (paraphrasing) "China is powerful" and "kill it with fire". FOARP (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This comment is way out of line. Accusing people of supporting genocide because they don't share your view on the reliability of a source is an egregious violation of WP:NPA. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"China is powerful" is a direct paraphrasing of the rhetoric above about China being a large economy and nuclear power. "Kill it with fire" is a verbatim quote from the leading advocate of the DM ban in their vote in the 2017 DM ban RFC. I nowhere said that the people stating that the state media of a genocidal dictatorship was more reliable that a newspaper based in a free country and answerable in multiple fora, are themselves advocates of genocide - some may well be of course, but this is a matter for their consciences. If you think otherwise please feel free to take this to ANI. FOARP (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We're discussing reliability of a source, including factors like factual accuracy and bias. Suggesting that people who don't think a particular source should be deprecated are thereby supporting genocide (which you've done a second time now, right after saying that that's not your intention) is really just poisoning the discussion here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We're engaging in a process modelled on a supposed "gold standard" of the 2017 DM RFC. Was the ownership of the DM thought relevant in that RFC? Yes it was - it was referenced repeatedly. The owners of the China Daily are presently engaged in genocide. China Daily has excused their acts and denied genocide. It's up to you whether you wish to defend the China Daily. It is your outlook if you wish to defend its supposed reliability. Again, WP:ANI is here if you don't like people pointing to the acts of China Daily's owners in a discussion about the China Daily. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your political views about China are really irrelevant here. There are actual, concrete discussions about factual reliability, bias, coverage of different points of view, etc. above. You're not adding anything with these accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The ownership of China Daily is entirely relevant, the nature of its owners is also relevant. I raised specific incidents of CD making up quotes, manufacturing stories, employing random expats with no journalistic experience, publishing hoaxes, none of which you bothered to engage with. Add to this the fact that arguing that CD is an "important voice" since Chinese language publications are rare 1) simply gives Chinese state-media a pass because the Chinese government literally silences all other voices and 2) isn't true because Taiwan and (unfortunately, to a lesser extent nowadays) Hong Kong exist. FOARP (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Thucydides411... Our process applies equally to sources from all countries, ownership has always been under consideration and your suggestion that we can consider ownership in all cases except when it comes to sources from China is just odd. You also appear to be for the most part ignoring the very concrete points raised by FOARP and accusations of them poising the well etc are unfounded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

For example if we pick an option other deprecation or generally reliable we would need to decide what the source can and cant be reasonably used for. If a sources owner is committing crimes against humanity/genocide against the Y people in X region then we shouldn't be using them to report on that specific issue, the Y people, or the X region. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That depends on the degree of editorial independence they have from their owners and how significant their owner's opinions are regarding that subject. It cannot be seriously argued that the CCP's opinions on matters relating to politics and political issues in mainland China is anything other than highly relevant. Accordingly per WP:NPOV what the CCP's view is should be mentioned in a least many cases. I've seen no convincing arguments that China Daily is anything other than reliable when it comes to reporting what the CCP's view on such matters is. What can be (and is being) seriously debated is how reliable they are for factual reporting of matters in which the CCP has no propaganda interest. You can believe the organisation is reliable for such things without agree with or endorsing the CCP's actions or views in exactly the same way that I can simultaneously view the Daily Telegraph as generally reliable and the Daily Mail as mostly unreliable despite them having political views that are strongly overlapping with each other but significantly different to my own. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In this case they have no editorial independence from their owner. We can still use a deprecated source for WP:ABOUTSELF, if a matter is of no propaganda interest to the CCP then it won’t be reported on by China Daily... That should be self-evident. Its a publication of the Party's publicity department not a business. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF applies to content about China Daily, not about the CCP generally and certainly not about things not related to things that are not either. Your final sentence is incorrect - see for example [64] a neutral, factual article about Tsunami warnings in New Zealand following an earthquake that is currently on the site's main page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, although I think it does to some extent extent to the publishing entity (CCP) as well. Do you have a WP:RS which says that this piece has no propaganda purpose or is that just your opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that propaganda is one of the purposes of China Daily, but not the only purpose. I am not aware of any other source (reliable or otherwise) that has commented on China Daily's coverage of this specific story, but I have read the article (have you?) and cannot fathom what propaganda purpose it could serve. There are multiple reliable sources that state that not everything published by China Daily is propaganda - some cited in our article and indeed in this discussion. Like much of the real world it is not a simple black and white issue - it is reliable for some things, unreliable for others and should be treated with caution for the rest - i.e a mix of options 2 and 3. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion what other purposes does it serve? I think it would also have to be a “mix” of option 4 because even though it makes up a small proportion of what they publish they do in fact knowingly publish "false or fabricated information." Theres plenty of coverage of that in WP:RS ([65] etc). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t want to be too pointed or personal but have you seen what China Daily publishes about your beloved Amnesty International? [66][67][68] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Again let's remember that the publication that is supposed to be the model of what Wiki deprecates is the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail definitely does publish perfectly factual articles. If we are going to be at all consistent, the mere fact that CD publishes factual articles should not save it from deprecation. We know that CD fabricates information in stories even about mundane topics like trade with Israel and reports from the Beijing silk market. What, then is it supposed to be reliable for? FOARP (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The article you're linking to says that China Daily published a puff piece about an Israeli food market, and that it the editors didn't want another article to mention that a certain market had counterfeit products. Neither is an example of fabricated information. They're examples of editorial bias influencing what does and does not get included in a story, or what general tone an article takes. The exact opposite bias (e.g., focus on negative aspects of stories involving China) is common in many Western news outlets. It's always important to be aware of the bias of a news source, and not to rely solely on sources that have one bias. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Try reading that article again... "China Daily, in fact, wrote a story declaring the market to be 100 percent free of counterfeit products... I arrived at the Silk Market to find the place full, from floor to ceiling, with fake products--jeans, jackets, shoes, underwear, everything. Whatever one wanted, it was all there, and it was almost all counterfeit.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also theres no "Israeli food market” in the story you just read. There was an Israeli trade fair in the story but no food market... It also says more than puff piece, "we wrote a feature about it anyway, reporting—despite a total lack of substantiating evidence—that Israeli goods were taking the Chinese market by storm.” we appear to have a China Daily reporter admitting that China Daily just makes stuff up without any evidence Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, you got me - I'm very sorry for calling an "Israeli trade fair" where one eats hummus and olives an "Israeli food market." Anyways, the article doesn't say they fabricated information. "Taking the market by storm" is an incredibly vague, subjective statement. A puff piece from 2007 or 2008 about an "Israeli trade fair" is not a basis for deprecating a source. By the way, I've looked, and been unable to find any of the China Daily articles discussed in the linked article, so I can't evaluate whether they made any concrete, false claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

None of which is a surprise to anyone who has read the China Daily regularly, or knows anyone who has worked there. The basic point is that CD can't be trusted to tell the truth about petty crime in a Beijing silk market, or imports of agricultural products from Israel - so, again, just what can it be trusted to report on reliably? If the Daily Mail (which at least is staffed by professional journalists rather than random 20-something expats, and is answerable to an independent regulator) is deprecated then consistency demands the same be done to China Daily. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (China Daily)

I just want to highlight some content from China Daily:

Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11.[69][70]

[71]

A protester fires a US-made M320 grenade launcher at an illegal assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui amid escalating violence in Hong Kong on Sunday night. [72][73]

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

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

And just today, we have this:

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report.[74]

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

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

Chinese Embassy in US Twitter @ChineseEmbinUS

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

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

January 7, 2021

References

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

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

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

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

Contrast this with reports from actual WP:RS of forced sterilization of Uyghur women [75][76]. Is forcing sterilization on someone consistent with respecting their decision on whether or not to use contraception? And the nail in the coffin -- one might argue that China Daily was simply reporting what the "research center" said and was therefore accurate. But in that case, shouldn't they have characterized both the "report" and the "research center" differently? Because neither "research" nor "report" are accurate characterizations of the document in question, are they? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that they described it as a "research report", and not as "propaganda" or the like. When one invents lies and publishes them, that's not research. For an example of an appropriate way to cover nonsensical claims, see The Atlantic here.[77]. At no point do they ever refer to any of the nonsensical claims they cover as "research".Adoring nanny (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The phrase "Study shows" is from the tweet describing the article, not from the article itself. But the underlying problem here is that the article frames the report as "research", which it is not. If we were to allow it as WP:RS, a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows that Uighur women's decisions about contraception are respected", which is obviously nonsense. Additionally, as User:Newslinger pointed out, the document they describe as the "research center's report" itself is unpublished. So China Daily is effectively the original publisher of this "information". Under the standard you are proposing, anybody could type up a document, call themselves a "research center", and then any source could decribe the document as a "research center's report", regardless of its contents. For example, "research institute says that the Theory of Evolution has been refuted."[78]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Many above are assuming that CD is reliable for non-political material. The problems is that in China everything can be political. For this reason CD regularly fabricates quotes/makes up stories and omits key details from reportage even when the subject matter is mundane. Just what content, other than WP:ABOUTSELF, is it that they are supposed to be reliable for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Asian News International (ANI)

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

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

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

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

Survey (Asian News International)

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

References

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

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

  It's also not used as an agency feed by Indian newspaper which are considered to be generally reliable such as The Indian Express (RSP entry) or The Hindu (RSP entry); see [79] and [80]. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: In that case we have The Siasat Daily [81], Lokmat [82], Telangana Today [83] and The New Indian Express [84] (maybe more) they all use ANI as an agency feed. GSS ^💬 06:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

References

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. There are extensive and documented instances of active misinformation by ANI. It should not be relied on, particularly as it has the practice of simply deleting stories subsequently, and not formally withdrawing/apologizing for false claims. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Given its track record on publishing misinformation [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] and its habit of publishing pro-government propaganda [95][96][97], it must be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE for factual reporting. SUN EYE 1 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: per WP:USEBYOTHERS tied to BBC et al, and extent of WP acceptance directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. That altnews.in sometimes disagrees shown above seems a minor item. I would suggest that any use should, as always follow CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tayi Arajakate The USEBYOTHERS criteria for RS was pointed to by GSS, and I note their link to Reuters prominent is in their article and mentioned online and the BBC mention of them as India's largest wire service. I did see BBC usage attribute parts of stories to ANI at a couple [98], e.g. here, and here although usually BBC has its own reporters and uses Getty images. You can also google other newspaper online sites make what seems similar usage at NY Times, Washington Post The Sun, The London Times, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Australian, USA Today, and so forth as one might expect from a wire service covering India. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Option 1: ANI articles are often quoted/republished by other reliable sources. It is sometimes a bit biased but nevertheless it can be used for facts.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: ANI is one of the largest news agencies in Asia, and a reputed one at that with scores of subscribers both within the country (India) and outside thereof. So much so that the very thought of certifying it as otherwise is beyond me and totally uncalled for. One or two instances, if any, of erroneous reporting prove nothing. One could find the same for even the renowned New York Times, but that wouldn't make it unreliable. Like the below section would show and as I said on the talk page of the article in question too, the very portals being used to disparage and descredit this reputed agency (the likes of wire, quint et alia) have a poor standing, and have often been deemed ideologically biased and unreliable on RSN itself in the past.[99] Regards, MBlaze Lightning 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

• Option 1 It's certainly one of the largest news agencies in Asia as MBlaze said, and no plausible argument, having a basis in policy, has been put forward against WP:USEBYOTHERS for consideration. ANI's reach isn't limited to India or for that matter Asia, it "provides footage and editorial content to foreign news channels and agencies,...and is often the only source of footage and news from India's neighbours... Indian channels also rely on ANI feeds for the domestic stories that they are unable to cover, thereby making it the single largest source of news footage for an Indian channel. In fact, a major proportion of subcontinental footage telecast on foreign news channels such as the BBC, CNN, CNBC, NHK, etc. is provided by ANI, which also provides complete daily news bulletins and current affairs programmes to various ethnic channels operating in Europe, the US and other countries where the South Asian diaspora is present".[100] Such a high quality agency simply cannot be deemed unreliable by any stretch of the imagination under WP:RS. Also, what Darouet said. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Asian News International is a propaganda mouthpiece for the BJP government of India, just like China Daily, discussed above, is a propaganda mouthpiece for the Communist Party of China, and thus not a reliable source (use Press Trust of India as a source instead...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Asian News International)

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

References

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

  I have added BBC to the list above. You can also refer to these links [101] and the thread of RS links [102] --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The Volunteer (book)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But making that attribution to "popular perception" would be OR, unless an RS already states that that author's perception is "popular" (in which case using it as an example would arguably be only mild SYNTH). And yes, it's common in many other TAs, but few TAs are as sensitive, complex and well-developed as this one; ideally, we'd do it nowhere at all. François Robere (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• The publisher seems to be "reputable", and it does not have to be academic. The book received an award. Is the book itself "academically oriented"? I did not read the book, but it was described as "compelling study" in reviews [103]. So I think it does qualify as research. Yes, the author does not work for a University, but this does not automatically disqualify his research. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Unreliable. As a review by Cyra states this contains fictional elements ("partly only fictionalised").--Bob not snob (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• This is not a case to be discussed here. Fairweather is a reputable journalist, his book published by a reputable house. Whether Pilecki volunteered, not really volunteered, or was ordered & coerced to be caught is an interesting topic that should be discussed & elaborated in the article, not at RSN.--Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Since this is dragging for over a month now, I had some time to delve into the reviews of this book. I am convinced now, it is Reliable, a quality academically-focused work that can be used here.--Darwinek (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• So-so. It looks like a fine book, but without peer-review it's a problem to use it, especially in this TA. If the question is about the use of the term "volunteer", then the book is superseded by the journal article. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, this is completely false. The book does have in-line citations and it was peer reviewed by, among others Anthony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer, Wojciech Kozłowski, Hanna Radziejowska. Where did you get this false notion that this wasn't the case? Volunteer Marek 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies, I've checked the book again and it does have inline citations, though they're not footnoted. It might be the copy that I had (the book has three editions, multiple formats etc.) or just a lapse of attention, but I don't recall seeing them when I first checked the book - only a "select bibliography". So I apologise. The rest of the points still hold, AFAICT: the book lacks peer review, is mass-market-oriented rather than scholarly, and contains fictional elements; but I'll defer to others on their applicability to APLRS. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. It was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories [104]. According to the author he adopted a technique he called "literary forensics," or re-creating "the scene of the crime" [105] (???). Clearly, it's not an academically focused source.--JBchrch (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting WP:APLRS

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

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

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

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

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

• @El C: I laud your optimism and good intent, but seeing as your third warning to VM had little impact,[106][107] I doubt we're not headed to some form of WP:DR. As an aside, VM has been making PAs for longer than I've been in the TA and against more people than I'd care to count, so tying this behavior to him being harassed by Icewhiz's is wrong. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I want to add to the above that I intended no disrespect to the author. This discussion is purely about where the book lies within Wikipedia's sourcing standards for articles about the Holocaust in Poland. It's not a judgment about the overall quality of the work itself. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just hurts me to see so many educated and well-intended people wasting their time in such discussions. This is the reason I am against such sourcing restrictions, at least in history and politics. It makes people so profoundly unhappy. Just mention what the book say on the page (this is an RS, just not an academic one), with proper attribution, this should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest that people read this article: [108] Maria Suchcitz, "A volunteer’s journey to hell and back: A review of Jack Fairweather, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz, London, WH Allen / Penguin Random House, 2019", New Eastern Europe, 12 November 2019.

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

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

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

@Levivich - how do you know the book has "no internal citations"..? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it does have internal citations. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Fairweather's study, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz (2019), appears to qualify as a reliable source on Witold Pilecki. The book received an extensive positive review in Memoria, a publication of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, by Adam Cyra, since 1972 a Museum staff member: [109] "Review of Jack Fairweather's Book 'The Volunteer: The True Story of Witold Pilecki's Secret Mission', Memoria, no. 36 (September 2020), pp. 14–23. The book discusses the methodology used in its researching and composition and provides copious notes. Fairweather acknowledges the assistance of ten institutions including the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Yad Vashem; of a large staff of qualified researchers and translators; and of respected scholars of Polish-Jewish history and the Holocaust including Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer, Wojciech Kozłowski, Hanna Radziejowska, Rafał Brodacki, Jeffrey Bines, Staffan Thorsell, Wojciech Markert, Kate Brown, Magdalena Gawin, Anna Bikont, Francis Harris, and Suzannah Lipscomb. Nihil novi (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Adam Cyra's review is a positive one. But it also says: "The Volunteer by Jack Fairweather should be considered as non-fiction literature. The book presents authentic characters and events, and their description is based on a richly collected historical material, partly only fictionalised. From the novel, the author has drawn on the technique of narration and fiction of events, with scientific texts, and combines the factual nature of the historical narration, included in wellthoughtout and neatly presented chapters, with plenty of footnotes" (bold added). SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, hold up. Where did this idea that there's no inline citations in the book originate? The book most certainly has inline citations - numbered, with endnotes which cite the specific source [110]. The book was likewise reviewed by top Holocaust scholars and historians such as Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer and others. Volunteer Marek 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• SarahSV,Volunteer Marek,Nihil novi,Levivich,Girth Summit,El_C,My very best wishes,Hemiauchenia How about we contact some of the scholars listed above and ask them if they think the book is academically focused or not and whether they think it is a good source for Pilecki's biographical article or not? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  GizzyCatBella, I'm sorry, but there is no way at all that a book like that can reasonably be described as 'academically focussed'. It's not about who wrote it, or who helped with the research, it's about the target audience, the style of writing, the level of peer review. This is not an academic book, it's a popular history book - and, at risk of judging the book by its cover, a rather sensationalist one. Academically focussed books do not have breathless statements on the front cover like 'the true story of the resistance hero who infiltrated Auschwitz'. They do not become Sunday Times #1 Best Sellers.

  If APLRS said that sources must be well-reviewed, or very popular, or very comprehensive, I'd have no problem with this source, but it doesn't. It says they must be academically focussed; this book very clearly is not. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a book has to be dull as dishwater in order to qualify as "academically focused". And any academic's book that does wind up on a bestseller list (as some regrettably do) must be viewed with utmost suspicion.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi, I'm not certain, but you appear to be using sarcasm here. That is seldom helpful in a text-only environment, I'd advise you to avoid it.

It's got nothing to do with whether they're dull or not, that's a subjective measure. Academically focussed books are written by academics, for an academic audience. Plenty of academics write popular history books - there's nothing wrong with that, they're often fun to read and informative, and it's reassuring knowing that a real expert has written them, but it doesn't make them academically focussed. This book was written by a journalist (albeit with an unknown amount of help from academics) for a popular mass market - it is not an academic focussed book, I don't understand how anyone could reasonably dispute that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, With all due respect, but "Academically focussed books are written by academics, for an academic audience" seems to be your own definition of this term. Crucially, ArbCom never clarified it. As an academic myself, I understand "Academically focussed" as referring to the methodology used, rather than the target audience, as I explain below, and I'd define it as "Academically focussed books are written using academic methodologies and best practices" (which the book does, as it has endnotes, discusses its own methodology and the author employed academic researchers and consulted with professional academics). It also would make sense to me that ArbCom (and we) should be more concerned with how the book is written than who is reading it. Anyway, given the vague and undefined term that in the end, only ArbCom could clarify, I doubt RSN can really help here, except concluding that the book is reliable but as you wrote and I fully agree, "where it disagrees with [more] academic sources we should defer to those". Anyway, I note that below you clarified that the dealbreaker for you is the existence of reception in academia in the form of reviews by academics. I think we have found four such reviews (Flemming, Cyra, Suchcitz and Chodakiewicz). So the book was noted and reviewed (positively, I may add) not just by journalists and book critics but by scholars, all of which seem to be historians, as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, this discussion is bouncing up and down a bit - I found the link to the Fleming review, but can't see the others, any chance you could put links to them all in one place? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

~:Girth Summit, Sure. Cyra: [111], Suchcitz : (paywalled?)/OA mirror?, Chodakiewicz: [112]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus. What I said was that reviews in academic journals taking the book seriously as a piece of history might sway my opinion. Now, I claim no expertise in this subject area, but those three don't look like scholarly journals to me - more like literary magazines or institutional newsletters?

Looking at the authors: Cyra and Chodakiewicz are unquestionably academics who specialise in this area of study. Suscitz is a recent masters graduate working as an intern at the British Embassy in Warsaw: uncomfortable as I am with saying that we should ignore a woman and focus only on two men, it seems like a stretch to describe her as a scholar for the purpose of this discussion.

Cyra likes the book, and despite devoting a couple of paragraphs to factual inaccuracies, he says that it should be viewed as a piece of 'non-fiction literature'. Chodakiewicz obviously hates the book: he describes it as methodologically flawed, lists examples of the use of stereotypes 'too numerous to debunk in detail in this short review', and the way that he constantly refers to the Fairweather as 'the journalist' makes it clear that he does not view this as an academically valid work.

You are correct that my interpretation of the phrase 'academically focussed' is only my own personal interpretation - reasonable people like yourself and DGG could come to different interpretations of that phrase. By my reading though, the fact that the full description of the allowable sources is specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers implies that by 'academically focused' they did indeed mean 'intended for an academic audience' - why else would they have put it next to 'peer-reviewed scholarly journals'. If they intended to allow books like Fairweather's one, then why would they have raised the bar so much higher for periodicals?

Perhaps it would be best to go back to Arbcom and ask for a clarification to the wording of that requirement. I really don't have a dog in this fight, my knowledge of and interest in the subject area is very slight. Speaking purely as an uninvolved administrator trying to interpret and implement Arbcom rulings, I still can't view this as a permissible source based on what has been presented in this discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Out of curiosity, when you were catching up, did you read DGG's opinion (near the end of this discussion)? He is, AFAIK, the only ArbCom member to comment here, and he views the book as good enough.

Anyway, you asked for academic reviews. Flemming is undeniably one, and curiously you don't comment on this (isn't the existence of his review exactly what you asked for?); the other three are not in peer-reviewed journals but they are by academics (well, one in training, fair enough). Chodakiewicz is the only one whose review is negative, an interesting exception considering he is also the least reliable as a scholar (go read his bio to see why). So to some degree, a negative review from him is a solid endorsement of the book's neutrality :>

I don't think you have a dog in this fight either, but I do think there is some strange bar-raising. "No footnotes" - here they are. "No academic reviews" - here they are". Not an academic press - sorry, ArbCom didn't say it, they said reputable, and that's the end of the story unless someone bothers to ask them for clarification of what they meant by "academically focused". Until then I think we should stick to what was written, rather than offer our interpretations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, Fleming's review is scathing. He described the book as presenting "the features of the Pilecki myth to English-speaking readers", a myth he describes as a legend. He concludes by praising the prose, pictures, maps, but states that: ". It is unfortunate that in addition to having an inaccurate, sensationalist title, the book is framed as a “new chapter in the history of the mass murder of the Jews and an account of why someone might risk everything to help his fellow man.” This has resulted in a hagiographic narrative in an Anglo–American idiom." This is an awful review, that underscores this not being academic.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Piotrus can I ask that you take a step back from words like 'curiously' and 'strange' - I'm not comfortable with the possible implications they might have. I don't think that there's anything curious or strange about people on Wikipedia disagreeing about sources and guidelines, it seems pretty standard to me.

Yes, I read DGG's comment - that's why I mentioned him in my last reply. I recognise that he's an Arb, and I take his opinion on this matter seriously (as I do yours); at the same time, there are other admins on this thread who are very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement (such as El C) whose views align with mine. As I said, reasonable people can read the same words and infer subtly different meanings.

It has already been pointed out, by Levivich, that Fleming's review explicitly says that the book is intended for a general readership. Given that the meat of my argument is that such an intended readership would mean it is not academically focused, Fleming's review is one of the reasons why I believe this source is excluded by the wording of the Arbcom ruling. I didn't think it was necessary to reiterate that, but I'm happy to do so since you have questioned that.

Academics reviewing a popular history book in general-readership periodicals and quality newspapers is not an unusual thing; it doesn't, in my view, make the books they are reviewing academically focused. What I said earlier was that academics reviewing the book in a scholarly journal, and treating as a serious historical work, would likely sway my opinion, but I'm not seeing that.

I don't think that there is any bar raising here; or rather, I think that the bar was raised by Arbcom when they imposed that sourcing restriction. I have never said anything about footnotes, or an academic press, I don't know why you're raising them.

I agree with you that we should 'stick to what was written', but nobody can do that without first interpreting what is meant by what was written, which is where we disagree. If Arbcom were to make a definitive clarification on that point, I would be happy to abide by and implement whatever they had to say on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the style of writing, the book begins: "Witold stood on the manor house steps and watched the car kick up a trail of dust as it drove down the lime tree avenue ..."

Fairweather actually agrees with Fleming (2014). Pilecki's commander "volunteered" him. "Witold struggled to hide his shock" (p. 43). But it continues: because the mission was so dangerous, the commander was unable to order him to do it. He needed Pilecki to volunteer. This last point is sourced to the following (footnote 53, p. 417):

• Malinowski, Kazimierz (1986). Tajna Armia Polska. Znak. Konfederacja Zbrojna. Zarys genezy, organizacji i działalności. Warsaw: Pax, p. 54. OCLC 462130075
• Gawron, Wincenty (1992). Ochotnik do Oświęcimia. Oświęcim: Wydawnictwo Calvarianum, Państwowego Muzeum w Oświęcimiu, p. 114. OCLC 38226627 [113]

Cuber-Strutyńska (2017), p. 287—who agrees with Fleming (2014)—uses the first source too, but does not mention that it said this. The second source, a primary source, was written by an Auschwitz prisoner; it isn't clear how he would be in a position to know what the commander was able to do. Fairweather doesn't tell us what the sources say exactly, although it's a crucial point. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes "academically focused" books? The stated criterion has been "academically focused books by reputable publishers" – not "by academic publishers". The publisher of Jack Fairweather's book is reliable.

What otherwise makes a book "academically focused"? Fairweather's book has copious endnotes; was written with the aid of, and in consultation with, numerous researchers and academics; and is concerned with academic disciplines including historical biography and German concentration camps in occupied Poland during World War II. What appear to be reconstructed narrative or dialog – used for stylistic purposes – should clearly not be quoted in Wikipedia articles. But the book's substantive matter is well documented. As Adam Cyra writes in his review, "It is very difficult to find any factual errors in the masterfully written biography of the Auschwitz 'volunteer'". Of the documentation, he writes: "[The endnotes] allow the reader to check the authenticity of the presented facts, which is further supported by biographical notes, persons described in it and an extensive bibliography containing studies and source materials in Polish, German, and English, and occasionally in Czech and Sorbian. The whole is enriched with lots of photgraphs, documents, plans, and diagrams." That would seem a description of an "academically focused" book.

The question of Pilecki's "volunteer" status is irrelevant to the present discussion and should be taken up on the "Witold Pilecki" talk page.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I offered it as an example of how the footnotes don't really help. Key information is missing. Wikipedia has footnotes, but that doesn't mean we're "academically focused". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the definition of an "academically focused" source?

Did the Arbitration Committee provide one?

ArbCom explicitly allowed books by "reputable publishers". Is the publisher of this work not reputable?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi, ArbCom explicitly allowed books that met two criteria: they should be academically focussed, and reputably published. Nobody has questioned the reputation of the publisher, it's the academic focus that it doesn't have, it's popular history. ArbCom hasn't, as far as I know, spelled out exactly what they meant by an academic source, presumably we're expected to use our judgment. Endnotes, consultation with academics, being concerned with history: all of that is what I would expect from a popular history book.

Randomly picking one such a book off my shelf (The Suspicions of Mr Whicher by Kate Summerscale), I find a comprehensive ten-page index, 35 pages of end notes, a five-page bibliograph listing all the primary and secondary sources the author used, a list of plates and illustrations, an acknowledgements sections which thanks various academics, archivists and other experts for their assistance. It is, in my view, a very well-put together piece of popular history - but it's still not academically focussed. It has snippets of reviews in the Observer, the Sunday Telegraph, the Spectator and the Mail on Sunday. It has a quote from Ian Rankin on the front saying it's "Terrific". It was very widely reviewed in newspapers and general sources, but it has not been (as far as I can find) reviewed as a work of history in any academic journals. Indeed, it's discussed in this academic book about 21st-century fiction. It is written with a general audience in mind, to be a good and interesting read, to sell lots of books and ultimately to make money, as opposed to being written for an academic audience to make a scholarly contributions to the discipline. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's a slightly different thing.

If you could show that academic journals have reviewed this book as a work of history, I might form a different impression, but as things stand I can't see this as an academically focussed book. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Fairweather's book has received a number of English-language reviews, including one by Michael Fleming [114] in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, surely a serious publication.

The Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies has listed Fairweather's book in its index of "Recently Published Works in Holocaust and Genocide Studies". Presumably the Journal would not have done so if it did not deem the book worthy at least of mention as a work in Holocaust studies.

A review by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, translated into Polish in Tygodnik Solidarność [115], while expressing many reservations about Fairweather's understanding of Pilecki's cultural background and motivations, does not find fault with the author's basic presentation of Pilecki's actual deeds and accomplishments.

It can take years for academic reviews of a book to appear. Is it practicable to delay using new research, discriminatingly, until a given number of reviews have come out?

Nihil novi (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Polish but Fleming's review explicitly says this book is written for the general public. That suggests that this is not an academically focused book. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• More reviews - this one of Maria Suchcitz, right here - [116] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  This review was linked up above. I don't think Maria Suchcitz is an expert or scholar (the article identifies her as an intern who just received her Master's degree), and New Eastern Europe is a political news magazine, not an academic journal. I don't think this review helps. Same as the Chodakiewicz review above in Tygodnik Solidarność, which is another political magazine, not an academic journal. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What about review by Cyra? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As Sarah quoted above, Cyra is the one who describes the book as "non-fiction literature ... partly only fictionalised". It's a positive review (they're all positive reviews), but it is not treating the work as an academically-focused book (which would not be fictionalized even in the smallest part). Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyra states this contains fictional elements ("partly only fictionalised"), which makes it unusable all together, even without it failing APLRS.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, Have you heard of narrative ethnography, for example? [117]/[118] Or ethnographic fiction [119] (note our article is poor, I will see if I can improve those topics in the near future). Narrative style and even storytelling ([120]/[121]/[122]) are allowed in academically focused works, too. Take a look at this. It's a chapter in an academic book (Davis, C. S., & Ellis, C. (2008). Autoethnographic introspection in ethnographic fiction: A method of inquiry. In P. Liamputtong & J. Rumbold (Eds.), Knowing Differently: An Introduction to Experiential and Arts-Based Research Methods, (pp. 99-117). Nova Sciences.), not a short story - even if most random readers could be excused for being confused (and it has 29 citations according to Google Scholar...). So I am afraid that the argument that the book is written in a narrative form which makes it non-academic fails. Narrative style, although rare, is perfectly acceptable in academia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable outside direct quotations for reconstructed dialogue. As others have pointed out, the book is reliable and would be fine except in this topic area there is the additional vague requirement of being "academically focused", which is causing some uncertainty. I've read the discussion above and I see a tendency to raise the bar for what it is. The book has been criticized for not having footnotes/endnotes, a claim that is simply false as it has a few hundred of those. It has been criticized for narrative style (which is however acceptable in academia, per my comment above - just avoid direct quotations for reconstructed dialogue, not that to my knowledge anyone wanted to use them anyway). It has been criticized for not being published by an academic press but this is not required by the ArbCom remedy which explicitly uses the term "reputable publishers", not "academic publishers". The author has been criticized for not being an academic, but again, this is not explicitly required by the remedy (plus he collaborated with several academics, as described in the book and several reviews). It has been criticized for being directed at mass-market - so what? If ArbCom intended this, they should have been more explicit (and limited the acceptable publishers to academic presses only); also we have found reviews that show the book received reception in the world of academia (having been reviewed by Flemming, Cyra, Suchcitz, Chodakiewicz, although the last one does not appear to be in a peer-reviewed outlet, then there is the inclusion in the list of Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies). Anyway, to me, 'academically focused' means the book meets academic standards, which IMHO this book clearly does, given the density of citations, collaboration with academics, and their positive reception in their reviews. All that said, in the end, this is not the forum to decide on what ArbCom meant by that phrase. The book is reliable, and if we cannot agree on what 'academically focused' means, then we should ask ArbCom for a clarification. I'll also ping User:DGG, a former arbitrator and the only one I am aware of that is familiar with the world of academia, although I expect there are others too (everyone, please feel free to ping any other arbcom members whom you think could be interested in this discussion). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was not on arb com the year of that decision. the relevant remedy reads "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions " which refers to "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. " , an opinion by a individual admin, NeilN. I would never have voted for this remedy, which I think worded too restrictively. I like to think that had I been there, I might have affected the wording. The general idea is right, but it should have been "Only high quality sources may be used, preferably peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. " But in any case, the remedy does not actually limit us to academic books, but academically-focussed books, a very much wider concept. The book, which I have not read, was written by a major journalist and had very positive reviews from respectable sources. I see no reason why it should not be used, unless contradicted by more academic sources. The publisher is a division of Harper Collins, which is respectable, but certainly not academic. There's an interesting review in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs by Michael Fleming,["https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23739770.2019.1673981?journalCode=rifa20] which mentions additional sources for the same general material I see no reason why this book should not be used, unless contradicted by more explicitly academic sources. I deliberately did not look at prior discussions here, but it seems Pietrus and I take the same position. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Are any of the Arbitrators who wrote the APLRS decision still active? If so, I would ping them and ask them whether the source in question meets their concept of “Academically focused” (or not). Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Blueboar, I was actually thinking about raising a clarification request with the current committee. I've just got to get my head around the paperwork, not sonething I've done before. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable I have read the above discussion and the book is in my view highly reliable, fulfilling all the necessary criteria. It has has been subjected to academic reviews, and the publisher is respectable, the book is also academically focused.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC: The Federalist

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

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

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

Survey (The Federalist)

• Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [123]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum I can understand the reluctance to deprecate a "source" that has only been invoked infrequently so far, but I can also see the value in nipping a problem in the bud. The point raised by Newslinger a few lines below about talk pages is a good one; why should we let the community's time be wasted? XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Make that over 200 in article space. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Obvious pusher of conspiracy theories is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2- This is just a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. As of this writing, it appears (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like a statement of fact. As other have pointed out, the source is rarely used anyway, but I don't see any reason it can't be used with attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This fails to engage with the substance of the claims - that it has a history of fabrication and conspiracy theories. I asked below about these claims, and you're pretending they don't exist. This does not instill confidence (and doesn't address the deprecation). I most note that this is not a vote - if you can't provide a reason of substance why it's actually a good source, rather than claiming a conspiracy to suppress a poltical view, then your opinion doesn't address the question, and would properly be ignored in a policy-based assessment of consensus - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I stand by my previous statement "it appears" is not a statement of fact. The article in question also was written on November 4 when explanations for some of these oddities mentioned in the article still were not provided (ie. Antrim County) and when official explanations were provided the author noted them. The facts presented about Pennsylvania in this article about changing of election laws still remain true, although it has since been shown late mail-in ballots were not numerous enough to change the result of the election (something which was clearly unknown on Nov 4).--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The fact is that there are consequences for selling your soul to QAnon trollery in a bad-faith effort to gin up clicks with outright lies about the election. There are any number of conservative outlets which affirmatively chose a different path, and chose not to stoke the flames of sedition. The Federalist chose to feed credulous dupes a manufactured series of easily-discredited falsehoods specifically designed to cast doubt upon the results of a free and fair election. This could have had no other intended effect but to foment outrage and hatred, and it led to one of the most embarrassing and dangerous spectacles in modern American history. The Federalist chose poorly, and choices have consequences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @NorthBySouthBaranof:That's just not true. The Federalist did not promote QANON, I am 100% sure of this. In fact, it called it a "conspiracy theory" here, here here, here and roughly 10 other articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
          • Then why did they pander to those same credulous dupes by publishing obvious falsehoods about the 2020 election, stoking irrational fear and hatred for the purpose of generating clicks and ultimately generating a violent insurrection? The answer is that like every other part of the Trumpist media ecosystem, they feared being insufficiently Trumpist. They could have simply explained the facts - that more people voted for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. They chose poorly, and again, choices have consequences. As I explained below, the Trumpist conspiracy ecosystem cannot be neatly separated - your party wove a tangled web of lies and is now caught in the trap. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm trying to assume good faith here, but which your choice of language makes it very difficult. First, your party, really? You don't know if I'm a registered Republican or not (and I'm not). Second, raising questions oddities in election results is not the same thing as publishing obvious falsehoods and claiming that The Federalist was responsible for ultimately generating a violent insurrection is something you really should strike. Here's a interesting article about the election that as far as I know contains factual content, doesn't prove anything other than this election was one of the strangest in history (I hope we can at least agree on that point). Also, note that the article which has plenty of citations, mentions a correction which disproves another claim you made that The Federalist doesn't issue corrections. I think most reasonable people would wonder how these results occurred, though not necessarily reject them. Bottom line is you've made several false claims in this RFC (apparently because you did not do your research first) and The Federalist which is mostly an opinion source (see WP:BIASED is far more creditable than you have portrayed it.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I never said The Federalist doesn't issue corrections, I said the article I linked above which falsely states that Democrats stole the election has neither been retracted nor corrected. Which is true.
              • That link is not an "interesting article" at all - indeed, it's a hilariously obvious dog whistle to the idea that the election was stolen. There was nothing particularly strange about this election, actually. Lots of people voted, all their votes were fairly and accurately counted, and 8 million more Americans voted for Joe Biden, flipping five states. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard is entirely correct here. It is inappropriate to use this page as a forum for speculating on the imagined motivations of other editors. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor (an I apologize if it was taken that way), but it seems to be a trend here. Just look at how many recent RFCs involve right-leaning sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, it's not Wikipedia's problem that a number of "right-leaning sources" chose to openly and notoriously discredit themselves as reliable sources by publishing patently-obvious lies about the 2020 United States presidential election. Policy demands that we base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source chooses to destroy its own reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that choice has consequences. If you think there are any "left-leaning sources" which have published similar lies about the 2020 election, please point them out because they should be deprecated too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You say: To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor - but this RFC was brought by an individual editor, and your own words above claim their action was a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. This is clearly and directly a claim about the motive of a particular editor, and it's nonsensical to claim you somehow didn't say what you literally said, right there, just above. And you still have not addressed the substance of the claims - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • David, with all due respect, I have addressed the substance of the claims. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't tell me I haven't addressed them. In fact, the editor who brought the RFC made an easily disprovable claim that this source is pushing QANON conspiracy theories which he has neither responded to or retracted. Does that matter to you?--Rusf10 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
          • "The election was stolen by Democrats" is a conspiracy theory clearly linked to QAnon amid an atmosphere where Trump's base repeatedly rejected reality in favor of a constructed fantasyworld where Trump was actually popular, COVID was a hoax, racism no longer exists, a "deep state undercover agent" posting on an anonymous imageboard is giving you the real inside scoop, and the only way Republicans could lose elections is if Democrats cheat. All of this ridiculous nonsense is of a piece, and we don't have to pretend otherwise. Trump sold lies to credulous dupes, and The Federalist chose to pander to those credulous dupes rather than tell the harder truth that lawn signs and boat parades signify nothing. Your own house organs sabotaged their own credibility, and you have no one but yourselves to blame. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • You're still pushing the absolutely false claim that the Federalist promotes QANON, when I have proven that they've denounced it multiple times over a period of two years. Just stop, QANON has absolutely nothing to do with this source. I don't know where you get your news from, but you are so misinformed it is incredible. While, I do not have the time to fact check every claim you just made. I'll start with your first one. The very fact that 74 million people voted for Trump (more than the 68 million that voted for Obama) actually does prove he was popular. That was so easy, I'll do one more. COVID was a hoax Trump never said this and here's a fact check from PolitiFact (which is not a conservative source). Ask PolitiFact: Are you sure Donald Trump didn’t call the coronavirus a hoax? --Rusf10 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rusf10, Wikipedia rejects sources that publish nonsense, regardless of political leaning. We deprecated Occupy, for example. It is undoubteldy true that there is an asymmetric polarisation in US media, with right-wing sources more likely to weigh ideological Truth above objective fact, leading to the drift of previously centre-right sources to the extremes. There are entire books about this (e.g. Network Propaganda).

  The idea that this singles out conservative voices, though, is as false as the idea that banning racists targets conservatives. There's nothing conservative about racism or counterfactual bullshit. Rather the opposite, in fact. But the far right has stolen the label "conservative" for itself, and genuinely conservative voices are now drowned out by the chorus of howler monkeys and grifters.

  Just look at Fox, promoting Big Lie proponent Maria Bartiromo and firing Chris Stirewalt. It's not "Wikipedia that's "cancelling" conservative voices, it's the right-wing media, removing sincere conservatives and replacing them with extremists. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not going to have this debate with you. You've made your political leanings very clear in the past and any objective person would classify you unmistakably left-of-center. The problem here isn't your political beliefs, its that you believe that your left-leaning views are actually centrist, so actual centrist/moderate views become conservative to you and conservatives are now the "far right".--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 per OP and XOR'easter. This seems like an uncontroversial call. Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I took a deep look at their early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic about six months ago and was appalled at the disinformation bilge that I found there. Their coverage of Trump's 2020 defeat was, if anything, worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  If early coverage of COVID-19 is the barometer, then wouldn't we be depreciating CNN and Washpo, to name two? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [124], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [125] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [126]. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny:They actually do make corrections. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't know about their Covid reporting, but the stuff i've researched on there seems factual. They have their spin of course and the titles aren't great. Just checked their site and it's good they are reporting about the lifesite youtube channel being banned. Earlier today i was looking for the story and it was only on the actual lifestyle site, so they might pick up stories otherwise missed.Fred (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 just general hooey and unreliability. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Don't see the need for the drastic step of deprecation, but the falsehoods it has published is enough for it to be classified as generally unreliable. Zoozaz1 talk 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, unfortunately. I do read them sometimes and do think there's a place for their contrarianism, despite being very far away from them on the political spectrum. They have done real reporting which has been better than the dead-eyed nihilism of Sean Davis's twitter feed (likely for many people their first exposure to the website) might indicate. However, that difference has declined and they're basically Radio Trump now. Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 or 3, given the repeated instances of publishing false and fabricated information, as noted by OP above and by David Gerard in the Discussion section below. -sche (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, just look at this stuff. This should be kept as far away from sourcing for articles as possible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The source cannot be trusted for reliable information. I'm hesitant to fully deprecate, however, because there could be some value to their opinion pieces. -- Calidum 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - let's be realistic - there were different conspiracy theories going back & forth on both sides throughout Trump's term - we've endured 4 years of clickbait media on steroids over party politics including 2 impeachments in a Democrat-controlled House, and 2 acquittals in a Republican-controlled Senate. Left-leaning sources sensationalized the impeachments while right leaning sources downplayed them. The side that downplayed it turned out to be correct - he was acquitted - and its the same song, second verse with the Russian collusion conspiracy theories, yet the conservative sources were downgraded, not liberal sources. We've endured boatloads of speculation, sensationalism, and just plain ole political rhetoric in all of our news sources - not one of them stayed in the dugout for that game. If you downgrade this source, then downgrade them all because they all played the same clickbait political game to their respective political demographics. As for the OP's reasons for wanting to deprecate - let's go back in time - read this article, and let's deprecate all of the sources who promoted the Democrat's belief that Bush stole the election. That's how silly it all looks with retrospect. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  Atsme, Trump was impeached the first time because he tried to shake down the Ukrainian government for electoral advantage, and the second time because he incited an insurrection because he could not tolerate the fact that he lost the election. Mitch McConnell voted to acquit, but only because Trump had already left office: he was entirely clear that Trump incited the insurrection. Russian collusion is extensively documented in the Mueller report, and calling it "conspiracy theories" undermines any claim on your part to be able to analyse or comment on this area. Read pages 4 and 5, for starters: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

  The comparison of 2016 and 2020 with 2004 is indeed informative. With Bush v. Gore, a conservative Supreme Court consciously picked a winner, but in 2004 Bush actually won the popular vote - the only Republican popular vote victory since 1988. A handful of people rejected that (and continue to do so). Compare that with a supermajority of Republicans in the House, and at least ten Senators, who reject the facts of the 2020 election. After 2004 no serious commentator on the left continued to promote the false claim that Kerry won. Find me popular Democratic publications that continued to claim Kerry won post 2004. It was a well understood rallying round the flag. After 2020, though, Fox started purging anyone who admitted that Biden won. Your own example disproves your point.

  All media does indeed try to attract eyeballs, but research shows that mainstream and partisan media do it in different ways. Mainstream media (remember, mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative) has a fact-checking dynamic and suffers reputationally if it leaves factual error uncorrected. Partisan media suffers if it contradicts the partisan narrative. If CNN publishes a false story that chimes with a Democratic narrative, they suffer a reputational hit, and if The Five promote a fact that contradicts conservative Truth they will suffer. We can see this in practice: if Maddow goes off the deep end, people switch to the more accurate CNN. If Fox broadcasts facts, people switch to the more extreme OANN or NewsMax. So the right-wing partisan media has moved further to the right over the last five years and has become less accurate as it has done so.

  There's significant academic study around this. It's been pointed out to you many times. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  You have a very stong opinion about US politics, and have made that quite clear. You tend to side with left-leaning media & academia because they align with your POV, and that has been pointed out to you many times - nothing wrong with that, we're only human. But what concerns me most is the fact that you are not accepting that Trump was acquitted of the charges that led to his impeachment, and you keep bringing up unsubstantiated information about his guilt. Explain to me how your position now is not unlike what some people are doing who keep harping on and on that the 2020 election was rigged? It appears to me that you choose, inadvertently or otherwise, to read only those sources that agree with your opinion, rather than reading for the opposition, which is how we arrive at a NPOV. It's not easy to swallow material one doesn't believe in from a perspective one opposes, but we must remain neutral. I'm a pragmatist, Guy, regardless of how you see me. My concern is that you see any editor who doesn't agree with you as being wrong, and that is not how WP works relative to NPOV. I align very closely with Jimmy Wales in the following regard:

  1. in a BLP we "should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject."
  2. Relative to US politics: "Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must."
  3. And finally sources: "It is true that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited as a source, but in Wikipedia terminology that does not mean an absolute ban. Exceptions to the general rule can and do exist, per WP:IAR as well as general common sense in specific circumstances."

  I choose to base my findings on actual facts not opinions, and I tend to trust my 35+ years as a media professional when researching clickbait, sensationalism and propaganda vs factual news as presented to us by the various echo chambers, most of which is now owned by mega-corporations. It's not your father's or grandfather's 5:00 news anymore. My views on this matter are well supported in mainstream despite some of the attempts to sidestep the facts by spin masters. Most people use Google as their search engine, and so do I for the most part, but I also use different search engines, and various other methods to make sure my research is corroborated (verifiable), factual and well-covered by reliable sources. When biased RS are involved, I force myself to read all of what they publish - it's second nature with me because of my former profession. As a retiree, I have the time to dig deep enough to uncover the facts and corroborate them so I can make a sound determination that is compliant with NPOV, not a particular POV but NPOV. When two sources don't align with my POV, I don't jump up and declare that source to be unreliable based on it's political position or views. I subscribe to WaPo, NYTimes, and various other online news sources, and I follow academia - not just the ones who align with my POV, especially when dealing with politics.

  It is a straight-up fact that Trump was impeached twice by the House. What some tend to dismiss, or do not give proper weight to per NPOV is the fact that he was acquitted by the Senate both times. And in the grand scheme of things, the outcome of that impeachment is what carries the most weight, not the fact that the opposition is pissed over it. I will probably agree with alot of what you believe off-wiki, but my pragmatic approach while I'm here writing articles, and what WP expects of us is NPOV, and that is what guides me. It's just that simple. Atsme 💬 📧 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 as per Atsme and the usage mentioned in the discussion. I respectfully disagree with Atme's assertion that the second acquittal of Trump was in a Republican-controlled Senate, but that seems to be their own view and not The Federalists, so does not affect my vote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Atsme. As explained, there have been other cases of similar theories of election stealing. This one doesn't require it's own special treatment. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Willbb234, for who among us has forgotten the Washington Riots of January 2004, when, after months of increasingly inflammatory rhetoric, John Kerry sent a mob of supporters to storm the Capitol and overturn the election he lost. That totally happened, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The harassment of users who dare defend a conservative source continues. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 their disinformation campaigns around COVID and election conspiracies are without a doubt enough to label them unreliable, and the intent behind them pushes it into deprecation territory.Shadybabs (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Agree the source should not be used but we don't need to deprecate every single unreliable source we stumble upon. Considering it's cited so infrequently as stated above I do not think we need to deprecate it. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Saying that it appears is plainly a statement of fact and is unambiguously false, and sources publish unambiguously false things - especially such high-profile ones - should be depreciated, especially given that this is part of a longer history of posting similarly false things about eg. COVID-19. Atsme's assertion that there are comparable WP:RSes that spread conspiracy theories in 2004 is breathtakingly wrong - if found, any such sources should absolutely and unequivocally be depreciated (unless there is substantial reason to think they have changed since then, and even then we'd need to be cautious of anything from that era), but I note that Atsme has not named a single such source. "Everyone posts conspiracy theories about elections sometimes" is an unthinkably terrible thing to use in an WP:RS discussion - and if it's true, then we need to stop using all such sources, rather than using it as an argument to use sources that publish false or fabricated material. @Atsme:, please provide specific sources that are currently considered WP:RS (or at least ambiguous) that you feel have advocated similar conspiracy theories, or strike your comment. I note that the one source you linked roundly rejects them and characterizes them as WP:FRINGE, which disproves your own assertion. It directly says ”And those who believed that the election had been stolen got no help from the mainstream press, where even left-leaning outlets wouldn’t take up the idea of a vast web of fraud. In The Nation, Alexander Cockburn was caustically dismissive: “As usual, the conspiracy nuts think plans of inconceivable complexity worked at 100 percent efficiency, that Murphy’s law was once again in suspense and that 10,000 co-conspirators are all going to keep their mouths shut.” Of course there's a constant political haze of misinformation surrounding elections, but we don't rely on "conspiracy nuts" that are known for pushing it, and depreciate them if people insist on trying to use them - Steven Freeman, who felt in his bones that the 2004 election was stolen, is not a reliable source for anything. The Federalist has similarly placed itself in that category. --Aquillion (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • • well... Steven Freeman is reliable as a primary source for the views of Steven Freeman. NOW, whether any given article should mention Freeman’s views is a valid question... but it is one of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. A primary source is ALWAYS reliable for itself. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Option 4 - The fabricated election fraud claims and spurious COVID-19 information are enough to deprecate this source. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - The promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories is particularly concerning, to me, as that is specifically a type of medical misinformation. Here is a tag they use on their website to flag such articles. A couple examples I have noticed under the tag are: Why I Think The Wuhan Virus Was Likely Man-Made But Escaped By Accident, and Mask Fanatics Have Officially Abandoned Science To Control Your Life. EDIT: Here are some more tags they use on their website to flag COVID-19 related articles: "Pandemic", "masks", "vaccines", "World Health Organization", "COVID-19", "coronavirus", CDC, and "Wuhan Virus". Just in case somebody wants to take a wider sample of what content they publish relating to these matters. --Chillabit (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 i.e. oppose deprecation. The Federalist is a significant voice on the Republican right and is therefore usable as opinion. But it is a source for opinion, not for fact. As far as I know, the Daily Mail publishes minimal opinion. feminist (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 with reluctance and surprise. I came in here ready to !vote Option 3, however, my standard first check is to see if RS reference the source. As I've repeatedly said here, we cannot undertake independent textual analysis of any source to determine its reliability. Our only standard (with a small number of exceptions) is if RS think the source is reliable. The most cursory of checks finds its original reporting recently sourced by FactCheck.org [127] , KIRO-TV [128], The Guardian [129], NBC News [130], and others. Since it also has a physical personality by which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes and the appearance of a gatekeeping process, I am only left with my personal, independent analysis to justify a !vote below Option 2, and Wikipedians - including me - are not competent to undertake independent textual analysis of sources. Obviously WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  I clicked through the examples and they're trivial--the sort of thing where the Federalist was the first to report something that happened on the right (like Hawley's new book deal), so sources reporting on it are obliged to credit the Federalist. Against that are the examples above of the Federalist trading in election and COVID conspiracy theories. There's a real difference in magnitude here that requires further explication. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, comments like The Tyranny of Big Tech will now be published by Regnery, a conservative press, in a deal first reported by the Federalist, a rightwing outlet (from the Guardian) are typical when a low-quality source is technically the first to "break" a story. They don't really contribute to the respectability of the low-quality source; for example, they could be first because it was deliberately leaked to them in order to reach their audience for PR purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4. It has got markedly worse since the runup to the 2020 US election, and now peddles the Big Lie with abandon. It'sa important to draw a distinction between factual sources with some opinion content, and opinion sources. The Federalist is not a factual source. Its content is all opinion - either a straight retelling of opinion from elsewhere (e.g. the repetition of the lies told from the Odal Rune Stage at CPAC this week) or opinion by its own contributors. We should never be using The Federalist as a source of fact. With the current levels of COVID and election conspiraciost nonsense, we should also raise a very high bar to its use as a primary source for comment: if we want to describe the opinions they publish, then do it based on third party reporting. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Option 4 - The promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories does it for me. Sorry, it's one thing to be biased, but this is medical information that could save lives. Any source has to be reliable for what it says, it what it says can't be trusted as a matte of course it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3, leaning 4 Pure opinion that frequently veers into literal fake news, especially with health care and election topics. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4: I've thought this was missing from RSP for a while as an obvious "red or worse" listing. I would have initially thought option 3 but the conspiracy theories around the 2020 U.S. election and COVID-19 pandemic are completely disqualifying from taking this website seriously on anything. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the two biggest issues of the past year in the US (COVID-19 and the election) should totally disqualify a source as RS. NightHeron (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. You can find good and bad in it, but as far as The Federalist is concerned we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. It certainly shouldn't be used for factual claims, but no one has presented any evidence that the Federalist falsifies the opinions of its contributors. If a person's opinion is relevant to the article, and that opinion has been published in the Federalist, then the Federalist is an acceptable source to report that opinion. The extra step of complete deprecation is unnecessary. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Seems like a clear call. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The conspiracy theories around the covid-19 and the election fraud says it all.Sea Ane (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. The Federalist has repeatedly promoted both the stolen election conspiracy theory (see articles with the "election fraud" tag, per Elliot321) and COVID-19 conspiracy theories (per XOR'easter, Chillabit, and others), thus crossing the threshold for deprecation. — Newslinger talk 06:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

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

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

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

This is actually a good point: The Federalist is a political opinion publication. That alone is sufficient for it to be unreliable as a source of fact, and this is reinforced when the political opinions are so often counterfactual (as with their views on COVID and the 2020 election). We should never use it. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard, "It’s worth considering, however, whether the Trumpiest intellectuals are about to face their reckoning with the novel coronavirus."

  Predictably, no they didn't. They will roll out of the pandemic with their delusions entirely unshaken, like creationists faced with a tiktaalik and still demanding a crocoduck. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

    Emir of Wikipedia, the BBC has also interviewed David Icke. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Was he put on the same level as university professors though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Similar can be said about every single news source at one time or another. We should not be downgrading entire sources based on biased views during a small window of time based on political biases. It is unacceptable from both my perspective and that of WP:RS, and yes, RS and NPOV are where views align closest. Atsme 💬 📧 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Per the link to our own article on this source which XOR'easter provided earlier up-thread, I'd like to note one sort of information The Federalist was publishing last spring: "It published a piece by someone identified as a physician in Oregon who recommended that people hold "chickenpox"-style parties for the coronavirus to build herd immunity, but the recommendations were contrary to those of public health experts, and the author in question did not have a medical license...". One source mentioning this: NYT. I would venture to say this was even worse misinformation than more recent insinuations regarding masks, vaccines, and the origins of COVID-19, as it specifically advised people to go out and get infected. I actually would not have expected this level of misinfo, but there it is in black and white. --Chillabit (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You are using the term misinformation is an inappropriate way. The author is question is indeed an experienced (yet retired) physician and his recommendations were rooted in established methods of treatment (Controlled Voluntary Infection). Experts can disagree and ultimately the CDC or whatever agency produces recommendations. But proposing alternative methods of treatment, especially in such a chaotic and unprecedented health crisis, is not to be frowned upon. Nweil (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This paper seems to do with the ethical considerations, not the empirical ones. The official recommendations from the time don't exactly come out of nowhere, it's out of an abundance of caution in reaction to a situation you recognize as chaotic, and one which we didn't quite have the data yet to fully understand. --Chillabit (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just curious...how many of these types of articles are needed to substantiate the fact that there are plenty of mainstream news sources that consensus has determined to be RS despite the skeletons in their closets? Just wondering...Atsme 💬 📧 01:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Just look at the below RFC about the Canary, which is more biased and more false, yet on Wikipedia, it's not as evil as a conservative news source. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)

Link: [136]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be blunt: the RFA article we're discussing here was essentially disinformation. It's one thing to express skepticism about any government's statistics, but RFA went far beyond that. RFA engaged in completely unfounded speculation about the death toll, proposing figures that were, even based on what was known at the time, completely unreasonable. There was absolutely no indication, at the time, that anywhere near 40,000 people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a Chinese state outlet were to write an article that amplified social media conspiracy theories about the death toll in the US, and which engaged in its own speculation that the death toll might be 10x higher than reported, what would you call that?

This is not an issue of WP:RS AGE, in which reasonable reporting has been superseded by newer information that renders it moot. This is a case in which the reporting was unreasonable from the start: it was based entirely on wild speculation from social media and from random residents of Wuhan that RFA supposedly interviewed. Studies have continued to come out (such as this study in The BMJ just a few days ago) showing that Wuhan's CoVID-19 death toll was roughly what was officially reported. But the fact that RFA published its story before these studies came out doesn't mean that RFA's reporting was reasonable at the time. If one speculates, with essentially no evidence, that the death toll is 10x higher than reported, one shouldn't be surprised when subsequent studies show one to be wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not unacceptable, if properly attributed I tried to find coverage of this event in other international media, and most of what I found was virulently anti-Chinese sources, so I'm naturally skeptical. Moreover, the date of his arrest for the flyers seems to be contradicted by several of these other sources.[137][138] All of these sources are published by entities that either directly have, or are owned or overseen by governments that have, their own "beef" with Beijing, which would not be a problem if we attribute their views/claims appropriately, but why does the RFA source seem to have its information contradicted by The Hans India and The Tibet Post? It might be a translation telephone game, since I doubt Richard Finney (by whom the linked article was "written in English") has any direct access to primary sources. It would, of course, depend on the context in which it is being cited; the RFA website seems to consider "Tibet", "Uyghur" and "China" to be separate countries, which certainly does not align with NPOV or the official foreign policies of any country anywhere in the world. On a more general note, RFA certainly doesn't seem to be free of US government interference: doing a Google News search for "Radio Free Asia" -site:rfa.org right now brings up, on the first page, several articles published immediately after Biden's inauguration that either accuse the Biden administration of ousting Trump appointees or praise the Biden administration for giving these outlets back their previous editors.[139][140][141] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please refrain from pinging the same user multiple times in succession. Anyway [142] Tibet, a formerly independent Himalayan country which was invaded and incorporated into China by force in 1950; as for Xinjiang, it's weaker, but this article does imply that the region [hadn't] come under Chinese control [until after] two short-lived East Turkestan republics in the 1930s and 1940s (i.e. following the Warlord Era and during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, none of which seem to be mentioned, nor the Protectorate of the Western Regions). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Any source that implies Turkic peoples and followers of Islam have lived in the northeast region of China longer than it has been part of China (rather than it having been part of China before either of those entities existed anywhere), and thus reinforces Anglo readers' biases that see "China" as a monocultural entity, that always has been thus, and only exists in "non-Chinese" territories because of 20th-century imperialist aggression on the part of the CCP, is unreliable, yes. And frankly, I can't figure out what you are trying to say with that bizarre Brexit analogy: did you mean to type something else? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you are not willing to cite sources, preferably from reputable scholarly publications rather than popular news outlets that may or may not be intended as propaganda mouthpieces, in support of your quite-outlandish claims, I don't see what point there is in attempting to engage in discussion with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If a Russian state outlet were to say that South Ossetia is an independent country, I would likewise view that as inaccurate and politically motivated (you're misusing the term "whataboutism" here, by the way - I'm not pointing to one country's misbehavior to justify another country's misbehavior). About international recognition, you're simply wrong. Tibet was internationally recognized as part of China before the 1911 revolution in China, and after the revolution, when China's central government lost de facto control over large parts of the country, Tibet did not achieve any significant international recognition. It continued to be represented as part of China (e.g., by the UN). Just glossing over all of this and calling Tibet an "independent country" is extremely misleading, in the same way that referring to various unrecognized states (Abkhazia, Transdnistria, the Republic of Artsakh, etc.) as "independent countries" in an unqualified manner would be misleading. Given RFA's role as the US government's broadcaster in Asian countries the US has poor relations with (and its history as a CIA propaganda outlet), I don't think this is an innocent mistake. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The United Nations did not yet exist in most of the time period you’re talking about (perhaps you’re thinking of the League of Nations?), and for the short time in which Tibet was both independent and the UN extant it was the ROC not the PRC which held the seat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The operative word there is "most". The UN was founded in 1945, with the Republic of China as a Security Council member, and early maps produced by the UN showed Tibet as part of China - which was in line with how it was internationally recognized. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also you are mistaken about Tibet’s status during the Qing... They gave up their suzerainty but they remained independent if not entirely sovereign. From an international relations standpoint your argument is a nothing burger, I hope it looks meaningful through whatever political lens you’re looking through. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Suzerainty isn't even a concept in modern international law. It's a feudal relationship from the pre-modern era. When Qing China was forced to deal with modern European nations, Tibet came to be treated as a part of China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

But we aren’t talking about modern international law, we’re specifically talking about pre-1950 history here. Also its not a feudal relationship, I’m not really sure were you’re getting that from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking about "independent countries" then we're talking about the modern conception of states that developed in Europe, not the old feudal relationships that existed between Qing emperors and various vassals in pre-modern times. "Suzerainty" does not fit into the modern state conception. But if you do instead want to use pre-modern concepts, calling a vassal state of the Qing dynasty an "independent country" still makes no sense.

Without getting into an arcane discussion about what sovereignty is, it's enough to say that after the revolution in China in 1911, Tibet was similar to modern unrecognized states that are de facto independent, but which lack international recognition, like South Ossetia or the Republic of Artsakh. Calling them "independent countries" without qualifiers would be highly misleading, and would betray a certain bias (pro-Russian or pro-Armenian, respectively). -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, first: I didn't misuse the term. You proposed a hypothetical about another nation-state, in which the essential argument is analogous to a whataboutism in asking what our treatment would be of such a claim (even though the situation in that case would be the obverse, and perhaps a bit too dissimilar to these historical events to make it an apt comparison). User:Horse Eye's Back has already essentially said what my response was going to be, including that the UN did not exist. The international recognition came from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (a.k.a., the British Empire), the most powerful nation in the world at the time, in the form of the Convention Between Great Britain and Tibet, which was undertaken as a rectification to Tibet not being a party to the "Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet", (or, the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890). Undertaking a treaty with Tibet as a nation-state, and prohibiting Chinese rule, annexation, or authority in Tibet, tacitly acknowledged its independence and sovereignty. Later, with the Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet, Britain delegated suzerainty to China, but reaffirmed its previous prohibition on Chinese rule. China rejected the first convention, but accepted the second, which is only slightly modified. China may have still made claims on Tibet, but they nonetheless respected the treaty, essentially granting Tibet independence--- except for the purpose of conducting foreign affairs on its behalf, and defending its borders, as demarcated by the British. I'm sorry, but it was de-facto independent. And to my knowledge, no other nation in the world disputed this arrangement. And Hijiri88, if you want scholarly sources essentially stating what I just said, I'm willing to provide them. Calling what I stated "quite-outlandish claims", and pre-emptively shutting down any further conversation except on acceptance of your conditional terms, is ridiculously rude. Everything I said is factual, and my relatively even-handed description of these historical events is likewise fairly typical of how most scholars throughout the western world describe the situation of that time period. Current POVs and worldviews may differ, but the essential facts of history speak for themselves (and I've said nothing "outlandish" or even that controversial, outside of it being slightly at odds with the PRC's official preferred interpretation). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Whataboutism" is not simply the use of analogies. It's essentially a synonym for tu quoque (e.g., "Sure, what I'm doing is bad, but you're doing even worse things!"). I pointed out that there are many unrecognized (or only partially recognized) states around the world, and that referring to them as "independent countries" without qualification would be extremely misleading. I don't see any tu quoque in that.

As for Tibet, it is true that the British empire made attempts to pry it away from China in the late 19th Century. You have to keep in mind that this is a time during which European powers generally were demanding (and obtaining) special rights and spheres of influence in various parts of China. However, British attempts to take control of Tibet from China failed, and Britain recognized Chinese control over Tibet (e.g., in the Sino-British Convention of 1906, which you mentioned). After the revolution in China in 1911, Britain did not recognize Tibet as a sovereign state (nor did any other major country). Like most of China, it was beyond the effective control of the central government, making it analogous to modern states with no or limited recognition (e.g., Abkhazia, a de facto independent state that has its own flag, issues its own passports, but which is recognized by only five countries, and which is internationally recognized as part of Georgia).

Getting back to the point, Radio Free Asia's description of Tibet (Tibet, a formerly independent Himalayan country which was invaded and incorporated into China by force in 1950) is highly misleading. In the most charitable interpretation, it's a strongly POV description of history that leaves out key context. This reading of history is, however, in line with the bias you might expect from an outlet with close ties to the US state, and which functions partly as an arm of US foreign policy.

I'm not saying that RFA should be deprecated, but I am saying that we should be aware of its biases, and use it with caution in subject areas that the US government has a strong interest in (Tibet would certainly be one such area). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do want scholarly sources that support your outlandish claims. And (since experience has taught me to address this preemptively) I do know that the writings of mid-C20 anti-communists writing in different fields (like Joseph Campbell's Oriental Mythology is one I recently listened to on Audible having not read it since my teenage years) often implicitly create the impression that Tibet had been a separate "country" from China throughout history until their authors' own lifetimes, but (i) their authors are not historians or political scientists (i.e., their claims on these matters are no better than non-scholarly sources like RFA) and (ii) their authors had self-confessed political biases (as for JC being an anti-communist, the description of "Ritsumei University" in Sake and Satori is evidence enough of that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Generally Reliable RFA and VOA were specifically founded and structured to bring RS-quality news media to regions/languages where it didn't exist, because spreading RS-quality news-media and demonstrating the benefits of press independence is a US foreign policy goal. It's specious to treat all government-funded news organizations as equivalent, because the real distinction is what purposes they serve and what processes they have. RT doesn't produce unacceptable propaganda because it's government funded, it's unacceptable because Russian foreign policy is to spread disinformation and lies to weaken its adversaries, and it's well-documented that RT does that. What really matters is the processes that RFA has, and they are those of a reliable news outlet. Furthermore RFA and VOA are important sources for Wikipedia, because the often attempt to do RS-quality reporting in regions that are extremely hostile to it. Also, other RS trust it enough to rely on its reporting, for instance: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]: "Radio Free Asia (RFA), a US-backed news group whose journalists have produced some of the most detailed reporting on the heavily securitised region of Xinjiang", [148], [149]. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Negative stories aren't bad things, in fact I'd say they're a key function of journalism: shining light on the bad things no person or organization would willingly reveal about themselves. Given the whole point of RFA is to be beamed into areas where RS journalism isn't allowed (due to political control) and to demonstrate its value, I'd actually expect an excess of negativity, since that's where the need is. Pravda and Xinhua can be trusted to tell the positives stories, even if they're lies. Negative stories are only bad things if they're untrue or deliberate lies. I did have a lot of concerns about what was going on at VOA/RFA towards the end of the Trump administration, and I may have voted differently if Trump gotten a second term, but Biden has cleaned the Trump stay-behinds out [150] and replaced them with long-serving agency staff, so and I don't have any concerns for at least the next four years. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

RFA's article came out on the same day as the US surpassed China in cumulative confirmed cases, and as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans began to suggest that China's epidemic had been much larger than reported ([151]). Maybe that's a coincidence, but I'm doubtful.

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

• Reliable and biased. In addition to the uses by various RS enumerated by Mikehawk10 above, they do correct stories when they get something wrong.[152][153] At the same time, the US gov't bias is clear. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• RFA often publishes rumors from unverified sources and these rumors have been used for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. I would rather use WP:INTEXT attribution for it. --MarioGom (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for insider stories, reliable for verifiable claims: The main problem I see with RFA is that a lot of its own reporting falls under extraordinary claims, yet is based on unverifiable, "anonymous RFA sources". Obviously every source is biased, government-sponsored ones perhaps often moreso than others (and that in itself is fine), but it does become problematic when a lot of the own reporting of a government-sponsored outlet is simply unverifiable (example 1, example 2, example 3) but used for extraordinary claims and then presented as fact. If it is kept, I would say that given the US itself has banned RFA from targetting American audiences under the Smith-Mundt Act, it should never be used for any claims that are based on "anonymous RFA sources" and can therefore in no way be verified. Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Generally reliable. RFA stories are generally factually accurate. As with other reliable sources, additional considerations apply when RFA cites anonymous sources. Jancarcu (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply: Radio Free Asia is not similar to BBC, NPR and other public broadcasters that are generally considered reliable.

First, a bit of history: Radio Free Asia was originally founded by a CIA front organization, in order to broadcast propaganda into countries that the US viewed as foes during the Cold War. As the CIA itself noted at the time, "The programs are principally anti-Communist propaganda, except for news and music" ([154]). RFA was the Asian counterpart to the CIA's propaganda outlets in Europe (Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty) and Latin America (Free Cuba radio). These outlets broadcast in local languages (Russian, Chinese, Spanish, etc.), and focused on negative stories about the US' Cold War opponents, with the aim of generating opposition to those governments. The history of the "Radio Free X" stations is described in this paper and this NY Times article. RFA was shut down in 1955, partly because it was considered ineffective (most households in China didn't have radios at the time). The US government reorganized its "Radio Free X" broadcasters in 1994, and re-established Radio Free Asia. While the 1994 legislation claims that these broadcasters are supposed to provide reliable information, it also repeatedly stresses that they should advanc[e] the goals of United States foreign policy ([155]). A glance at the reporting of RFA shows that, 1. It publishes almost exclusively on countries that the US has poor relations with, and 2. It overwhelmingly publishes negative stories about those countries.

Next, I'll give an example of why RFA's reporting should be treated with caution, especially for subjects that the US has a strong interest in (after all, RFA is explicitly tasked with advancing US foreign policy objectives). Over the past year, RFA has pushed a wild, highly speculative claims about the CoVID-19 death toll in China. These claims are based largely on social media claims and RFA interviews with random, anonymous people (e.g., random residents of Wuhan, with no discernible expertise). Worse yet, these claims contradict scientific research into the extent of CoVID-19 cases and deaths in China, published in respected international scientific journals. RFA's estimates of the death toll in China are anywhere from 10 to 50 times the scientific estimates.

• "Estimates Show Wuhan Death Toll Far Higher Than Official Figure" (27 March 2020): This article is based on a social media conspiracy theory. After the 76-day lockdown in Wuhan ended, there were long lines at crematoria in Wuhan of people waiting to pick up urns of deceased family members. Of course, in a city of 11 million people, tens of thousands of people die in any given 76-day period. But RFA took a couple of "estimates" from social media and random Wuhan residents it interviewed, and added some of its own speculations. RFA speculated that more than 40,000 people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan.
• "Pension Figures From China's Hubei Spark Doubts Over Virus Deaths" (17 February 2021) repeats the urn conspiracy theory, and explores a new conspiracy theory, that the supposed removal of 150,000 people from a list of pension recipients points to a far higher death toll. Again, RFA engages in wild speculation that the death toll might be orders of magnitude higher than reported, with essentially no evidence.

Contrast these articles with actual scientific studies, such as this recent one in The BMJ, which estimates a CoVID-19 death toll of approximately 4500 in Wuhan. Studies of seroprevalence in China published in Nature and PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases have given results consistent with this death toll of approximately 4500 in Wuhan. Yet RFA continues to promote "estimates" that it picks up on social media, which are 10 to 50x higher. RFA's reporting here can only really be described as disinformation, or at best, a reckless promotion of unfounded conspiracy theories that are contradicted by rigorous scientific studies.

Finally, I'll leave you with what Dan Robinson, a long-time correspondent and foreign bureau chief for Voice of America, has to say in the Columbia Journalism Review about the independence of US government broadcasters (VOA and "Radio Free X", not NPR and PBS):

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

He concludes,

But the fact remains that every two weeks they accept government paychecks. And at the end of the day will be progressively more enmeshed with the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. Government-paid journalists can no longer pretend they are just like their friends at CBS, NBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, and others, or expect to be seen as such by those working for non-government media. That’s simply living in delusion.

RFA is a biased source, and its connection to the US government should be taken into consideration by editors thinking of using it. There may be cases in which it provides valuable reporting, but it should generally be treated with caution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

From WP:USEBYOTHERS, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. As I laid out in my comment above, it looks like RFA has been cited by some of the best of reliable sources for facts on issues involving China, which provides evidence to their generally good reputation for factual reporting on issues involving human rights abuses in China. You've mentioned that the "Radio Free Asia" that was initially established by the CIA was shut down in 1955. I'm not sure it's fair to compare documents about the RFA that was abolished in 1955 and the RFA that was created in 1994, since they seem to be organizations that share the same name but do not share operational continuity.

Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. What is required, however, for a source to be considered generally reliable in its areas of expertise is that a source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction. I believe that the general use of RFA by mainstream reliable sources that I have listed in my !vote above help to establish that the organization possesses a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, while Adoring nanny has provided examples in which RFA engages in error-correction when they get things wrong.

I understand that you have concerns regarding their reporting on COVID prevalence within China. I don't really have much of a response on this count, except to say that early reporting on COVID from RS tended to be filled with great uncertainty about the numbers, in part due to China's repeated changing of the counting mechanisms and that reliable sources also independently reported on the urns story.

This above part obviously doesn't concern the article you have listed that was published in 2021. I'm not sure the peer-reviewed scientific articles are as forward in claiming what they conclude they do (the first states that it "had several limitations" because the "study population was not drawn by random sampling, the estimation of the seroprevalence was subject to potential sampling bias... the observed seroprevalence in our study could potentially underestimate the true prevalence rate of the disease." Neither the first nor the second paper provides an estimate for the true number of deaths, though I understand why we might reasonably use seroprevalence as a proxy by which to estimate the true number of deaths). The two papers also conclude fairly different rates of seroprevalence due to their different methods, so I'm not exactly sure where the scientific consensus is (if such a consensus exists), though it appears that you're right in that these papers would suggest that the death rate is not as high as the allegations from a transparency activist that RFA includes in their report. That being said, we would typically prefer epidemiological papers over news reporting for epidemiological claims anyway, so I'm not sure this poses an enormous hurdle to RFA's general use as a source.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Use by others: That says more about the generally poor level of reporting on China and issues of systemic bias than it does about RFA's own reliability. The fact that various other outlets picked up RFA's urns story - a story that was implausible from the beginning and sourced largely to social media speculation - illustrates this problem.

Re: continuity: RFA itself was shut down in 1955, but its sister/brother "Radio Free X" radio stations continued to broadcast propaganda throughout the Cold War. When RFA was re-established in 1994, it was during a general reorganization of the US' Cold War propaganda stations (note the timing, just after the end of the Cold War). As is clearly laid out in Congress' 1994 reorganization of government broadcasters (which I linked to in my above comment), RFA, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, etc. are explicitly tasked with advancing US foreign policy interests. These outlets are not the equivalent of the BBC or NPR. They're much more directly government mouthpieces, as Dan Robinson noted in the Columbia Journalism Review (which I also cited above).

Re: "concerns" about their reporting on CoVID-19 in China: I have much more than just "concerns". RFA has repeatedly published demonstrable falsehoods about the death toll in China. Its latest article, just a few weeks ago, speculates about a possible death toll of 150,000, which is more than 30 times the latest scientific estimate from a high-quality medical journal. As for limitations of studies: yes, they can have sampling bias, but they're not off by a factor of 30. You note that the two seroprevalence studies conclude "fairly different rates", but "fairly different" in this case means 3.2%-3.8% in one study vs. 1.68% in the other. In order to get in the ballpark of RFA's estimate of over 40,000 deaths, you'd need about 40-80% seropositivity. To get to RFA's newest speculative death toll of 150,000, you'd need every single person in Wuhan to have been infected, and you'd additionally need the virus to be far deadlier than generally assumed. The BMJ paper's scientific estimate of the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan is 4,500, which is roughly in line with the seropositivity studies, and a factor of 10 to 33 times smaller than RFA's various estimates. In other words, RFA is indulging in absolutely wild speculation. There's really no other way to describe RFA's reporting on this issue as anything other than disinformation. If a Chinese state outlet were engaging in the same sort of behavior with respect to the US, we'd know what to call it.

Re: uncertainty in Western reporting on China's numbers: this does not justify RFA promoting wild conspiracy theories that it picks up from social media. It's true that some Western outlets have imputed sinister motives to China's National Health Commission's modifications to diagnostic criteria early on in the pandemic, when knowledge about the virus was rapidly developing. Whether or not that reporting is fair (and it probably isn't - there were good reasons for the modifications, and the most significant modification actually made Hubei province's definition of a "case" much more expansive than the definition used anywhere else in the world), there's no excuse for promoting outright disinformation about China's death toll, as RFA has done. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, as so adequately demonstrated by Mikehawk10 here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Although it is U.S.-government funded, it appears to have a reasonable degree of editorial independence. Sources reflect this: this 2020 Atlantic article notes that RFA, although funded by the U.S., is journalistically independent. As Mikehawk10 noted, there were real concerns under the Trump administration about the risk of RFA being manipulated or made into a hard-edged political tool, but that appears now to be a threat that has passed (or, at the least, has much diminished) given the end of the terms of Trump and Stephen J. Yates. See also this 2001 work on media in southeast Asia which states that in Cambodia, a country lacking a free press, "The Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, both funded by the US government, are important alternatives for Cambodians seeking more independent news." If sources conflict, or if there is some specific use case at issue, then of course that should be the subject of case-by-case discussion. Neutrality^talk 17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - This is the mirror image of the China Daily discussion above. Yes, they are state-owned, but as far as I know they tell you directly when they are broadcasting and US gov editorial and have reasonable levels of editorial independence, which is key. Any publication may publish information that is not true by mistake, it is the degree to which they are held accountable for doing so, and which they go to correct mistakes that is important. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Usable as acknowledged propaganda, with attribution. Radio Free Asia was founded as a "C.I.A. broadcasting venture", and while it officially ended its relationship to its founder (!) in 1971, it's still funded by the US government with a mission to advance US foreign policy objectives, and is still publishing false and conspiratorial propaganda about China [156]. -Darouet (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable based on what RS say about it (and use them as a source) and based on my knowledge/experience. People mention the fact, that the source was a propaganda tool, but it was true 50 years ago. Now it's not (at least it's not affecting it's reliability). It is funded by the US government - yes, but there are many aspects, not only financing, when it comes to things like this. Judging by financial aspect only - not acceptable.--Renat 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• unreliableSea Ane (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC) per WP:GLOBAL

Chronos Encyclopeadia

Hi Folks! Does anybody consider the Russian Chronos encyclopedia to be reliable as a source? It is located here: [157]. I have an editor who is using it at: Draft:Peter Moskatov and I have a feeling it is a bit dodgy as it doesn't even have a site x509 certificate. It could be good, but don't know. scope_creep^Talk 19:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The website had been Russia's largest online history resource, widely used by scholars in Russia and elsewhere as a unique source of biographical and historical material." [158] and "Hrono.ru offers a chronology in Russian. This chronology is very detailed and can be viewed by century, by clicking on any of the century or decade links seen at the top of the page" [159] seem to put in the reliable side. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

RFC CHRONOS

This is an RFC to determine if the Encyclopedia Chronos is a reliable source. It is located at [160] It has no Wikipedia page and the site itself doesn't have an SSL certificate, perhaps indicating it has been run by a team of volunteers with little money. It is a Russian encyclopedia that I've seen used in multiple places but up to this point, it has not been investigated as an RS. There has been no prior discussion apart from the previous two statements. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Responses

It has very little or no original materials. The materials are mostly taken from other sources, some reliable, some not reliable, some copyrighted, some free, some horribly outdated. It should be judged on case-by-case basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Canary

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

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

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

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

Responses (The Canary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 or 4 They regularly publish fake news as evidenced[161] by Stop Funding Fake News. I will also repost the links from a last discussion nothing has changed
  • • "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Topple, Steve (27 September 2017). "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference". The Canary. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • Lewis, Helen (27 September 2017). "The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks". New Statesman. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • "Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 2020-11-19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2 There is little evidence of unreliability but as a study just released indicates "a strong editorial focus on criticising the government’s right-wing policy agenda, as well as opposition towards mainstream media – notably BBC news" then attribution is probably the safest course for the present.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3+: The last time The Canary was discussed on this board, several examples were given of bad reporting, including misleading and sensationalist reporting, and of widespread description of its content as "fake news" by reliable sources. I'm pasting here my one set of examples I posted then: As well as (a) the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg,[162] and (b) conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[163] (c) it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor.[164][165][166][167]; (d) as well as Grayzone contributors, it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[168] (e) it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[169] (f) it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[170] (g) one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[171]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[172] (h) it published a Daily Mail-style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[173] (i) it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[174] (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[175][176] (k) before setting up the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[177] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[178] and (l) it published Pizzagate-style fake news about Seth Rich's murder.[179][180] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour,[181] Owen Jones[182] or Momentum's David Osler.[183] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough inform ation for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Here's another example (m), from a 2018 article by the editor. Headline: "Israel put up a £1,000,000 bounty for Labour insiders to undermine Corbyn". Lede: "The second release from Al Jazeera‘s undercover sting operation on key members of the Israel lobby in Britain revealed a £1,000,000 plot by the Israeli government to undermine Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn." Dig into the actual story and you get a quote from Middle East Eye saying "Masot described taking delegations of Labour members on trips to Israel and told Joan Ryan, the chair of LFI, that he had he had been approved £1m ($1.2m) to fund further visits." In other words, money isn't "to undermine Corbyn" but to fund visits to the Middle East.[184] That's dishonest reporting which goes way beyond mere bias (and plays into antisemitic conspiracy theories). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Can you pare down this list to examples that you actually think are fake news? You've included a mix of complaints, many of which don't have to do with accuracy. Just taking one of your points, (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack, you accuse The Canary of spreading fake news, and insinuate that it's somehow being funded by the Russian government. Your only non-broken link to source this claim ([185]) itself looks highly suspect. It's a website that appears to be dedicated solely to attacking the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party, and the website also appears to have completely ceased publishing around the time that Corbyn left the leadership. It complains that The Canary quotes someone who pointed out that countries other than Russia have Novichok (which is true, not fake news). Essentially, the complaint is that The Canary did not immediately accept the UK government's claims about the Salisbury poisonings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I've given two examples above of how misleading reporting which plays into antisemitic tropes: (e) the example [186] given by veteran Marxist writer Bob Pitt (previously Ken Livingstone's researcher and editor of the website IslamophobiaWatch), who shows how an article by John McEvoy[187] is misleading: the source the Canary cites[188] shows that Starmer received some £455,000 from wealthy donors, but the Canary only ignores £405,000 of this and reports jsut one donation, by the only Jewish donor, Trevor Chinn, who is described by the Canary only in terms of his support for Israel, leaving out his long history of Labour party activism, philanthropy and support for pro-peace groups such as Yachad (compare e.g. this JC article[189]), i.e. no actual lie but would be dangerous to use this as a soure for factual claim about Starmer's funding or Trevor Chinn; and (m) the piece about the "£1 million plot" which I've shown has an actually false headline and lede. In addition, I've given an example below from an academic joural article[190] which describes a misleading report in the Canary about the extent of antisemitism, which the academic summarises as a denial of anti-Jewish racism, suggesting that if their article was used as a source on antisemitism our content would be misleading.

You also ask about state-sponsored propaganda. The examples I gave of that were (c) where they republished (from a deprecated source) articles that were part of a state-sponsored disinformation campaign against a journalist in Nicaragua;[191] (i) the publication of Russian-sponsored stories about the Salisbury attack, claiming various perpetatrators other than Russia (this[192] is one example, which claims to "unravel" the "Russian spy story" (i.e. the version we now know is true), citing as its authority conspiracy theorist Annie Machon on the Kremlin's RT.com platform), which were never retracted now this is beyond doubt; and (l) the several articles they published showing Seth Rich was the source of the DNC hack, which are all based on false reports that had already then been revealed to come from the Kremlin[193] to obscure the fact that Russia had done the hacking - see our article Murder of Seth Rich. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2, as I don't think that the evidence presented here amounts to a blanket ruling of Option 3 for all their content. However, it should always be attributed (as it is clearly a biased source), and when it comes to Israel and Jewish-related subjects (broadly construed), Option 3 likely applies. Obviously, anything from their "Off the Perch" section is clearly meant to be regarded as satire. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm having a look at Google scholar to see what academics say about The Canary. It's difficult, because "the canary" is not a very easy search term so needs to be combined with other terms such as "media" and still takes time to find the references. I'm adding some of these to our article on the website. Here are the first few I've found:
  • General reputation for hyper-partisan reporting and sensationalism:
    • Leeds University political scientist Jonathan Dean wrote in the peer-reviewed Sage journal Politics in 2020 that "websites such as Evolve Politics, Skwawkbox and The Canary have aped a more tabloid style, with short, punchy headlines and an often rather sensationalised style of reporting. The Canary, in particular, has faced criticism for its highly partisan presentation of political news stories, with critics often deeming it symptomatic of the rise of so-called ‘fake news’".[194]
    • Three UK media studies scholars from three different universities in 2018 in New Media and Society: "In the fallout from the 2017 UK general election there was much discussion about the growth of sensationalism in online political news as a result of the popularity of new, ideologically-slanted news sites such as, for example, Breitbart UK and Westmonster on the right and the Canary and Evolvepolitics on the left."[195][196]
    • A 2018 Routledge book on new media and journalism by two journalism lecturers: "If there was a British equivalent of Breitbart it would be The Canary... It is a simplification to say hyperpartisan news is automatically fake news. What unites these sites is a commitment to report stories that they believe that mainstream media ignores. In this respect, they see a role of expanding media plurality and provide a platform for alternative voices. Kerry-Anne Mendoza, Canary editor, states the site's aims: 'Today, a handful of powerful moguls control our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative. One that isn t afraid to challenge the status quo, to ask the hard questions, and to have an opinion.' (Canary n.d.) Their skilled use of social media optimisation when promoting stories on social media has meant their stories are often widely shared. In some respects they share the traditions of journalism, e.g. they usually seek to break exclusive stories and expand the public debate. But with a strong commitment to a particular political cause their reporting is by definition one sided."[197] (chapter 3)
  • Specific examples of misleading reporting:
    • Leicester Uni (and now Kings College London) scholar on digital media Daniel Allington, in the specialist Elsevier journal Discourse, Context & Media in 2018 gives an example of misleading reporting: "both the pro-Corbyn online tabloid The Canary and the website of the Israel-critical organisation, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, presented the research positively but reported it selectively in order to create the false impression that the finding was that only those on the political right were likely to be a problem for British Jews (see JFJFP, 2017, Micner, 2017). This was in effect a denial of racism."[198]
    • Labour Party scholar Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, wrote about the Portland Comms conspiracy theory: "McCluskey suggested that these sinister forces could be linked to the public relations firm Portland Communications – an organisation which he claimed had clear links with Tony Blair and the Labour right. This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an article published on the pro-Corbyn website The Canary that (falsely, as it turned out) argued that the firm had been directly behind the attempted coup (see Topple, 2016). "[199] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to note that your source is Vox, whose article in turn recycles The Canary's own hatchet job on SSFN, coincidentally published when we were in the middle of our last discussion of this page. What I wrote then: Actually this is a good example of why The Canary is not a generally reliable source. Article is billed as an "Exclusive" and opens with "The Canary can now reveal that" but the information they are "exclusively" "revealing" is the SFFN's own publicly available Companies House listing, plus a listing of the "associations" Imran Ahmed, plus a mention of the fact that Rachel Reeves is connected to it (a fact already in our Wikipedia article as it's "revealed" in previous, reliable reports), a nudge-nudge-wink-wink dressing up of the fact they know nothing about SFFN's funding to make it seem suspicious (now why on earth would donors to a campaign against fake news suppliers such as Westmonster and Tommy Robinson not want their names to be in public?). The "associations" they "reveal" are essentially that some of the people involved are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking. They note the fact that "CCDH also shares its address with “Blue Labour” campaign group Labour Together", not mentioning that 116 businesses on Companies House share this address.[200] (And in fact Labour Together is not a "'Blue Labour' campaign group"; it involves some people who are in Blue Labour, but others (e.g. David Lammy) who aren't.) In short, the mix of innuendo, guilt by association and sensationalism in this article show why most people consider it generally unreliable. You seem very focused on the fact that Rachel Riley has some connection to SFFN, a point amplified by your Vox source, which says I won’t comment too heavily onthis [sic] as This Writer is currently being sued for libel (on very tenuous grounds) by Riley. Suffice it to say that she has been fighting her own crusade against Jeremy Corbyn and left-wing politics for several years now. In fact, of course, Riley won the libel claim.[201] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article demonstrates a strong link to a sector of Labour, Blue Labour is not the entire right of the party, Ahmed is not even a member afaik, Eagle certainly isn't. And the idea that Riley can be considered a neutral figure because she won a lawsuit is fanciful. SFFN is associated with a centrist anti-Corbyn perspective, which is not a crime but means we shouldn't treat them as if they had no agenda. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't seen any example of antisemitism from The Canary. Criticizing Israel or taking generally pro-Palestinian stances are not the same as being antisemitic, and it would be a very bad precedent for us to equate those things. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or maybe 2 – I see far left-wing bias but I do not see fabrications or intentional false news reporting in the evidence presented above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. Whilst it never went to the level of "February has 2,000 days" that the Skwawkbox did, Kerry-Anne Mendoza's editorial style is distinctly tabloid, and the "Guido of the Left" epithet is more true than it isn't. It's often a bad sign when "independent" news-sources launch to provide "balance" to the "biased mainstream media", as they often end up running almost-immediately into sensationalism at best, conspiracism at worst (c.f. GB News, when it launches). When it comes down to it, I don't believe that the Canary provides content that couldn't be provided by a more reliable source. Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is one example for editors asking for examples of fake news. According to at least two articles in The Canary, Jim Mattis said he did not have evidence Bashar al-Assad's government had ever used the nerve agent sarin. This is a complete distortion of Mattis' actual comments (link to full explanation). It is difficult to call this a good faith error since any knowledgable reporter would know Mattis had already unambiguously said he did have evidence for an attack in April 2017. CowHouse (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they picked it up from Reuters? "“We are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, (but) I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Canary article quoted gives its source for that statement as this article from the Associated Press dated 2 February 2018 “We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”. So it was correct reporting. G-13114 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the link I provided before replying, which contains the relevant parts of the transcript and shows how Mattis has been quote-mined out of context. If you did read it you would not be saying it was correct reporting. Mattis said Assad's government had used the nerve agent sarin during both the Obama and Trump administrations (referring to the attacks in Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun). He then says "and now we have other reports" of sarin use and he does not yet have evidence of these recent reports, but he is "not refuting them". The Canary article contains this complete falsehood: "in February, current defence secretary James Mattis admitted that his country could not confirm that the Assad regime in Syria had used the chemical weapon sarin on its citizens" before quoting a writer who incorrectly said "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency." G-13114, the writer of that Associated Press article said Mattis "was referring to the recent allegations". CowHouse (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I read it, but I'm not buying your argument. The aticle you quote states there is uncertainty over who was responsible. You're claiming that the US government was unaquivical that the regime was responsible, but the article states that there was considerable uncertainty in the US government, so it doesn't appear in principle to be a false claim. In any event that doesn't read like a deliberate falsehood, but a not unreasonable conclusion reached from the press sources given. G-13114 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issue here. The falsehood was misrepresenting what Jim Mattis said. Mattis did not say there was uncertainty over who was responsible. I am also not quoting the article you linked, I am quoting my talk page comment. I did not want to post an unnecessarily long comment but, to remove any further misunderstanding, here are the relevant parts of the transcript (with my emphasis added):

• Mattis: We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
  ...
  Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
  Mattis: Yeah.
  Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?
  Mattis: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, 'cause they used it again during our administration.
  And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

In response to your argument that it was a "not unreasonable conclusion", here is a passage from a New Politics article by Stephen Shalom (and I recommend you read the full article):

• Numerous news reports of the Mattis press conference made clear that Assad was being warned not to use chemical weapons “again,” that Washington had no evidence Syria had used sarin “recently.” An AP story by Robert Burns, however, lacked clarity, though if one read it carefully, its statement that Mattis “alluded to the April [2017 U.S.] attack [on the Syrian airbase], saying, ‘So they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating’ the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons” – showed that Mattis believed there was previous sarin use. (Burns’s confusing story was picked up by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others.)
  But notice, that if you extract the indented quote from Mattis immediately above (“I don’t have the evidence,” etc.) from its context, it could be misread as saying that there was no evidence of sarin use in Syria ever, rather than that there was no evidence of a reuse of sarin in recent weeks.
  So those intent on falsification could quote Mattis’s “I don’t have evidence” and try to pass it off as a comment on what happened in 2013 or 2017.

Compare Shalom's example of "those intent on falsification" with The Canary's reporting: Also, regarding previous allegations, even current US defence secretary James Mattis admitted in February that his country could not confirm that the Syrian regime had used the chemical weapon sarin on its citizens, saying “we do not have evidence of it”. In short, The Canary article selectively chose to quotemine a slightly ambiguous article in the AP (which still showed Mattis believed sarin was used earlier) rather than the many other press reports which explicitly said he was only referring to recent reports (e.g. Politico, Bellingcat). They also chose to uncritically include a quote from an unreliable op-ed (not the AP story) which falsely said "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency." This is a particularly egregious falsehood since any competent reporter on Syria would know Mattis said this about the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in April 2017: "Last Tuesday, on the 4th of April, the Syrian regime attacked its own people using chemical weapons. I have personally reviewed the intelligence and there is no doubt the Syrian regime is responsible for the decision to attack and for the attack itself." CowHouse (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see it's a question of interpretation of the press release rather than any deliberate attempt at deception. The Newsweek article they quoted appears to have interpreted it in that way, and suggested that the ambiguity of the more recent reports casted doubt over the the previous claims of responsibillity. G-13114 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It was an op-ed in Newsweek, not a news article. The Canary quoted the op-ed saying "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications..." when, in fact, Mattis had explicitly said sarin was used in the "previous administration" and "our administration". This is not a valid interpretation of Mattis' comments, it is a falsehood. At the time The Canary's articles were published, the op-ed's claims had already been thoroughly debunked by several sources including New Politics, Bellingcat and the writer of the AP story.

At best – The Canary was incompetent at fact-checking by (1) not checking the transcript, (2) being oblivious to several other news reports which explicitly stated that Mattis was referring to recent reports and warned against the reuse of sarin (e.g. Politico, Deutsche Welle), (3) favourably quoting debunked claims from an op-ed by a fringe writer, and (4) being unaware that Mattis had already unequivocally blamed the Syrian government for the Khan Shaykhun sarin attack in 2017.

At worst – The Canary's article contains a deliberate lie. Keep in mind that, out of all of these sources, The Canary only chose to reference the AP article and a debunked op-ed which incorrectly interpreted that article. This is exactly what a source that was intent on falsification would do.

Either way, it is an egregious mistake. CowHouse (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The first article you quote seems to be referering to the more recent attacks, which in that context appears to be correct. The second article was clearly an op-ed rather than a news article, and did indeed appear to be based on a misinterpretation of the AP release, possibly a rookie error by an inexperienced journalist. However, further down in the article it goes on to say "The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons/UN Joint Investigative Mechanism has said the Assad regime is guilty of using chemical weapons on four occasions – in April 2014, twice in March 2015, and in April 2017." so it doesn't appear to me to be a deliberate attampt at deception. Actually this could be a chance to test their error correcting processess. I will contact them to let them know of it and see of they correct it. The presence of a small number of what appear to be genuine mistakes does not however change my overall view of the Canary as generally reliable, unless a much larger number of errors are found. G-13114 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Both articles were written by Ed Sykes in April 2018. Sykes first wrote for The Canary in October 2015.

It is a very generous interpretation to say the first article is accurate since there is no context for Mattis' comments. Unlike the second article, the first one did not mention that the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) had already blamed Assad for several chemical attacks, including the use of sarin. When discussing previous allegations of chemical weapons use, a reliable source would reference impartial sources such as the OPCW and UN rather than a cherry-picked, out-of-context quote from the American Secretary of Defense. The writer of the Canary article appears to consider the American Secretary of Defense an authority when they think he's denying chemical attacks, but I doubt they would still consider him an authority when he is actually confirming them.

You are correct that the second article does mention the UN-OPCW JIM, but it was still ignored and contradicted later in the same article: "It’s entirely possible that the Syrian government was behind the most recent chemical weapon attack. But as with previous attacks, we simply don’t have the evidence to prove it." If this isn't deliberate deception, it is completely incompetent reporting. CowHouse (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3. This reminds me of Daily Kos (RSP entry). We don't deprecate Daily Kos because we use it for election predictions etc. feminist (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. To the Canary, everything is a Zionist conspiracy or a coverup by mainstream media.--Hippeus (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You should either back up this statement or strike it. Decisions to deprecate sources should be based on facts, not on wild, unsupported accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411 You got above dozens of examples of tendentious and bias distortions in Canary articles, from many editors, so please stop going after every editor who is supporting option 3 and 4 and demanding "facts" and proves.Tritomex (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You've alleged that they call everything a "Zionist conspiracy or a coverup by mainstream media". I don't see any support for that in the above examples. Editors above attacking The Canary have used the term "Zionist conspiracy", but nobody's provided an example of The Canary using any term remotely close to that. The Canary has discussed a campaign by a few strong supporters of Israel to get advertisers to stop doing business with The Canary, apparently because they don't like The Canary's pro-Palestinian stance. That's a far cry from calling everything a "Zionist conspiracy".

The reason why this matters is that by claiming The Canary calls everything a "Zionist conspiracy", you're implying that they're antisemitic. That sort of accusation should not be made lightly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is what people are referring to when re "blaming Zionists":[202] Should be placed alongside, for example, the misleading article about Starmer's "Israel lobby" funding noted above.[203] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hang on a second: there's a very big difference between pointing out that one very specific campaign to deplatform The Canary was organized by people who are Zionists (in the correct sense of the word, as someone who adheres to the political ideology) and who therefore dislike The Canary (a generally pro-Palestinian outlet), and claiming that everything is a Zionist conspiracy (something that The Canary has not done). One is a completely factual claim about a specific issue, and the other is a sweeping claim that sounds vaguely antisemitic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: As per Thryduulf, Jontel, G-13114, Burrobert and others. Yet Another RfC on the Canary, three in one year, what has changed since last time? Nothing. The Canary has a political bias, its a rare British left of centre news source; all news media have political biases, many equally strong the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) apologies for forgetting to sign. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4 - based on the evidence cited above, and what I have previously seen of The Canary's articles, I would say that it at least deliberately distorts through selective reporting. I certainly don't think the comments above comparing it to The Guardian, which always attempts in its news articles to represent the truth, albeit from a clearly leftwing stance, are even vaguely close to the mark. If I had to wager money on the accuracy of reporting in The Canary or the Daily Mail (which, as is well known, has been deprecated) I would take the Daily Mail every time (and would take the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC before either of them). It may be accurate for a small selection of items, largely about the goings on in the left wing of the Labour party, but beyond that I would see it as generally unreliable. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Clearly at least option 3 and I would argue option 4. This is, in my view, a distinction without much of a difference, as The Canary is simply not an appropriate source for Wikipedia, for the same reason as Occupy or Breitbart. It's an agenda-based source that twists facts to suit its narrative. Fine for the faithful but no use to us. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: people confuse political stance with factual bias. A source can be extremely far from a mainstream political view and still rely only on clear factual content to make its case, while another can be fully mainstream and almost entirely wrong. The Canary has a significant left-wing political stance but the reason to avoid usage is simply that it's tabloid-level garbage. The paper has selectively chosen facts to further anti-Semitic conspiracies; it's made flagrantly irresponsible reporting about a suicide; and it's made plenty of incorrect claims. (Sources already provided in the discussion above.) I also think there's WP:BLP concerns with its deliberately provocative language towards living people—one of the things that tipped me over the edge is that I'm just not comfortable with looking at a References section and seeing "Matt Hancock's audacity is off the scale as he refuses to apologise for breaking the law" or "Marr just told one of the biggest lies of the pandemic, and it could impact all of us". Headlines are not reliable sources even in many reliable online news sites but the body of these articles continues the very worrying and extreme rudeness. We might see similar on certain topics in the Daily Telegraph or The Times but we see it on every article in The Canary. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, sensationalist tabloid.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 There seem to be some serious issues around how their bias affects what they say. There seem to be some serious issues around fact-checking and tabloid excesses.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Multiple academics comparing them to Breitbart is a deal breaker. Breitbart is the gold standard of bullshit (the Mail by comparison, is a real newspaper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) — Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AttackTheMoonNow (talk • contribs).
• It's a tabloid - treat it the same way you would any tabloid source, i.e., unreliable under most circumstances. We already have guidelines for this. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per above discussion. The canary is generally unreliable.Sea Ane (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A doctoral thesis from 2020 cited in around 40 pages

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

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

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

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

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

I cite large surveys many times, only because they are large surveys that are generally considered to be reliable. There are definitely no COI motivations. I added those Brazilian dissertations only because they were large surveys of South American language families, not because of the specific people who had written them. Before, I was working on adding the classifications of Mason (1950), Loukotka (1968), and Campbell (2012) to dozens of articles, and thought it would be good to add some more recent classifications to balance out those other classifications (see Classification of indigenous languages of the Americas). Being completely aware of the need to give due weight and to present different points of view, I decided to add classifications from these more recent sources. As to why they're cited in so many places, it's because these sources deal with over 100 language families. I also cited the other sources like Campbell and Loukotka hundreds of times. Nikulin and Jolkesky are not privileged over Campbell and other sources. Someone with a COI would likely have added every single minor publication by one author starting from the very moment they created their Wikipedia account (and yes, I have seen this COI pattern countless times on Wikipedia, unfortunately). I'm doing the same thing @Kwamikagami: and other linguist editors do: cite large surveys dozens of times because they are, well, large surveys. So, sorry if it also might look like I have a COI with Lyle Campbell (or Terrence Kaufman or Cestmir Loukotka or Glottolog) because of the copious citations. And you can literally count all the major surveys of indigenous American language families using the fingers on your hands. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

See the discussion below. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are the main concerns here. The University of Brasilia has one of the most rigorous linguistics programs in all of Latin America, so University of Brasilia Ph.D. dissertations certainly aren't unreliable sources. We're not talking about personal blogs, CreateSpace content, or even a relatively unknown dissertation coming out of a small, obscure college in South America where you can basically write anything you want for your thesis. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

They're not entirely primary sources though. The dissertations, like Campbell (2012), Loukotka (1968), and other similar sources painstakingly summarize a lot of past work in order to come up with coherent language classifications. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, should generally not be used especially if better sources are available, —PaleoNeonate – 00:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

I regularly get requests from new editors to help them out with all kinds of matters, and only helped Degoiabeira out when he left me a message on my talk page last year. I don't know Degoiabeira in real life and barely even communicate with him. Being a nice guy, I've helped out over a dozen other newbies too in topics ranging from Papuan linguistics to Sikkim tea. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of the work done on Macro-Je historical linguistics has been published within the past 20 years in Brazilian dissertations. So naturally, those are the sources that need to be cited in articles about Macro-Je languages. Exclude the past work that has been done by Lyle Campbell, Terrence Kaufman, SIL International, and archaic sources such as Cestmir Loukotka (1968), and you would have almost nothing left. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have left a message on sagotreespirits talkpage asking them to come here to discuss the source, and clarify whether they have any relationship with the authors. Hopefully we can clear this up. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: They're well aware of this discussion, since I pinged both users four days ago, but obviously have no intention of explaining themselves, judging by Sagotreespirit's removal of the COIN-template Paleoneonate posted on their talk page two days ago... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

See my edit summary. A template was left on my talk page without any explanations (no linked pages or non-automated comments), so I had thought that it was a mistake. I checked PaleoNeonate's contributions and thought he had accidentally templated me due to my being one of the first editors of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 when I moved the article. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on a very personal experience I presume it's not a COI-thing, but rather a case of quite indiscriminate use of primary sources. I often have Sagotreespirit's edits in my watchlist because they are also very active in adding material about Australian Aboriginal, Papuan and Austronesian languages. So the South American thing is just a fraction of their edit range. And if you grab a new thesis about a medium-sized understudied language family, it's not all that unsual to have the same source pop up in 40 articles; whether this in accordance with WP:WEIGHT is another thing, especially if the thesis is new and not widely cited yet. I had a few WP:WEIGHT-related discussions (which were NB very collegial and constructive) with Sagotreespirit, including one about Jolkesky. So I think the issue is well-placed here, but of course we also need to hear their clarification about potential COIs regarding Nikulin and Jolkesky. –Austronesier (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:Absolutely, I can agree that there might be an arguable reason, but WP:WEIGHT is a big issue here. I found that a large part of the stuff from Nikulin was related to newly proposed classifications for language isolates, classifications first suggested in a thesis from 2020. I don't know how that can possibly be valid, although, without any doubt, most of Sagotreespirits additions to the South American language articles have been excellent.

@Thomas.W: Their edit summary on the revert suggests they may not know what is going on, and if it is self promotion, it is mixed in with a lot of other very good editing. This has earned the benefit of the doubt from me. If there is no response here, there will definitely be a cull of the use of Nikulin as a primary source and probably Jolkesky too.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: @Boynamedsue: No, I don't have any COI, and I'm confused as to why anyone would think so. The reason I cited these dissertations a lot is because it's difficult to come across extensive resources for languages in remote parts of the Amazon (there simply aren't any other big surveys of South American languages other than a few other publications by Campbell and Rodrigues, which I also cite dozens, if not more than 100, times). Much work on South American historical linguistics has been done only in the past 10-20 years mainly by Brazilian Ph.D. students and a few researchers, mostly based at the University of Brasilia, Unicamp, and the Federal University of Rondonia. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We can discuss WP:WEIGHT and consider adding different opinions by other scholars like Kaufman and Campbell, but certainly not completely culling the UnB dissertations. I would suggest looking for other sources on http://etnolinguistica.org/ to balance out Nikulin and Jolkesky. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 13:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You appear confused. Any discussion of weight would necessarily include the option of completely culling the UnB dissertations... They are inferior sources by definition. If we have no coverage of these views beyond the dissertations themselves than absolutely *nothing* would be due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That is why I have worked hard to make sure that the recent Ph.D. dissertations should be balanced out with other reliable published sources. A good example is Arawakan languages#Languages for instance. However, a reliable source in linguistics should place more weight on the methodologies used, rather than the way it was published. Joseph Greenberg, Merritt Ruhlen, and Sergei Starostin were all famous tenured professors who had been published by big names like Stanford University Press, but their methods were questionable at best. On the other hand, Nikulin (2020) uses very meticulous methodology and was closely supervised by mainstream linguists. Some of the chapters in the dissertation have also already been published in academic journals, so this is reliable peer-reviewed research accepted by mainstream linguists. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Then you can use the chapters which have been published in academic journals. Recent Ph.D. dissertations shouldn't be balanced out, they shouldn't be included in the first place. Also how do you know this? Do you have something that supports the inside information that Nikulin was "was closely supervised by mainstream linguists" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Also it appears you’re suggesting we create and use a stand-alone reliability standard for linguistics, I doubt thats going to happen. We will most likely continue to evaluate linguistics sources the same way we evaluate all other sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Much of the recent work on South American linguistics comes out of UnB from researchers such as Ana Cabral and others, and they supervise all of the UnB linguistics theses based on what I can find in the front matter of the dissertations. Aryon Rodrigues and Lucy Seki were also notable linguists there. As for inside information, no, I don't have any. As for reliable sources, I would say that content on http://etnolinguistica.org/ would generally be reliable and suitable for use on Wikipedia, since they are either published papers or dissertations from reputable universities vetted by academics working in the field. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a kind of overall answer to @Sagotreespirit: and @Horse Eye's Back:. I too am kind of confused by this idea that as linguistics doctorates are the only available sources, they are therefore acceptable for inclusion as primary sources. I fully agree that Campbell and Greenberg are and should be quoted all over the place, but the unpublished original research from a doctoral candidate does not seem to fulfil the same function. On the other hand, Sagotreespirit correctly says the supervisors of Nikulin's doctorate are very serious individuals, although we have no information on their response to it, or even whether he passed or not. Still, I can't really get my head round the argument that because Sagotreespirit says this work is good (and it may well be, it certainly looks the part) it should be added in contradiction to our policies.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia policies should be followed. I only said that methodologies should also be considered in addition to the need to follow WP:RS. WP:RS#Scholarship includes: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why I have always prioritized Campbell and Loukotka over Nikulin and Jolkesky. Wikipedia's policies explicit state that they are sources that can be cited, but with some degree of caution. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

But the caution is with regards to them being used to state the views/research of the author, "original research" rather than to refer the views of others. I, personally, have no problem with using Nikulin and Jokelsky to summarise the views of other scholars, but I do have a problem with adding their own research and views to articles, as until they are widely cited in published sources they don't satisfy WP:RS.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If you look closely, a lot of Nikulin's and Jolkesky's classifications in fact synthesize information from earlier published materials and aren't that different from previous classifications (like Ramirez, Campbell, Loukotka, Greenberg, and others). They make some minor adjustments here and there. And yes, I would agree with you on this one, so I might consider excluding them if they diverge way too much from what the earlier scholars had laid out.

Do the dissertations meet WP:RS?

1. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available. Y Check

2. supervised by recognized specialists in the field Y Check

3. have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing Y Check

On the contrary, I have a bigger problem with quoting and citing the numerous messy (often very messy) dissertations coming out of small colleges in places like India and Nigeria, since they don't pass many of the WP:RS guidelines for dissertations.

So thanks for bringing this to my attention. WP:RS does state that we must be careful when using these kinds of sources, so I'll be much more cautious when citing doctoral dissertations such as these. For now, I think they have cited enough, so I don't think I'll be citing them in additional Wikipedia articles any longer until the results have been published in reputable academic journals. I will keep it the way it is now, but don't think it will be good to include much more content from the dissertations beyond basic classification schemes. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As of now, I have mostly used the dissertations for lists of language names organized into branches and groups, but beyond that, the content takes on more characteristics of primary sources. As a result, I won't be including in-depth information such as detailed arguments about areal phonology/morphosyntax from the dissertations beyond very basic summaries that don't venture deep into "original research" territory. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but I would say that some of the articles in which these doctorates are included cite the research quite widely, and would need quite a lot of text removing. The article on Macro-Jê languages contains original research from no less than 4 doctoral dissertations, for example, explicitly stating the opinions of Nakulin, Jolkesky, Ribeiro and Pache. This is really not how it is supposed to work. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, with under-researched areas like this, that removing what you are spuriously calling "OR" would mean abandoning any attempt at keeping the article up-to-date, which means that readers would have to go elsewhere for good information. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The assumption of COI seems unwarranted. I often disagree with Sagotreespirit and have reverted a lot of his work here on WP, much of which I find annoying, but I seriously doubt he is engaged in inappropriate behaviour. Actually, a colleague thinks he knows who he might be in real life, and there is no connection to Brazil. (For whatever that speculation might be worth.) And Sagotreespirit has been similarly enthusiastic about adding multiple citations to refs (by authors unrelated to the ones in question here) to the languages of New Guinea, to the point I've wondered about COI there. So this would seem to be a pattern of adding refs he likes or is impressed by to all the language articles they touch upon. That might be an UNDUE issue, but it isn't COI.

Indeed, Sagotreespirit's edits are like many of mine in the past: I would come across a reference that addresses the classification of a large number of languages, then rewrite those articles to accommodate that ref. For example, I've added refs to self-published articles by Roger Blench to at least this many (40) articles each, and it hasn't been a problem because they cover poorly researched areas that don't provide many other refs we could use -- similar to the situation in the Amazon, where we have an embarrassing paucity of research. And Blench doesn't meet the level of RS criteria that these theses do. Indeed, I've added refs to Rodrigues and Ribeiro to many of these same South American articles after meeting one of them at a conference and being impressed by his work. That of course reflects a bias on my part, but we're all biased by the research we're most familiar with.

I read only partway through the speculations and counter-speculations above (TLDR), but my questions would be:

Do the individual articles all need the ref, or is it better restricted to the family articles?

Is the work pseudo-linguistics like Ehret (who's been published multiple times in supposed RS's, but whose colleagues think his work is mostly useless or even nonsense), or is it sound?

Is there an attempt to erase previous work that is comparably sound but which disagrees with the new ref?

That is, I think we should judge these edits based on their inherit value per WEIGHT/UNDUE and RS, not on assumptions of inappropriate behaviour. And following the lit might mean being more dismissive of older, non-specialist work such as Campbell and Kaufman, who aren't particularly familiar with the languages in question. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We definitely do find each other annoying at times, but at the end of the day we both appreciate each other for the tremendous amount of encyclopedia building work that's been done. We're just both language geeks who get overexcited when running into recent large surveys of underdocumented parts of the world.

To answer the questions above:

1. Do the individual articles all need the ref, or is it better restricted to the family articles? Answer: Some of them might be better restricted to the family articles.
2. Is the work pseudo-linguistics like Ehret. Answer: No, except for Jolkesky's claims about a connection between Oto-Manguean and certain languages of Colombia. Nikulin's work certainly isn't pseudolinguistics, and he has no trouble getting published.
3. Is there an attempt to erase previous work that is comparably sound but which disagrees with the new ref? Answer: No, it should be obvious that I have been prioritizing sources like Campbell (2012).

If "Alien, Space (2021). A comprehensive classification of the languages of New Guinea. Working paper, Unaccredited University of Mars." were to come out, chances are I might also get overexcited and cite that all over the place when I probably shouldn't be doing so. So the question is, did I get overexcited by citing some of the recent sources too much? I will let the community decide. At the end of the day, I don't care about promoting anyone and just want to help classify the world's languages. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't making any accusations, I was just saying that's what I would be asking myself when looking at the edits. I hadn't had time to actually review them. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course you're not. I'm just addressing the general wider community. Thanks for your constructive feedback as always. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for 'annoying', that wasn't aimed at you (though it probably felt that way – sorry!) I said that to make the point that I wasn't here to back you up because of our relationship, but decided to back you up after coming here because I agree with you. — kwami (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I know how to take a joke. No offense taken of course. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• General rule should be don't cite a thesis. While I have cited more than one thesis on various publications, as a rule I tried to start with journal articles then go to conference papers then finally a thesis. A thesis in my field is often a conglomeration of several journal articles thus anything in a thesis, most of the time, can be cited to a journal paper instead. Additionally, a thesis is often a document totally internal to a single university. Yes, there are several people on the committee and they are going to scrutinize it but that's not the same thing as people outside the university reviewing the material. There is also the concern that there are many academic papers coming out and we should be careful about treating any recent paper as if it represents an academic consensus vs just a reasoned opinion/view. If the work gains traction and is cited by others then I would be more inclined to accept it. Finally, in this case, if we think the author is adding their own material we should remove it unless it's plain as day obvious it should be included (odds are no). That becomes little more than self promotion. Springee (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to follow the same guidelines myself. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are we assuming the author is adding there own material? By your logic, no Wikipedian can add any source written by a living person, unless their user page identifies who they are in real life and we can verify that. There has never been such a condition for sourcing articles on WP. — kwami (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we can all agree by now that COI is not the issue here. The general consensus about these kinds of dissertations is that they can be cited, but with caution. So while we can include basic information like lists of languages, things like in-depth arguments about language origins, haplogroups, and archaeology by Jolkesky (2016) would be better left out. I was tempted to include those, but stopped short of actually doing so. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand your claim we should use the journal articles rather than the thesis. A thesis in most fields is new research. That's the entire point of a thesis!

The quality of theses depends on the quality of the university. Sago made that point above, when noting that a lot of theses from Indian and Nigerian universities are close to worthless. We should evaluate: is the university respected in this field? are the thesis advisers well-reviewed? are there outside thesis advisers? (A lot of U's encourage finding an outside adviser for just the reason you mentioned.) — kwami (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't speak to all fields but in mine a thesis typically was comprised of several related journal papers. So you might have a high level project idea, call it The Wright Flyer. So to get flight you need research on how to shape a wing (journal article 1), how to make a light engine (journal article 2), and how to control a vehicle in flight (article 3). Putting them together gives you an airplane (dissertation). Now if someone wants to cite your work on wing shapes they shouldn't go to your dissertation, instead they go to the journal article on that specific subject. Certainly the quality of the thesis would depend on the university and its standards but the university is still less independent than the journal publications and, presumably, you will get less institutional like think in the external publication. Springee (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it usually works in linguistics. You might spin off elements into journal articles, but that's not necessary. It's also common to present elements of your thesis at conferences, but that would only be bits and pieces, or provisional drafts of what you develop more fully in your thesis. After graduating, it's common to rework your thesis for independent publication, but that would be as a book, not a journal article. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the final part of the discussion I want to point out that we have the very active WikiProjects Languages and Linguistics. Editors unfamiliar with the structure of the relevant literature in our field can get community advise there too. E.g. conference papers clearly fall below dissertations (I'm talking about calibres of UC Berkeley, Leiden, ANU, etc., not corrupt diploma mills). Many good dissertations get later published as a book, but there's a lot of high impact theses with don't. Dissertations which are composed of previously published journal articles are occasionally produced; but if that material dominates in the thesis, I (and I guess other colleagues as well) look at it as a pitiful endeavor (NB in linguistics). And FWIW if someone still thinks that this a clear case of an author adding their own material, in spite of all statements above, we need to turn to a different noticeboard. –Austronesier (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting how much different these things are in other fields. Anyway, my concern would still be if the content being cited is new/novel then we have no idea if it has been accepted by scholars in the field. If the material being cited is basic, is it unique to this work or something that came from a previous source. The first citation of some of my work was actually suspect in this regard. I made a claim which I cited to another paper. The person who cited my work should have cited my source rather than me since I didn't originate the claim. Above Sagotreespirit says they cited the work for more basic things like a classification list. If that list is novel should we be citing this work? If that list isn't then by definition it wasn't new/unique to this work and we should cite the original source which would have been "cited by others". Springee (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am a post-grad student in Linguistics, and I too would happily quote PhD and even some Masters theses in work I was doing for uni. I have also seen theses of both kinds quoted widely by leading academics. However, I don't think the rules of wikipedia are the same, or, as others have stated, linguistics would have to be a special case. It may be that I am misunderstanding the initial policy, but the qualification of "original research" seems very clear.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"No original research" applies to WP editors. Editors are prohibited from adding original research regardless of their credentials. If they're IRL researchers, it's self-promotion/soapboxing, if not, it mostly ends up as Dunning-Krugerish stuff. WP reflects third-party sources, and the relevant policies for their inclusion are WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS (especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PRIMARY), but not WP:NOR. If dissertations (or even MA theses) are widely cited in the mainstream, nothing precludes citing them here too. –Austronesier (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was using the wrong wiki terminology, in my head I had switched "primary source" for "original research". We return to this case, the 2020 dissertation is very much not widely cited (hard to see how it could be) so it shouldn't be here. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am not an expert on this subject, but I can see from Google Scholar that this thesis has only been cited twice in the academic literature [204]. I can further see that the author has never been substantially cited either [205]. I cannot conclude whether or not he is an established authority. for I do not know how many others may be working on the topic. But if we are to cite his views we should cite his peer-reviewed publications:, which are better sources than academic theses: The most comprehensive seems to be: "Historical phonology of Proto-Northern Jê"

Journal of Language Relationship Volume 14 Issue 3-4" DOI: https://doi.org/10.31826/jlr-2017-143-405 [206], which is, conveniently, open-access. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Space.com

Space.com (space.com  ) is a website dedicated to space and astronomy news. It is currently cited in 3452 articles, but there seems to have been very little discussion about it at RSN.

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

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

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Space.com)

• Option 2 Pretty marginal for scientific topics, prone to uncritical churnalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Lots of syndicated content, for which we should bypass them and go to the original source anyway. Items that are churned press releases are no good, while the occasional posts by credentialed experts are probably OK — even if they're not much more than blog posts by astronomers, that can still be fine by WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mu — there seems to have been very little discussion about it at RSN means we shouldn't have one of these RFCs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 from my experience. ~ HAL333 00:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Close this RfC with no result: This is an inappropriate RfC, as others have explained. If there's a specific question about use of space.com for a specific claim in a specific article, then the filer should create a new section to ask that question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw this RFC and pretend it never happened. (The method for withdrawing an RFC is just to remove the RFC template at the top of the section. It's very easy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 IMO is in general reliable. ExoEditor 02:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, they do alot of churnalism and reprints and mainly present for a popular enthusiast audience.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. It is a reputable online news site, manned by professional editors and journalists. Won an Online Journalism Award for Breaking News by the Online News Association for coverage of the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster. Received Webby awards in the Science category in 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Do "Webby" awards actually indicate quality or just industry insider access? Are they qualified to judge the accuracy of scientific reporting, which is what we would be relying on space.com for? Ironically, the website for the Webby's is almost un-navigable (who decided that "selecting more than two criteria in a search form" should require registration?), so finding the criteria they use for awards is not easy. Their pages for space.com don't seem to have any significant information at all. More recently, a science Webby was given out for a redesign of a website that just recycles press releases. And what does an award from nearly two decades ago mean for their reliability now, after two changes of ownership? XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1.5. I'd say they are fairly reliable, but a bit given to sensationalizing. They are fine for use as a secondary source. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1.5. Most of their material appears to be lightly-edited press releases, but those press releases tend to come from sources like NASA or university press offices that are somewhat reliable (but lacking in independence from the research they report). So I think they should be treated as equally reliable as the original press release: ok for reporting what was discovered, not ok for opinions on its significance nor for contributing to notability. I don't think they remove reliability from the press releases, and they can be useful to cite when the original press releases might no longer be available. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments (Space.com)

• Poking around their website finds a lot of stories that are just recycled from elsewhere. Some are marked as "originally published on Live Science", another website also owned by Future plc. Others were syndicated from The Conversation. As far as their original reporting goes, well, they were willing to devote an entire story to a Star Trek fan who made a website claiming that we could and should build a mock-up of the Enterprise in space. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Why are we having this RfC? It's not another attempt to get something into WP:RSP is it? Alexbrn (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this RfC either. If, as the filer says, there's been little discussion of space.com on RSN, then it's not even eligible for an RfC, as far as I understand it. RfCs are supposed to occur after substantial previous discussion of a source on RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• As well, I don't see where the reliability of the citations is contentious? Have there been frequent discussions about the reliability of the existing citations? Which citations are you challenging? "I noticed a bunch of citations use this source, so we have to discuss it" is not really useful here. Without specific examples of problems and details about why the citations are a problem, I don't think we're at a stage to have this kind of general discussion. --Jayron32 15:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In this Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion, I did call into question the reliability of space.com stories, as a 2014 AfD was closed as "keep" partly on the strength of them. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Space.com reliable?

• There is a Space.com debate already opened but not about a particular context (no links, source, article and content are provided).
• The one below provides the information needed according to the Noticeboard guidelines.
• I propose merging the other debate into this one.

Links to past discussion of the source on this board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com Source. The book or web page being used as the source: https://www.space.com/6628-routine-quarantine-helps-astronauts-avoid-illness-launch.html Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: SpaceX. Content. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic happening at the same time, proper quarantine procedures (many of which were already in use by NASA decades before the 2020 pandemic) were taken to prevent the astronauts from bringing COVID-19 aboard the ISS. ExoEditor 03:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I provided just 1 context, but Space.com is widely used in Wikipedia.

IMO it's option 2: generally reliable.

Option 1: Reliable.

Option 2: Generally reliable

Option 3: Not reliable.

Can somebody please merge this into the RfC discussion above? Totally pointless to have this as a separate section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

AllMusic (allmusic.com): summary of previous AllMusic and/or "All Music" discussions

This is a summary of previous discussions about AllMusic. I am totaly not repeating the word AllMusic again and again to bring this to the top of the ASllMusic search results. Did I mention AllMusic? :)

• 19:11, 31 May 2008 / 6:32, 18 July 2008: "Allmusic not a reliable source on heavy metal music ... I argue that allmusic cannot be considered a reliable source specifically regarding heavy metal music. My reasoning is thus: They are an authority on mainstream music, something heavy metal generally is not. [they are] a source with little real knowledge of the genre, and I can see no good reason whatsoever to consider them a reliable source on that subject area."
• 08:01, 11 December 2008: "A substantial Allmusic bio or review should be considered significant coverage in a reliable source - they have some very good professional writers and these are generally of good quality. The discographies in allmusic, however, are not reliable and better sources should be found. "
• 01:36, 16 March 2009: "Should [ allmusic.com ] site be still considered a reliable source? A recent AfD turned up errors in the listing for Palladium discography (see: this and this). I also find many of the credits listed on songs and albums to be incorrect or totally missing, and the reviews to be overtly opinionated and factually incorrect"
• 02:40, 16 March 2009: "My experience is that they are generally reliable, although not error-free. Reviews should only be cited as the opinion of the reviewer, of course"
• 19:55, 20 July 2009: " a more apt analogy would be the Rolling Stone versus Allmusic, Allmusic is considerably less notable, but of a greater quality and reliability, it delves into the subject matter in depth and eschews one-paragraph reviews for fact checking and editor responsibility."
• 03:23, 9 November 2009: "For example, Allmusic is accepted because it's a professionally run website and while it's certainly a great resource, it's not always factually accurate. Yet, a self-published fan site, no matter how meticulously researched and well written it is, isn't acceptable for Wikipedia."
• 21:43, 13 August 2010: "I was involved with an article where someone claiming to be the artist and someone claiming to be the artists agent both stated that Allmusic had the birthcountry wrong, so I would say that Allmusic would fall into the category of IMDB where content about the artistic works may be acceptable, but claims about the person should generally avoid using it as a source. "
• 20:52, 7 September 2010: "Hmmm...according to our article, Allgame is owned by All Media Guide, the same company that owns Allmusic and Allmovie. Isn't Allmusic frequently cite by our music articles? OTOH, the About page says 'Some of our descriptions and reviews are written by the All Game Guide's full-time editorial staff,but most are written for us by off-site freelancers.' "
• 4:44, 13 October 2010: "is Allmusic.com a reliable source? ... It says "The AMG editorial staff, along with hundreds of expert contributors (all music fanatics in their own right)" on the about page for that site, making me think it's has user submitted content similar to Discogs, and DIscogs is not a reliable source. I would wait for more opinions though. It does say it has an editorial staff, so I'm not sure which content is the editor content and which is the user submitted content."
• 16:12, 13 October 2010: "AllMusic is mentioned here as an acceptable link for record reviews, I don't if this extends to their general text. It's an important question to answer because the site is referenced a lot."
• 19:46, 25 June 2011: "Relying allmusic is not the best course of action, but Billboard is clearly reliable as a source for music in general."
• 02:10, 23 September 2011: "Rovi [ allrovi.com ] appears to have taken over the All Media Guide, which included AllMovie and AllMusic. I'm not sure about AllMovie, but AllMusic has been considered RS for music articles."
• 01:14, 9 August 2012: "C. Fred mentions allmusic.com as a reliable source. That website as well as other musical artist bio websites are notorious for dubious incorrect information"
• 01:24, 9 August 2012: "WP only allows allmusic, per WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you don't agree, you'll need to change the policies in place here."
• 18:22, 20 November 2013: "AllMusic/AMG as a source for biographical info ... The metadata looks like it is in part user-submitted. I would not trust the metadata. The biographies and reviews are all licensed from Rovi, and neither All Media Guide nor Rovi seem to accept user submissions in this area, though they do seem to accept corrections. The corrections are requested to have a citation, but it is not required. Who knows what that means in terms of reliability. I try to avoid using Rovi/AMG as a source, but the reviews and biographies seem to be the most reliable aspect of the site. If you simply must use Rovi/AMG, I guess that's the part to use."
• 15:17, 11 September 2014: "[ Rockabilly.nl ] is far, far more reliable on details than other more general sites such as (one example) Allmusic.com."
• 22:05, 1 April 2014: "as far as I know allmusic.com and billboard.com are reliable sources"
• 14:18, 9 March 2015: "Allmusic - which I think is far less reliable, on almost all criteria, but which seems to be regarded here as generally reliable"
• 19:29, 26 April 2015: "All Music is generally considered a reliable source."
• 11 September 2017: "Posting here for the hell of it, and cause User:Chris troutman dropped me a note saying AllMusic might not be an RS because it had user-generated content; he said he got this from this noticeboard ... IMHO AllMusic should be approached on a case-by-case basis, so neither a universal stamp of approval, nor a universal stamp of disapproval ... I could give some fairly recent examples where editor consensus led to removal of AllMusic from an article, and other examples where editor consensus decided for inclusion."
• 06:46, 7 February 2019: "I won't offer a polling opinion, but will say that AllMusic meets RS and reviews there that contain prose are completely reliable regardless of who the author is."
• 10:24, 29 March 2020: "The bios are mostly an old AllMusic dump. Some indie bands write their own bios. So in general, we should look for better sources "
• 05:37, 31 March 2020: "In the past, editors have considered AllMusic marginally reliable for biographical information. I would cite AllMusic instead of Spotify, since AllMusic has a stronger reputation for music reviews."

Does anyone have any reliability evaluations to add? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Overused tertiary across Wikipedia for music articles, and arguably not reliable. Let's see what they tell us about information on the website:

• "The album, artist and song information on AllMusic comes from our data provider, TiVo. TiVo provides us with written content like reviews and biographies, tagged metadata like Genres, Styles, Moods, Themes and Similar Artists, as well as information about credits, album covers, sound clips, music videos and a ton of other good stuff. Providing your product to TiVo is the best way to get your information on AllMusic."
• "You can mail TiVo one copy of the product along with any relevant promotional materials, such as artist bios and press releases, and email a single message containing artist and release images (in JPEG format and at least 300 pixels wide) and other promotional materials using the addresses below.TiVo adds products and other materials to their databases at their discretion. By submitting products and other materials to TiVo, you acknowledge and agree that those products and materials will not be returned to you, will become the property of TiVo upon receipt and may be used by TiVo at its discretion."

It should be easy to see how Allmusic can be used to bolster notability.

In my view a wider discussion needs to be had about use of compromised music sources. The nature of the music industry, with branding, marketing, social media influencing etc., means that there's less 'real' music journalism than ever, coverage has more to do with the size of an act's publicity budget than anything else. Note, Vice, for example, break down how their content is created:

• "Created In Partnership With" is used to describe VMG content that has been co-created with an advertiser and produced in conjunction with VICE’s editorial department. Advertisers may be involved in creating this content by placing their products into the content, collaborating on topics & themes before the content is produced or in select other ways.
• "Presented by" is used to describe editorially independent VMG content that is supported by a client’s advertising spend and produced by VMG’s editorial department.
• “Supported by ” is used to describe editorially independent VICE News content that is supported by a client’s advertising spend and produced by VICE News editorial department.
• “From our advertiser” or “advertisement” is used to describe content that is created and controlled by an advertising partner.

At least they make it clear how content is commissioned. Editors working on music articles should not be inadvertently operating as publicists for record labels and their artists, but many are doing just this. Another example, Fader, is arguably not an independent source it's part of Cornerstone Media, a marketing/advertising agency, they make money pushing product. For the past 18 years, it’s been an open secret that Fader magazine and creative agency Cornerstone have been operating under the same ownership. Guideline states: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)".

There are many such examples of webzines that are fronts for marketing agencies, and editors are using such content as if the information is coming from reliable sources, it's not, it's mostly press copy. We really need to be more aware of this marketing agency/music journalism nexus when sourcing music related content on Wikipedia. Acousmana (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Acousmana: you are right that many online music publications now just print whatever the marketing departments of record labels tell them too. Sadly this extends to publications that were previously considered totally reliable... it's obvious that the likes of Billboard and Rolling Stone are also full of "watch the latest video from XXXX below" and uploaded by the artist's record label or management, so not even these are exempt from the wider discussion you rightly suggest. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120:agree, yes, this kind of promotional strategy existed before the internet, artist interviews on the back of new releases etc., pitched by label music PR departments, and the perks that were offered, like the journalistic equivalent of payola to some extent. Ultimately it's all about advertising and cross promotion now, that's why these agencies are scooping up these "hip" webzines, or creating their own, broadening their reach, so they can demonstrate niche market competency to their corporate clients. Acousmana (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would rate AllMusic thusly:

• For reviews of albums and songs and artists, especially of older entries, many Allmusic reviews are tagged with a by-line from a notable music critic. Insofar as the review is written by such a notable critic, it seems that it would be fine for attributed reviews and quotes.
• For things like album credits and track listings, I don't believe that data is unreliable. It is not user submitted, and appears (especially for older entries) to be correct and stable; if the data provider is themselves getting it from the artists and/or labels, I would consider the artists/labels themselves to be reliable for who appeared on the album/song (equivalent to the liner notes from physical media).
• For the purpose of notability I would consider them not sufficient. Given that the data is likely provided directly from the artist/label themselves, as a primary source, while it is reliable in the sense that it is trustworthy, it does not establish notability in that an AllMusic entry is, in itself, insufficient in that they are not a fully independent source. You would still need to find independent coverage of the song, album, or artist in another reliable source.

That's my proposal on how to write this up. They information is trustworthy, but lacks independence enough to consider it sufficient for notability purposes. --Jayron32 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Great analysis. I agree 100%. I guess that's why they pay you^{[Citation Needed]} the big bucks. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Given that the data is likely provided directly from the artist/label themselves, as a primary source, while it is reliable in the sense that it is trustworthy..." - curious, why is it assumed to be trustworthy? It's an industry riddled with hype and hyperbole! Acousmana (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If the liner notes on an album say that John Doe played saxophone for track 3, why should I doubt that? If the album jacket says that the title of Track 3 is "Random Song Title", why should I doubt that? What evidence do you have that AllMusic's information to be less reliable than that? Do you really think that AllMusic is unreliable in reporting the names of tracks or the artists that played whatever instrument on them? That's not the kind of information that is subject to hyperbole.--Jayron32 18:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

true, basic info like that that isn't the issue, stuff like, "so and so is the most influential/groundbreaking/genre defining/innovative etc. album, in the history of influential/groundbreaking/genre defining/innovative etc. albums," or other such claims, that editors lift verbatim, with nobody raising an eyebrow, well, that's a different story! Acousmana (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• From my experience, I'd rate staff album reviews as generally fine although some weight should be based on who wrote the review. Take bios with a grain of salt, and the track listing and such is generally fine. There's some user-generated stuff that's from my experience fairly clearly identified as such, and of course the WP:UGC content should be avoided. I'm also going to leave a neutral message pointing to this discussion at WT:FAC, because the reliability of AllMusic has come up as a discussion point in multiple FACs lately. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am pleased to read this discussion since most of what comes my way on New Page Patrol is music related. Turkish rappers, Greek songsters, J-Pop, K-pop, and albums / songs created and sung 20 or more years ago. From my experience, Jayron32 is talking sense with regard to track listings and titles. They get repeated ad-nauseum on articles. I don't take AllMusic by itself as sufficiently notable. Notability comes from 3 or 4 or more interviews, articles, reviews, like this. Then you can have lists, some discography, some track listing. Acousmana is definitely on the right track with regard to marketing agency/music journalism nexus where what you read as a (reference) on some articles is the same press release on five different sites. Same heading, same pictures. This comment is reasonable to me, its a strategy that I use a lot: in that an AllMusic entry is, in itself, insufficient in that they are not a fully independent source. You would still need to find independent coverage of the song, album, or artist in another reliable source.(--Jayron32) --Whiteguru (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be better to simply relax the rules and allow primary sources for discographies and track listings rather than use an unreliable secondary source that usually gets those things right because they copy the primary sources? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

what rule prevents using Primary Sources for such lists? If the content of a book or movie is appropriate for a plot summary / character list etc (per WP:PRIMARY) what are we doing differently for music? Koncorde (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No actual rule, just a de facto practice. WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Certainly discographies and track listings are descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I would say more so that plot descriptions. Let me see if I can get a change to the example to stick. See [207]. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, we say that AllMusic is considered generally reliable for its prose reviews, genre articles and biography prose. The sidebar genres are not reliable; in one such case AllMusic says in the sidebar that an album is reggae, while the prose review says "no reggae in sight". I would also caution against sidebar biographical facts such as birth name or birth date, having seen multiple errors in this department. If there's an AllMusic prose review of the album, written by staff or a music critic, I should think that would add to notability. But a stub page listing of the album with no prose review cannot aide in establishing notability. I agree with Guy Macon that the primary source can and should be used for tracklist and personnel credits; I have been doing exactly that for years, using Template:Cite AV media.

Is AllMusic overused? I don't think we have a problem with that on Wikipedia. It's used a lot because it's available, and it's pretty solid for its prose reviews. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

really all depends who wrote the prose and what the subject is, to assume that Allmusic is - across the board - an authoritative source, is a bad idea, lots of bad/inaccurate/hyperbolic writing on there too, which editors use uncritically, or lazily, rather than looking at available secondary sources. Acousmana (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Im heavily involved in the music subject area. Our current set up seems about right - the prose is generally reliable, while their equivalent userboxes are not. If someone has an issue with how heavily it's used...so be it. It is used awfully heavily. But that's simply because it's so prolific. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable there is a lot of supposition here and no evidence of unreliability in terms of the biographies and album reviews which are both in fact often written by well respected music journalists and have a byline so are obviously secondary sources not primary sources. That they accept submissions is entirely in keeping with most reliable sources even the NYT and LA Times accept submissions and AllMusic clearly states that entries will be written at the discretion of the editors and not subject to payment or user-generated. No evidence has been provided that the bios are unreliable and criticism of the style of writing is subjective. It is of course inconvenient to editors seeking deletion results to have a readily available and extensive reliable source such as AllMusic but there have been no valid arguments here for questioning it's reliability in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not this again. The prose is reliable, don't use the sidebars, and track list and credits are useful as primary sources used case-by-case depending on how complete/accurate they are (I usually pair them with something like Tidal and Spotify).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• The reviews and biographies written/edited/overseen by staff are reliable--these are the only things I use AllMusic for. Caro7200 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for reviews. Several regular AllMusic contributors are well-known music writers and critics, such as Richie Unterberger, Cub Koda, Jim O'Neal, Scott Yanow, Ron Wynn, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Bill Dahl, et al. However, the details in its sidebars (dates, etc.) are often incorrect as well as composers and track durations, which apparently come from various sources. As noted by others, this type of info is better sourced directly from the actual release using {{Cite AV media notes}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for reviews. As noted above, Allmusic has an editorial team made up of notable and reliable critics. The sidebar (or inofox) should never be relied upon for genres etc as this is often arbitrary. Composers and tracklengths are not always right as this information can be user submitted. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think it's generally reliable for reviews and biographies, but I have on occasion noticed mistakes. For example, the information in this review was not fact-checked: https://www.allmusic.com/album/even-more-dazed-confused-mw0000626539 It's not true that only a couple of the songs on Even More Dazed and Confused were used in the film—they all were, and they all appear in the film's ending credits. As others have pointed out, I agree the musician credits listings are sometimes less reliable. Moisejp (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for staff reviews as mentioned by a number of people above; there are some very well regarded critics working for them. Just don't use the infoboxes, as they're user-submitted and quite often contain complete nonsense as well as being out of date; I looked at one recently which contained at least four factual errors including two that had never been true. Black Kite (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ah, AllMusic. Such a problematic relationship with wikipedia. I find content is largely reliable in that both staff and freelancer contributions are vetted and overseen by professionals to a degree that should satisfy reliable source criteria. Yet in context of determining notability, the existence of an Allmusic bio, or album review, merely by itself is, IMO, insufficient to establish notability of an article. A performer or recording can fail every other necessary notability criteria, e.g. no reliable source press, recognition, quantifiable measure of success (sales or chart performance), no-notable label recordings, etc. and still have an AllMusic entry simply because editorial staff accepts and "publishes" an entry. In other words, AllMusic compiles some entries based on mere existence (a classic WP no-no, per WP:EXISTS) at the pleasure of editorial staff, rather than actual real word notability. These are in the minority, I suspect, but enough exist that it makes a blanket proclamation for AllMusic difficult. Sadly, some times I'll see in music AfD discussions a comment such as "subject has an AllMusic bio so therefore is a keep." I think this is lazy; AllMusic should be counted as just one qualifying criteria, just like any other source. But never the end-all factor in determining notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• The various music projects have determined that its reviews and staff ratings are reliable for details about the work. The album credits, including release dates and personell are usually reliable. The "genre cloud" is not reliable. The user reviews and ratings should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ah, here we are again, again. Agree with Walter G. above, fully. It's occasionally wrong, like any publication; we evaluate on a case by case basis when needed. I generally find that the presence of an AMG bio is a leading indicator of extant content elsewhere; if there were nothing else about a band other than an AMG bio, I'd look askance, but it's as reasonable as any major music rag for sourcing. Insufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:MUSIC bullet 1, but can contribute in concert with other publications, and the content within is reliable enough to establish WP:V for other bullets of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian and Gay News

Is Lesbian and Gay News a generally reliable source?

This is a new publication that seems (almost entirely but not quite) devoted to trans issues. It is affiliated with the LGB Alliance, a trans-exclusionary activist organization. On every page, it has a banner saying, "Reject the gender alphabet. It's as easy as LGB. LGB Alliance", and LGB Alliance has this tweet. Its reports have several issues. They report as fact, for instance, the notion that "Transgenderism, transing LGB youth, is just the latest form of homophobia" and that "Mainstream LGBT advocacy groups have adopted the authoritarian stance of the left" and "in 2021 homophobic ‘microagressions’ are regarded as on a par with the gay-bashing of decades past". These are not filed under 'Opinion', which the publication also has a section for, so this raises questions about what it reports as factual.

This question is prompted by it being mentioned as "far more reliable" than Pink News at Talk:Equality Act (United States)#Undue weight. I am unfamiliar with RfCs but if someone wishes to have one, that is fine. Urve (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We evaluate so many sources that we usually don't create RfCs except when there is a lot of disagreement. For most sources, a discussion like this is fine, and gets referenced in the archives when the next person asks about the source. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting me know the procedures—all foreign to me. Urve (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable. This is an anti-transgender hate site. See [208] and [209]. And they appear to be letting that agenda spill over into factual claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable they appear to be unable (or possibly unwilling) to distinguish opinion from fact. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral regarding deprecating as suggested below. I have no arguments against it but I'm not familiar enough with deprecation of sources to know whether it is the sort of thing we do for sources that are not widely used (and I sincerely hope this never becomes widely used). Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It is uncommon for non-notable sources to be deprecated, if they are sparsely used. If a non-notable website is repeatedly inserted onto Wikipedia pages by multiple editors in an inappropriate way, the website is much more likely to end up on the spam blacklist, instead. — Newslinger talk 23:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for citing attributed opinions, but not for unattributed statements of fact - whether the opinions are WP:DUE or not is a separate issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• It's brand new and clearly agenda driven, apparently being closely tied to the LGB Alliance. The stories labelled as "reports" contain just as much opinion as the opinion pieces. Not a reliable source. Fences&Windows 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• More reliable than PinkNews is not a high bar. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • From WP:RSP: "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." Fences&Windows 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I have found PinkNews to be generally reliable on purely factual claims, biased in opinions (as one would expect) and completely and utterly unreliable on the subject of whether a particular person is LGBTQ+ or whether a particular person is homophobic -- especially historic figures. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Possibly too early to tell? They clearly have an agenda, but there are many RS that do. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not reliable per Guy and Thryduulf. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable per Guy and Thryduulf. Mouth piece of the LGB Alliance, a trans-exclusionary activist organization. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Plus it has zero reputation for journalism and fact-checking. And to second User_talk:Black Kite we would never accept a openly bigoted racist site as a reliable news source, so I too personally believe we ought not use a transphobic one. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable This appears to be a publication purposefully made for biased statements and not actual news reporting of any form. So even worse than sources like Breitbart or the Daily Mail and we already limit those as it is. Honestly, even if it's new, I feel like immediately deprecating this source would save further discussion time in the future. Silverseren^C 19:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Completely unreliable and should be deprecated. We wouldn't use a racist site, I see no reason why we'd use a transphobic one. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable, should be deprecated: mouthpiece of a hate group, clear fake news. Sceptre (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, on the grounds that they are apparently willing to say anything that pops into their heads. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reiable. The fact that it represents a LGB viewpoint minus the T should not disqualify it in any way. Condemning something as “transphobic” because it places emphasis on LGB news and specific concerns of LGB people rather than it being “trans-centred” is a bridge too far for me. It’s not hateful, and it’s not fake. Trans concerns are legitimate, and are freely expressed. The concerns of LGB people deserve the same consideration, and Pink News should not be the only purveyor of that. My two cents. The Queen of Cups V (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Queen of Cups V (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • There are plenty of well known and reliable LGBT publications beyond just Pink News, such as The Advocate, Out, and Queerty. And all of those sources have a reputation for journalism and fact-checking. This new source from LGB Alliance does not and, from all appearances, has no interest in actual journalism, as even their claimed regular articles are just blatant opinion pieces. Silverseren^C 00:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. From a reliability standpoint, the main problem one of the problems with Lesbian and Gay News is that it lacks a track record, and discloses little information about its staff and operations. According to its About Us page, it is operated by "BM Payments Services Ltd", an unknown quantity. Sources are considered reliable when they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and Lesbian and Gay News does not clear that bar. — Newslinger talk 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Edited. — Newslinger talk 04:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  The About Us page indicates "accounts@boyz.co.uk" as the "Accounts" contact, so Lesbian and Gay News may be related to Boyz (magazine) in some way. However, the Boyz website does not mention anything that would connect it to Lesbian and Gay News, and this email disclosure is too opaque to draw any conclusions. — Newslinger talk 00:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that Boyz got into controversy back in November after their twitter account retweeted the LGB alliance [210], which in combination with the email address does indeed suggest that there is some kind of connection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. It's by Boyz's David Bridle. See eg his bio here and their fundraising. Although I don't think it particularly matters for this purpose. Urve (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • From a reliability standpoint, the bigger problem is that it's not really a news site - it acts as a mouthpiece for an advocacy group. If you look at the "Reports" section, nearly every single one mentions trans issues, which is really quite odd for a group which has banners declaring it to be "LGB" (no T). First one - "In practice, this prioritises an individual’s self-declared gender identity above the reality of biological sex". Second one - subject objected to "the tension between her own “gender critical” views and Stonewall’s embrace of a “gender identity” position.". Third one - "in practice many such groups have become hostile and judgemental environments where only those with ... the “right” views about gender identity are accepted." Fourth one is about its own legal battles challenging the use of puberty blockers for trans children. Fifth one - "Meanwhile schools adopt aggressive anti-bullying policies to push through trans inclusion under the guise of gender diversity,". Sixth one - well, what can you say?. This is a activist site with an obvious agenda masquerading as news. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Adjusted from "the main problem" to "one of the problems". — Newslinger talk 01:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable This website is relatively new, and centers lesbians and gay men, as the LGB Alliance centers lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. This website has the right to center who it wants to center, just as trans websites and organizations center trans people. This centering does not constitute that this website is a 'hate-page'. Having a certain contact email address does not mean this website is not reliable. Saying it is 'anti-trans' and thus unreliable is simply disingenuous. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If that was the case, then the focus of the articles on said website would be on lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, but they aren't. Almost all of the articles are on anti-trans topics, clearly showing that it is a publication by a hate group. As noted by Black Kite above. Silverseren^C 02:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Quite. If I set up a website claiming to be aimed at men, yet all of its "news" was negative stories about women, it would be criticised as misogynist, and quite rightly so. Black Kite (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hate-speech, or simply being critical of some aspects of how the role of gender in the trans community affects their lives as same-sex attracted people? Unless this publication has stated that trans people as people are inherently bad, sinful, criminal, etc - it's not hate-speech towards them. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC) The website focuses on issues that are important to lesbians and gay men. If you aren't a part of that demographic, you are going to look at those articles/viewpoints very differently. It may even make you uncomfortable, but those are their issues, and they have the right to talk about them. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are you under the impression that the main issues that are important to lesbians and gay men involve opposition to trans rights and to gender identity? Because that isn't at all true where I live, and I'd be surprised if it were true anywhere. Newimpartial (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'm looking at the articles on the front page. One is a summary of all gay stories around the world. Four are film reviews (two films about gay men and two about lesbians - none trans), one is a theatre review of a play about the AIDS epidemic and one is a profile of a lesbian playwright. One is an interview with a gay writer about his autobiography, Living and Loving in the age of AIDS and one is an interview with a lesbian writer about her autobiography, Trigger Warning.

  Topics covered in the rest are: being a black minority woman in the lesbian community, the UK census not offering separate categories for "gay" and "lesbian", commentary by a transwoman about the Gender Recognition Act, a lament about the loss of lesbian bars, facial feminization surgery, cancel culture and social media, whether or not the word "queer" is still an insult, a talk with the lesbian protestors from the 2018 Pride parade, a profile of a female MP who has been criticised for arguing for single-sex spaces, drag queens' place in the community, a detransitioner (Keira Bell) calling for more mental health support for dysphoria, legal commentary on the appeal of Bell's lawsuit against the Tavistock Centre, a gay male actor arguing that women's rights activists are unfairly branded "hate groups" and abused, an update on the case of a black lesbian lawyer suing her chambers and Stonewall for discrimination, a profile of a lesbian activist and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, and two articles that suggest some same-sex attracted kids are identifying as trans to fit in better.

  Definitely, there is content that takes the gender critical POV. But there is more content that is about the lives of gays and lesbians, films, books and theatre about gays and lesbians, etc. I don't think anyone can fairly say this publication is "mostly" about trans people, and it certainly isn't hate speech. There is nothing portraying trans people as bad or predatory. Everyone has the right to disagree with gender critical viewpoints, but they should not be disallowed as sources any more than the opposite viewpoint should be. Fair representation includes both sides of a controversial debate. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, as Thryduulf says. Unlike Blueboar, I don't see any reason to trust them even for attributed opinions: WP:BIASEDSOURCEs are (as that page notes) not inherently unreliable, but when biased sources have no track record of factual reporting, we have no basis on which to trust they're reporting opinions correctly rather than skewing them to support their POV. (Unless one means LAGN's own attributed opinion, in which case... under what circumstances would Wikipedia be citing hate groups? "Wikipedia should cite hate groups more," Breitbart said. "We are being silenced," Stormfront stated. "Cancelled, even," said LAGN.) -sche (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Opinions are just that, opinions. Everyone has the right to have one. By biased, do you mean centering lesbians and gay men? The website centers lesbians and gay men, and the news and opinion pieces are through lesbians' and gay men's lenses. I don't get the point of penalizing a website because its POV isn't to your liking. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Are you under the impression that the main news and opinion pieces relevant to lesbians and gay men are about opposition to gender identity and to trans rights? Because that seems to be the only thing they cover. Newimpartial (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not RS Bias doesn't inherently make them reliable or not nor should being transexclusionary (nor does it suggest they are representative of a given group's POV). My concern would be this appears to be a very new source with no track record. Thus we don't know if they get the facts right and we can assume, at this point in time, no one is referencing their work for either statements of opinion or fact. Thus we shouldn't either. The source may evolve over time but that needs to be seen first. Even if their POV was uncontroversial the question of track record would stil be a concern since we need weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Where did this website say it was anti-trans rights? Did it say it was against equal educational opportunities, equal employment opportunities, equal housing opportunities, the right to organize, the right to camaraderie, the right to representation, the right to vote...? If it didn't say that, then you can't say it is against trans-rights. If it takes the stance that it is against gender identity, it has the right to do so. That also doesn't equal anti-trans. The website does not center trans people, and it isn't supposed to. It is for gay men and lesbians. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  If it doesn't cater to trans people, why are nearly all of it's articles about trans people and/or their rights? Not that their POV is related to their reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Rad Fem Ish says, If it (the site) takes the stance that it is against gender identity, it has the right to do so. That also doesn't equal anti-trans. The website does not center trans people, and it isn't supposed to. - I would make the argument that by presenting gender identity as the major threat facing gay and lesbian people, the site is precisely "centering" trans people - as a key existential threat, and "othering" them at the same time. The idea that the standing of (non-trans) gay and lesbian people is threatened, for example, by the availability of and desire for facial feminization surgery is a rather unique "take" on gay and lesbian experience. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable: The site is young but I checked out a few articles where I had previous knowledge and they had basic facts right, with a clear distinction between opinion and fact. That may change over time but those I looked at were in keeping with what I have seen in other WP:RS such as Newsweek or The Guardian. Certainly WP:RSOPINION so far, so WP:AGF and watch for issues later. Rorybowman (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rorybowman (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  WP:AGF is a policy that applies to Wikipedia editors, not external publications. The reliable sources guideline demands sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and a new source with no track record – such as Lesbian and Gay News – does not meet that requirement. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable I don't think this conversation should have been opened for a few months, tbh, so that we could have seen LGB's track record better before making determinations (and I have to say that it's unlikely to be even considered fairly with a write-up like this one). But since it has been, I have read through almost everything on the site and find it very reliable for factual statements. It covers topics in the lives of gays and lesbians that are given little to no coverage elsewhere, like being a racial minority in the lesbian community. It's well-written and avoids sensationalism. I've seen comments claiming that it covers "mostly anti-trans" topics but this is certainly false. The majority of articles aren't about trans people at all. There is a gender critical viewpoint that certainly many editors strongly disagree with, but this should not disqualify it in any way from being considered a reliable source. The views are presented from the POV of women's and lesbian's rights and don't depict trans people as bad or predatory. It's a reliable source as far as I can see and shouldn't be discounted due to personal disagreements with its views. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it factual that "Transgenderism, transing LGB youth, is just the latest form of homophobia"? Urve (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Urve, you represented that very dishonestly in the into to this discussion - that is a direct quote, attributed to someone and in quotation marks. You claimed "They report as fact, for instance, the notion that..." and do not mention that they are quoting someone in the article and make it clear those are the subject's words and not represented as fact or as the voice of the publication. That's a huge difference and I'm sorry, you should not have biased the intro so heavily. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA. It is attributed, but it is also reported as fact that the comment is made "astutely". Synonyms include intelligently, correctly, wisely. Is it factual? Urve (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Opinions can be astute (and are frequently described as such). It is an opinion that is correctly attributed to the person giving it and which you falsely represented as being presented in the voice of the publication as fact. You have every right to disagree with that person's opinion, but not to misrepresent it as the publication's own voice. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • It is reported as fact that the speaker "accurately assess[ed the] situations or people; perceptively" when they said that transgenderism is homophobia. Is that factual? Urve (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
            • Urve, it does not say that at all and you need to stop making false claims to bias a discussion. Likewise, please stop haranguing me over and over with a question I have already answered, because I disagree with you. I understand this is a very contentious topic and feelings run very high, but this is not conducive to mutual discussion or debate. Thank you.Lilipo25 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
              • A quoted definition is not false. As you wish, though my question was never answered. Urve (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Those reports are about how gender identity and some aspects of trans activism are affecting THEM as GAY MEN and LESBIANS. Gender identity and trans activism affects them in a big way, unbeknownst to other demographics of people. Lesbians and gay men have a right to talk about it and define it in their own way. Also there are other sections on the site such as books, films, theatre, and interviews. Rorybowman mentioned the sources, so no need to go back over that. It's a new website, and again, penalizing it because that POV runs counter to yours or another group's is petty. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• reliable This website contains a number of articles, both opinion and factual, that are of relevance to people who are lesbian and gay. It has a range of contributors and viewpoints. It is a new website but the articles I checked were factually correct. As @lilipo25 states, the website is a gender critical viewpoint that some editors disagree with. Of course, this should not disqualify the site from being considered a reliable source. Reliability should be the sole factor in assessing the site. The articles I read and checked were factual and reliable. MandyMB (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MandyMB (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• reliable I am bemused by the reactions here. I have followed Pink News for some time and am surprised PN is considered a reliable source, It seems mainly filled with hit pieces and unresearched articles. I have read most articles in Lesbian and Gay News and am pleasantly surprised by the quality of journalism and the balanced reporting, seeing it is a publication with a gender-critical stance. I'm sure many will disagree with its editorial policy, but that is no reason to reject it as a source. MCleaver (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mcleaver (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Note: User's first edit for two years. A definite sign of off-wiki canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Anyone else noticing a bunch of SPAs showing up to this discussion, particularly ones with account creations within the past two weeks? And they seem to all have a particular stance on the topic. Just an interesting observation. Silverseren^C 06:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, my thoughts exactly. Urve (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Definitely something fishy going on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    The PinkNews (RSP entry) RfC in July 2020 (which is in the same topic area) was subject to off-wiki canvassing, as documented in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305 § Off-site canvassing – see the Wayback Machine archive links of the tweets by @feministbirther and @lil_p12345 at the bottom. I've added the "not a vote" banner to this discussion as well. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Judging by the SPA's activity, it seems likely that the initial canvassing was to the Equality Act (United States) article, and this is a spillover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    I've tried searching the internet for the canvassing and have found nothing. Some of the accounts have legitimate histories so it is very unlikely that they are all sockpuppets. I suspect that the canvassing may be happening in private communication channels like discord. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swagsevo.This is closed, please do not edit it - the case has been passed to ArbCom instead. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is so wrong. I have done nothing wrong, and instead of waiting for the SPI to be done to show that, you post a link for anyone who disagrees with my views to pile on there with more accusations and make me look guilty before the investigation can even be done. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for news, reliable for stating (POV) opinion, in the same way as we'd treat far-right US news sources as being reliable only for confirming the opinions of people quoted there. Though I'd hope that generally there'd be better sources than a "news" site set up with a hate group. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Biased sources are fine, but this is a single-issue publication in a highly controversial space of political discourse, and I don't see how citing it would improve Wikipedia.--JBchrch (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not Reliable No reputation of fact-checking, fringe position on matters of sexual identity, and prone to propaganda. I would compare it to the Völkischer Beobachter, as they are little more than mouthpieces of political organizations. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable in lieu of someone describing its fact-checking process. Most of the comments above are about people agreeing or disagreeing with the website's opinion. Whether its opinion biases its factual content to the point of unreliability is a question to ask after working out what the corrections processes are, whether the writers are professionals and what fact-checking protocols there are. I see one of their journalists, Jo Bartosch, has written for some reliable publications and some less reliable publications. Unclear so far. I can't find much out about other journalists from random spotchecks. And I can't find anything out about their editorial process (their "About" pages seem distinctly like those of websites I generally categorise as "assumed unreliable" when writing articles or conducting quality reviews). So unreliable until someone can provide evidence of known-to-be-reliable sources citing the website and describing what their fact-checking processes are and giving a more compelling case of their journalists' credentials. — Bilorv (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is reliable for the opinion of the contributors but unreliable for now in terms of factual coverage. I tend to agree with Bilorv, I see no evidence of fact checking because the publication is so new. Classification as a "hate group" seems entirely unwarranted, although I can understand why many transpeople and advocates of the same take great exception the position it takes. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand, the source in question is the publication of an organization that has been fairly characterized as a hate group (again, these guys are extremely open and clear about who they hate and why) but the source is not itself contended to be a hate group. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  While not necessarily agreeing with them, I don't personally consider the LGBA to be a hate group, they don't seem to tick any of the boxes. I am aware that some people consider them to be, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don’t personally consider them to be one either, but it is a fair characterization which appears to be supported by WP:RS (not just transpeople and advocates of the same). Wikipedia doesn’t designate hate groups, that isn’t part of our process and the term as used by the posters here does not appear to be factually inaccurate or have much bearing on reliability concerns. For example Falun Gong’s Epoch Times is clearly deprecatable regardless of whether an editor considers FG to be a cult or religion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I know some campaigners and politicians describe them as such. That allows us to quote the campaigners not to say they are a hate group in wikivoice, therefore nor should we automatically exclude this website as such due to its connections to them. Neutral academic sources use the term "trans-exclusionary" that is absolutely fair comment.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Too new to say anything. There were only launched a week ago ("We only launched on Friday but we have been overwhelmed..."), and spell out their viewpoint. It is simply too early.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Treat it the same as all the other in-house publications of fringe organizations. If we don’t use scientific racists, young earthers, or climate change loonies, why would we give a platform to TERFs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be blacklisted ASAP.Moxy- 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• This RfC is premature. There's no way at this point in time that this source can be deemed either reliable or not reliable because it's too soon for anyone to have an opinion based on its publication history. The creation of this news site was announced in February 2021; the announcement was made by the founder, David Briddle: "Read our announcement here on why we're launching Lesbian and Gay News: "Most UK and US lesbian and gay news outlets now embrace an all-encompassing umbrella belief in LGBTQIA+ as the only perspective through which they are prepared to report the world."" – February 3, 2021, Twitter. As seen in the above-noted "We only launched...." link, it was officially launched on Friday, February 26. It has published a mix of articles, such as "A teacher writes on why we must include lesbian and gay history in our schools", "Living and Loving in the Age of AIDS by Derek Frost: this poignant and informative autobiography records a devastating era for gay men", "Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love, 1850s-1950s", "Out and proud lesbian writer, performer and activist Rose Collis: The show must go on". This RfC needs to be shelved. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure how time is supposed to change the clear unreliability of the "news" source. Also, you really had to go out of your way to cherrypick those articles. The featured article on the top of their website right now is Dysphoric – Fleeing Womanhood Like a House on Fire: An interview with documentary film-maker Vaishnavi Sundar, which is promoting an anti-trans film. And let's look at the first one you listed. The teacher one includes the factually incorrect line "Gay and lesbian historical inaccuracies run rampant, from claiming the Stonewall Riots were started by Marsha P Johnson, to suggesting that any woman in trousers was actually ‘trans’." And the rest are reviews you have to go down the page a bit to find, past the myriad of other anti-trans articles. Silverseren^C 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    Don't focus on me. Focus on the fact that Lesbian and Gay News has no track record. Whatever the initial variety of articles may be, the publication is still too new for anyone to have an opinion about its journalistic quality. There are many publications that I, personally, may not like but that doesn't mean they aren't a legitimate source for use in Wikipedia articles. Time will tell with this one. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    The lack of a track record of fact checking actually makes it unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes, regardless of the accuracy of it's content. However, in this case spot checks of the articles that it has published to date show that all of them contain either clear and blatant factual inaccuracies, nothing but opinion, and/or an undifferentiated mix of fact and opinion. All three of these would disqualify an established source from being regarded as reliable (with the possible exception that some its opinion's might be DUE, but that cannot be the case for a source with no reputation). This is all completely independent of what its opinions are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    If an author with an established reputation pens an opinion piece in the Lesbian and Gay News ... that opinion is as legitimate for citing as an opinion published in a different publication considered controversial but still used as a source. Too many responses to this RfC display an obvious lack of objectivity. Just because someone doesn't like some of the contents of a publication does not render that publication unacceptable for an encyclopedic project. But, believe when I say, do not waste your time responding to me as it will not make a difference in my opinion regarding this RfC -- which is that at this time it is jumping the gun. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

    If the author is a subject matter expert and their opinions are WP:DUE then we could cite LAGN for the attributed opinions, however it is always preferable to cite such opinions from reliable sources per WP:RSOPINION. Opinions reported only in an unreliable and/or very small publication are very unlikely to be DUE as they are unlikely to be representative of the views of whatever wider group they claim to represent. See also Aquillion's comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable, not even for opinion; effectively just a personal website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. I would avoid even using it for opinion, since how can we know that it even accurately represents the opinions of anti-trans activists? Taking what could be a handful of random cranks on the internet and presenting it as representative of a movement or a broad swath of opinion isn't the appropriate way to cover opinions, let alone facts; there should be plenty of higher-quality sources that can be used for comparable opinions if we require them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  That’s not how citing opinions works. Even “Mein Kampf” is reliable for stating the opinions of its author. Granted, there are very limited situations in which it would be appropriate to mention that particular author’s opinion... but IN those limited situations it is reliable. That will be true here as well. The limit when discussing opinion is a function of DUE/UNDUE weight, not reliability. ANY source is a reliable primary source for itself. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  That is untrue; you are thinking of WP:RSSELF or WP:ABOUTSELF citations, which are different than citing something via WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSSELF requires that the person being cited be a subject-matter expert in the area their opinion is being cited for, even when cited solely for opinion, while WP:ABOUTSELF generally restricts them to articles about themselves and their activities; it does not allow them to be arbitrarily cited for their opinions in other articles. WP:RSOPINION is much more restrictive: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Note the some and the extremely restrictive nature of the prime example. While WP:RSOPINION sometimes allows a slightly more relaxed standard than that provided the source is broadly reliable, it is absolutely not a blank check - you could not, for example, cite a Reddit post via WP:RSOPINION, even if the identity of the poster was unequivocally established; it would have to pass the much stricter requirements of WP:RSSELF. Otherwise absolutely any source could be used with in-line attribution, which is simply not true - it isn't a matter of WP:DUE; even when using an in-line citation and therefore presenting it as an opinion, WP:RS still applies. WP:RSOPINION imposes additional requirements when citing things from a RS that are presented as opinion; it does not allow people to cite opinions to completely unreliable sources - it (or at least the venue where it is published) must still, broadly, meet the requirements of fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS imposes. "Mein Kampf" is citable because it was published by a reputable publisher, not because WP:RSOPINION allows us to cite opinions to whatever we please - if, hypothetically, Hitler had a Reddit account or a website comparable to this one, we couldn't cite it for opinions outside of the very narrow allowances of WP:RSSELF / WP:ABOUTSELF. Under limited circumstances we could use such a website to cite what the author believes in articles about them (and nowhere else), but such a source absolutely, positively cannot be used to imply eg. "this is what people with this opinion believe in general" in a broad article about that topic - generally speaking, only opinions published in sources that pass WP:RS, or things by subject-matter experts, can be used in that fashion. That is the meaning of WP:RSOPINION saying some rather than all; we must still have quality sources even for opinions. Otherwise (among other dangers), citing an opinion to a source that fails WP:RS could result in eg. a random crank's opinion getting presented as if they represent people who they don't. --Aquillion (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Too new, and anti-trans sites are really just reliable for their own opinions, not factual reporting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bellingcat

Bellingcat became an RS in September 2019 and I believe this is an inconsistent application of Wikipedia source standards as compared to similar sources. Either Bellingcat should be downgraded or similar sites such as Buzzfeed should be upgraded to match for the following reasons:

• Outlet is not "well-established" and this is a specific term is used as criteria for determining the reliability of News Organizations. Bellingcat has been in operation for less than 10 years and during that time, has gone through quite an arc of changes in their reporting methodology (more below). Not dissimilar to BuzzFeed, although BuzzFeed has been around for longer (since 2006) and is currently rated "no consensus." In fact, there are quite a few similarities between Bellingcat and BuzzFeed in that they both have roots purely online and they both followed an arc from "less reliable" to "more reliable." Which makes it strange that those arcs have ended in different source-status.

• Bellingcat in it's original state (the Brown Moses Blog) did not met RS criteria for obvious reasons. The next form it took (around 2014 and transitioning to the name Bellingcat) was a sort of platform for user-generated content. In fact, the kickstarter campaign behind the 2014 transition has this promise: "We don’t need to exclusively rely on traditional news media to do the digging and reporting for us. We - you - can do it on our own." So this explicitly separates Bellingcat from the "traditional news media." That, plus the self-publishing concerns, made it still run afoul of sourcing criteria. This was the consensus at the time as reflected on the Noticeboard. In September 2019, this status was changed, despite the lack of any specific impetus to do it. Bellingcat did not dramatically restructure it's operations prior to this change in status to RS, in fact quite the opposite. Bellingcat is supremely passionate about it's "citizen journalist" roots, even conducting trainings for non-journalists on how to perform online investigations. The change in status to RS seems to be mainly a function of it being perceived as "right" or "first with the scoop" on major stories and this is reflected in the petition at the time. This puts the chicken before the egg. Compromised or unethical reporting methodology which results in a scoop or accurate story should not be encouraged. I can't help but wonder if the favorable dramatization of the organization in the 2018 film Bellingcat - Truth in a Post-Truth World impacted some who voted. Fawning media coverage and heartwarming documentary films should not cover up structural problems of a source.

• An outlet's self-published Editorial Standards is one way to gauge their dedication to good reporting. A visit to Bellingcat's website reveals a link labeled "Editorial Standards" but clicking on it takes the user to an unrelated PDF. Go ahead, try it. Thus they currently do not publish their Editorial Standards which, if not rectified promptly, should cause them to lose reliability standing on it's own.

• Bellingcat is biased in the investigations it prioritizes. Their 2019 annual report includes an "about" page where they state that "environmental degredation" and "the rise of far-right movements" are top investigative concerns. There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements" or extremism in general. The site also has an anti-Russia, pro-NATO bias, which has been a topic of discussion on this noticeboard before.

• Finally, recently published documents shows covert coordination between Bellingcat and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Specifically including an intervention in North Macedonia’s 2019 elections. I am not passing judgment on the authenticity of these documents but they deserve consideration in the mosaic of facts presented against Bellingcat's reliability.

• Bellingcat admits that it's different. Because it is different it's methodologies require extra scrutiny to make sure they meet the Wikipedia standard. And that standard needs to be applied fairly to all outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nweil (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A contributor to Sputnik criticizing Reuters?... François Robere (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Also been at Al Jazeera , and The New York Times amongst others. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Links? I checked both, as well as Google news search, and found neither. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
        • They both come up straight away when I search Google, [211][212] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh, you mean the author? I thought you meant the piece. AFAICT he only wrote one opinion piece for AJ in 2013 and one for NYT in 2014, so I remain unconvinced that he's enough of an RS to justifying treating these claims as something other than a WP:REDFLAG. François Robere (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Their editorial standards can be found here. I think you may want to clarify which Buzzfeed you mean, Buzzfeed.com or Buzzfeed News? Woodroar (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both reliable I think both Bellingcat and Buzzfeed News (Buzzfeed's journalism department in specific) should be considered reliable sources. Both have world-renowned investigative journalists involved in their news productions. Also, The Gray Zone is a conspiracy website akin to Infowars. Silverseren^C 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I see a lot of hot air but no fire. OP knows thats a link to The Grayzone right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been reported in an outlet besides Grayzone and Bellingcat has not denied it yet. Nweil (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What are the other outlets and are they considered reliable? Responding to claims from deprecated sources often gives the claims undue legitimacy so I'm not sure why you assume Bellingcat is obliged to respond. Have the BBC and Reuters responded either? CowHouse (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The Grayzone article is not just about Bellingcat, but also the BBC and Reuters. One outlet that has covered the story is The Canary (which is subject to an ongoing RfC determining its reliability). According to The Canary, the BBC said: The allegations contained in The Greyzone [sic] report are false and a complete misrepresentation of our work. CowHouse (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Use with caution, don't assume WEIGHT Bellingcat is not a widely cited or reviewed source. It doesn't have a long or solid reputation and thus we should be very careful when using it for statements of controversial facts (BLP in particular). It's also not clear that claims by Bellingcat can be considered DUE. Again, not a big deal if the claim isn't controversial but in cases where BC is the source for a controversial claim about a BLP subject we really need to ask, if this is DUE, why is BC the only source for the claim? Springee (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• A few points:

BuzzFeed News is considered generally reliable (RSP entry).

Here is the link to their Editorial Standards & Practices.

One of your sources, The Grayzone, has been deprecated. If we assessed the reliability of sources based on that Grayzone article, then the BBC and Reuters would also no longer be reliable.

Part of the reason Bellingcat is considered generally reliable is WP:USEBYOTHERS.

Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased (see WP:BIASED).

CowHouse (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Grayzone is deprecated because it is a anti-"US imperialsm" propaganda website that publishes disinformation. The false appeal to "far-left" movements is the same false balance that leads to conspiracy theories about antifa, the idea that far left and far right movements are equally bad, when in reality far right movements are far more dangerous and kill significantly more people. Most people who I've seen dismiss Bellingcat were doing so in the context of supporting the idea that Assad didn't use chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, which is mostly supported by Russian disinformation. That said, I don't think Bellingcat is unreliable, but it should be treated with caution for claims which it is the sole source, and these should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both reliable Not going to spend too long on this, but check out this Reuters article discussing Bellingcat. It is very charitable, though it includes some gentle warnings about some of Bellingcat's more unusual aspects such as crowd-sourcing and payment to informants. From our perspective, these don't matter, I think--they relate to the journalism behind Bellingcat, not Bellingcat's editorial process, which appears quite robust. Going back to Reuters, they fairly regularly cite from Bellingcat [213][214]. Jlevi (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The crowd sourcing and payment to informant stuff should be especially concerning for Wikipedia since this is is itself crowd sourced. There is no protocol in place to prevent a contributor (or paid informant) to Bellingcat to also contribute to Wikipedia on related pages. This situation would create conflict of interest issues. Should there be a protocol in place? Nweil (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? CowHouse (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both reliable - Bellingcat in particular has been widely praised by academics, journalists, a gold standard when other reliable sources consider it reliable. -- GreenC 04:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for news. My stance on Bellingcat from the 2019 RfC is unchanged. Using The Grayzone (RSP entry), a deprecated source, to criticize Bellingcat is an unconvincing argument. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• The New York Times has published at least two highly positive articles about Bellingcat: [215] [216]. Re: Buzzfeed News, given the large numbers of reporters they've sacked over recent years as part of greatly scaling back their news operation, I thought there had been a re-evaluation of this source's reliability? Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable: nothing to add to previous comments except that "fawning media coverage" is an argument for reliability not against, as it is an example of WP:USEBYOTHERS. If anything, Bellingcat's reliability is more clearly shown since the 2019 RfC as trust in it by other reliable sources has continued to increase. Its investigative reporting has continued to influence news agendas (pointing towards reporting by Bellingcat being generally DUE). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable: they've done some remarkable investigative journalism, particularly with the Skripal and Navalny poisonings Noteduck (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You do not address the point that the outlet has changed over time. At what point did it become reliable? And should items published by Bellingcat before a certain date be disregarded? Things published before the 2019 RfC? Nweil (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear whether your argument is that Bellingcat has or has not changed over time: Bellingcat has been in operation for less than 10 years and during that time, has gone through quite an arc of changes in their reporting methodology ... Bellingcat did not dramatically restructure it's operations prior to this change in status to RS, in fact quite the opposite. CowHouse (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wait and see the Canary also reported on it: [217] and there have been no denials from Bellingcat themselves. Possibly worth waiting until this gets better coverage in the media. Alaexis_¿question? 11:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that The Canary describes these hacked documents as "leaked" shows why few editors consider them reliable, but I don't see what is revealed in this story that would make us see Bellingcat as unreliable? There is no allegation here that Bellingcat have misreported anything, simply that they were partners with Reuters and the BBC in some anti-disinformation work. If anyone sees this as a reason to consider Bellingcat unreliable, they'd need to also argue that Reuters and the BBC are unreliable. The specific Bellingcat role in the consortium was training journalists in digital research skills. The fact its staff are seen as experts in such skills in facts confirms its reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it meant it is unreliable, I think we need to see what other reliable sources make of these leaks. Alaexis_¿question? 13:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Bellingcat has a stupid name, but they've been responsible for some very serious and oft-cited reporting. The alleged "propaganda" program doesn't seem like anything than what it states itself to be - a program to fight disinformation without compromising outlets' editorial integrity. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both reliable Bellingcat and Buzzfeed are both, at this point, well-established, I think. Both are generally accurate, though of course no one is above mistakes. Neither may be the absolute top-tier of reliable sources, but they're both RSes to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both reliable The criticisms of Bellingcat seem to be insinuation more than anything else, and while Buzzfeed News might suffer a dropoff in quality due to shrinking staff, we can't say that's happened until it's happened. XOR'easter (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both reliable per above. This post was OP's ninth-ever edit, and betrays some misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy. For example, regarding There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements", see WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both reliable. I also find it amusing that the op thinks that being worried about "environmental degradation" is a bias, although they stop short of suggesting that a balanced outlet should presumably be concerned about too much of "environmental improvement"... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. It shouldn't matter if they use professionals (for what that's worth) or amateurs, as long as they have sufficiently high editorial standards. Conflating the use of an amateur workforce with self-publication seems to be a misuse of the word. Bellingcat is not Facebook or WordPress where anyone can publish (nearly) anything. The broken link to the editorial standards has been fixed already, as I've personally verified. Having that be broken for a day or so is not evidence that they are not a reliable source. Claiming that they should not be WP:RS due to a bias in what stories they report on, would result in the removal of most WP:RS if we are being consistent. The thegrayzone story merely seems to allege that Bellingcat trained foreign media. Hardly a sign of a lack of reliability. So I don't see any serious reason being offered why they shouldn't be WP:RS Aapjes (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. First, the whole premise here is wrong (you say it "became a RS", but that's not how RSN works - we evaluated it during that discussion because it was brought up, but it was already a RS.) Second, none of what you say changes that. A source does not have to be "traditional news media" to be an WP:RS, provided they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Buzzfeed News is in fact a reliable source (so I don't understand what you mean by different source-status.) Even if they were biased as you claim, they could be used, but you haven't even illustrated that - in fact, the argument that "environmental degredation" and "the rise of far-right movements" are top investigative concerns. There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements" or extremism in general is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sources are expected to cover things accurately; a source that artificially weighed everything along a left-right axis in order to create the appearance of balance would in fact be a more biased source than one that simply covers the most important stories, since they'd be overtly using their own editorial position to bias coverage. If we allowed this sort of argument to cast a source as biased, editors could frame any source they please as biased simply by disagreeing with its conclusions. Thegreyzone is not a WP:RS and nothing they say has any weight. And, finally, the link to their editorial standards seems to work just fine. None of this changes the fundimentals identified in the previous RFC - they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and no reputable source seriously questions that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How's LifeHacker nowadays?

How's LifeHacker nowadays? In 2020, there was a small RSN discussion with a 2-1 consensus that it was unreliable. Sounds like they were concerned about it being a blog, and a lack of editorial oversight. Today I tried to take a LifeHacker source out of an article and got reverted. Is it more reliable nowadays? Here's an example article: [218] Here's a link to their About page. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Did the person who reverted the removal give a reason?--70.27.244.104 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Reason was What makes you think LifeHacker is not a WP:RS? Checking up on it, it has editorial oversight and uses professional writers: see https://lifehacker.com/about –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a small chat, not really a "2-1 consensus" in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've used it at least once or twice for tech-related reporting, I think. I probably wouldn't prefer it as a source if I could find something better. Something to keep in mind about Lifehacker is that it was originally owned by Gawker Media. Gawker was considered unreliable, but it looks like it changed hands to G/O Media. I wonder how things have changed since that happened, if at all? --Chillabit (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Daily Beast Tabloid Reporting

In the few times it has mentioned before, Daily Beast has been viewed as a usable source, albeit with a clear liberal tint. They seem to have taken a pronounced shift into tabloid journalism recently, with their current home page seeming to be a liberal version of the Daily Mail, involving thinly sourced gossip articles. In cases where there are reporting personal information about a subject who disputes their reporting, I believe their weight on Wikipedia should be strongly depreciated and editors should be discouraged from relying on claims made therein that have not been backed by more reliable reporting. Heron Son of Periander (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: when saying In cases where there are reporting personal information about a subject who disputes their reporting this user is specifically trying to diminish the credibility of the allegations made against Donald McNeil Jr. I have no other thoughts about the DB as a source, but I entirely disagree with their POV-pushing on that page. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The diffs [219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227] suggest that you guys are having a WP:BLP dispute rather than a sourcing dispute, so Heron Son of Periander, you might want to take this to WP:BLPN. Besides, could you provide evidence that the Daily Beast has published falsehoods or fabrications?--JBchrch (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this question is prompted by the Daily Beast's recent article about then NY Times reporter Donald McNeil. I agree that this article has a tabloid feel. It's an "exclusive" based on claims made by high-schoolers on a trip organized by the Times, which McNeil took part in as an expert (the all-caps, slanted, red "Deeply Disappointed" below the headline adds to the tabloid feel). The way the accusations are worded, it's not quite clear whether they're in the Daily Beast's voice, or whether the Daily Beast is just relaying them:

After the excursion ended, according to multiple parents of students on the trip who spoke with The Daily Beast along with documents shared with the Times and reviewed by the Beast, many participants relayed a series of troubling accusations to the paper: McNeil repeatedly made racist and sexist remarks throughout the trip including, according to two complaints, using the “n-word.”

I'm willing to give the Daily Beast the benefit of the doubt here that they don't mean to put these accusations in their own voice. However, the recent additions to Donald McNeil Jr. state definitively that there were public reports of [him] making racist remarks, which is not true. There were reports of him being accused by a group of high-schoolers of making racist remarks. That's very different from there being reports of him having made such remarks. I'll note that as of my writing, the lede still incorrectly claims that the are reports of McNeil having made racist remarks. This is obviously a BLP problem. Donald McNeil has now responded to these accusations in great detail, which certainly calls them into doubt.

If it were just the Daily Beast reporting on this story, I'd say we shouldn't use it. But the story has now generated a large amount of coverage (the media loves to report on media drama), so it has to be included in Donald McNeil Jr.. However, we cannot in any way imply that the accusations are true. We should be very careful about presenting the issue neutrally, about including McNeil's response, and in not giving it undue weight. McNeil was at the Times from 1976 until 2021, and was involved in covering many important stories (including leading the Times' coverage of the coronavirus pandemic over the last year), so this story should be kept in perspective. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 Thank you for you input here. The distinction between public reports and the internal investigation is a fine one, but well pointed out. I'll incorporate these comments, but if you have any interest in commenting further on the talk page I tried to start earlier I appreciate all further help on the WP:BLP question. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I had not taken a look at their home page in a while, and was taken aback when doing so now - the OP has a point. Upon further research, it turns out that Noah Shachtman, who became the site's editor-in-chief in 2018, has explicitly characterized the Daily Beast as a "high-end tabloid" that embraces gonzo journalism, see this interview:

[...] In the media ecosystem, where do you fit in among the competitors?

[...] I don’t know, necessarily, that I’d compare it exactly to BuzzFeed 2012. To me, we’re more of a mix of like the old-school New York tabloids ... I grew up in New York, and so I grew up reading the Daily News and the New York Post when they were at their height ... And mixing that with, in some ways, my experience working for Condé Nast magazines. It was kind of like the slick, glossy, global, smart outlook of those. You put those two together and give them a bizarre Frankenstein love child and you have the Daily Beast.

Do you think of yourself as a tabloid? Is that something that you communicate to your reporters? Does that bring a different kind of sensibility to your reporting? Does it give you more leeway?

Yeah. I think we consider ourselves a high-end tabloid, a global tabloid, for sure. [...]

[...] Somebody suggested that they feel like you guys have taken up the mantle of Gawker a little bit. [...] Do you feel like you try to fill some of that void of that sort of style? Because you guys, you’re willing to cover things that other outlets might find too insidery, but it’s like if you can get a scoop on it or if it’s an interesting story ...

Look, I think that we like to embrace the gonzo and that Gawker was an inheritor of that gonzo spirit that didn’t originate with Gawker, but that they carried that mantle for a little while. We really like the gonzo. We really like the weird. We really like the fun and we don’t give that many fucks. We don’t give zero fucks, but we don’t give that many fucks.

I still think that discussions on this page too often fail to clearly distinguish between factual accuracy and bias/lack of objectivity. Or to put it differently, even tabloids can differ considerably in their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But yeah, probably not a stellar BLP source.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I echo HaeB's concerns. The Daily Beast is a sensational tabloid that purposely does not distinguish opinions/commentary from straight facts. They have a poor track record with BLPs (see here and here). If your only source is the Daily Beast, then it simply doesn't meet the requirements of a WP:BLPRS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Tabloids such as this one cannot serve as the sole source for things cited in BLPS. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There had been some disagreement on how The Daily Beast (RSP entry) is classified on the perennial sources list at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 5 § The Daily Beast changed to "no consensus". I think a request for comment may be helpful. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are entirely unreliable as a source, but I do think that their recent shift into more tabloid style reporting means they should be deprecated on [[228]]. Are there any objections to that? Heron Son of Periander (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You would need to start an RfC if you want a source to be deprecated. Based on past discussions, I find it highly unlikely that there would be consensus to deprecate The Daily Beast, but you are free to start an RfC to ask the community. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.

No previous RSN discussions.

Related: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

Used as a source on: Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. (EDIT: that page is now a redirect, so we don't have to worry about that use).

References

Available at https://www.diamondbook.in/educational-analysis-india-usa-digri-english.html at only 250 Indian Rupees (2.46 British Pounds Sterling, 3.43 United States Dollars).

https://www.diamondbook.in/books.html has a section on "Self Publishing: Get Your Self Published", which leads to https://www.diamondbook.in/author-link/ -- "Become an author"

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/6MDTkDdxvlZt2nuJBkEtgJ/When-everyone8217s-an-author.html says:

"Among the 50 publishers Mohata contacted was Diamond Pocket Books, which was willing to publish it as a vanity project, and offered to print 2,000 copies if Mohata would pay for the privilege."

Looks like a vanity press to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Yes, the Mint article confirms that Diamond Pocket Books is a vanity press with a reputation for publishing low-quality content. Books from this publisher should be treated as self-published. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Daily Mail has bought RS New Scientist

Per this. Will this affect reliability? SK2242 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Like News Corp, publications owned by the DMGT should be evaulated on a case by case basis, the i newspaper is owned by them but I would consider it reliable. I wrote the rsp entry for the New Scientist (RSP entry). The discussions on New Scientist were not extensive, one was on a chemical attack in Syria, which is very much outside NS wheelhouse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Too soon to tell. Worth keeping an eye on. Per The Guardian, it's a profitable property for them to have a hold of, so they might just sit on it and not make any serious changes. Yet to be seen. Looks like they have guaranteed editorial independence and lack of staff cuts, too. Guess we'll see; For now I would treat them as the same they were before unless something changes in a negative direction. --Chillabit (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Like Newsweek, we may need to mark a time frame when NS ceases to be an RS due to this, but yes, its too early to tell if that's needed. --Masem (t) 19:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Like others have said, it is a cause for mild future concern, and if there are indicators that its reliability changes we might look back on this and make it a cut-off date, but generally speaking more than just a change in ownership is needed to render a previously-reliable source unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yep that is correct. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

New Scientist is already trash. They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy. I complained that they had published the opposite of what I meant, and they apologized for the misunderstanding, but said they wouldn't correct anything. No wonder the Daily Mail wanted them. Tercer (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wish you could share the juicy details, Tercer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not doxxing myself just to gossip a little. Nothing even hinges on it. Tercer (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. By all means email me! No need to get in a fluster. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I agree with Tercer's assessment. See this new article by them entitled A warp drive that doesn't break the laws of physics is possible which then goes on to say it may not be practical in the foreseeable future because it requires ultra dense materials. A lot what New Scientist does is frankly sensationalism and churnalism. If you wanted to read in-depth coverage of Science topics, Quanta Magazine blows New Scientist and other "Popular Science" magazines out of the water. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, blows it out of the water. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, if nothing else, the soundtrack is pretty groovy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the thread above is bifurcating into two mostly unrelated issues. The first is if ownership affects reliability, and the second is if New Scientist is reliable even in the first case. Putting aside the second tangent for the moment, I think that the my answer to the first issue raised in the thread is no, ownership does not necessarily have anything to do with reliability. The editorial and writing staff of a publication does not necessarily have anything to do with the corporate ownership; which is that so long as the people who collect and hoard the profits from a publication do so passively and keep their hands out of the newsroom, then ownership doesn't need to have any impact. As has been noted with other related issues like the public funding of organizations like the BBC and PBS, the ownership and/or funding of a source does NOT have to impact the reliability of a source, so long as the source maintains editorial independence from its ownership. If ownership is shown to exert undue editorial influence, to the point of affecting the trustworthiness of the source, then we can revisit it. But again, reliability is unrelated to who signs the checks and who collects the revenues. So no, the purchase of the New Scientist by the Daily Mail does not make it less reliable. Whether it was reliable enough in the first place is a matter I'll leave for a different discussion. --Jayron32 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Kirkus Indie

Hi! I'm posting here in response to a discussion taking place at the AfD for the book series Blood of Ra. (Article itself is here.) There has been some question as to whether Kirkus Indie would be usable as a reliable source that can establish notability.

Info dump about Kirkus Indie: Kirkus magazine traditionally only reviews books that have been picked up by a publisher. They may also accept submissions via an agent, I'm not certain of that. They would not accept submissions directly from the author, whether self-published or unpublished, which is why Kirkus Indie was launched. KI is a fee service and a review costs between $320 - 575, depending on the option. The site does not claim that every review will be favorable.

Now here is the main issue: does the fee make Kirkus Indie automatically unreliable? My concern is that it poses a conflict of interest since it's not strictly independent. Arguments for the usability of the site from the AfD typically center upon the disclaimer that not all reviews will be positive and that Kirkus is a notable review institution.

This doesn't seem to have had a recent-ish discussion, as the prior discussions were in December/January 2014/5 and May 2015. I personally am uncomfortable seeing a fee review service as reliable, but I think it's worth discussing Kirkus Indie in specific. They're not as bad as say, Reader's Favorite, for example. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I used to write reviews for Kirkus Indie, so I can describe their process a bit. They aim to have each book review be about 2/3 summary and 1/3 opinion. While they promise that reviewers will have read the whole book, the pay is so low that it is ... uneconomical to always do that, although they do have a factchecker go over descriptions/citations. I remember them asking for specific citations from the book to support opinions, especially if you were critiquing it. Also, the author has the option to not publish the review if they don't want it up, so most of the KI reviews are positive. So, I think they'd be a fair source to use for plot summaries and the like, but I agree that it's questionable, at best, as a measurement of critical reception or commentary. Definitely not as a source for notability, since it's paid coverage. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed previously and consensus, which should be a surprise to absolutely no one, is that Kirkus Indie is not an independent reliable source that can be used to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info Wingedserif! That info does definitely solidify my opinion that it's not usable as a notability-giving source. I didn't see where the past discussions on here had been specifically about Indie (that I can find) and the general consensuses that I was aware of were at AfD were against using it, so I thought it'd be fair to bring it up here. Now there can be a discussion to point towards as far as this discussion board goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree based on this that Kirkus indie doesn't indicate notability, the fact that the author has to pay for it and can decline the submission means that it's not independent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

All About Circuits (allaboutcircuits.com)

Used on multiple pages. Reliable secondary source? Self-generated source? See [ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/write-for-us/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably fine. They have an editorial team which seems to check and edit articles, and they solicit articles only from trained industry professionals. It's not a peer reviewed journal, but it's not reddit either. However, most relevant for stuff like this is the to what content are these citations attached to? There are different standards for citing a procedure for making a lemon chiffon cake than there is for the chronology of a controversial political event, and the sort of things a website like this seems to be used to cite mostly seems closer to the "lemon chiffon cake" end of the spectrum than of the "U.S. president incites a mob" end of the spectrum. Allowances for the "reliability" of a source need to be made based on the contentiousness of the text being so cited. If we're using them for details around the internal operations of some technical doofalator, it's unlikely to be contentious and this site probably sufficient. Has anyone challenged the veracity of the text being cited? Which is to say, are the articles published on the site shown to be rife with uncorrected errors? If not, I'd say they look fine to me. --Jayron32 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Tablet

Does The International Catholic News Weekly (The Tablet) a reliable source on topics related to catholicism? [229] [230] --The good man 232 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally yes, but I would say it is situational. If its reporting paints the Roman Catholic Church in a significantly better light than other sources in a given situation we might want to exercise caution over whether to use it. What is the precise case? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: The case is related to persecution of Catholics. --The good man 232 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Could I have a look at the source? The content of the Tablet includes a lot of comment, I would be uncomfortable sourcing factual data from a comment piece. Also, it helps to know what claim is being made. If it were an extraordinary claim then I might want to see a little more than a single article in a Catholic newspaper, if it is not extraordinary but not widely reported elsewhere, it could be ok to report with attribution. It really depends on context I think. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally yes, for facts like "The Pope is meeting with Ali Sistani", but there is also commentary and church positions like "Honour martyrs by staying faithful, say Pope". How much of that will be appropriate to include is up to editors to decide on the talk page. Spudlace (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Associated Press sponsored content

Associated Press (RSP entry) is listed as a generally reliable source, which I think is not disputed at all. However, they have sponsored content that is occasionally used by undisclosed paid editors (see Draft:Cloe Luv, source example: [231]). Could we update the notes on the WP:RSP entry to note that sponsored content is not edited by AP staff and is not considered WP:RS? Does that need an RFC at all? --MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not AP content. It clearly states that is Accesswire content. It also states clearly at the top that it is a press release, which means it is only reliable as a primary source for what it says, but is not an independent source for the purpose of establishing notability. --Jayron32 19:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, that's right. We have notes on other entries about being careful with content labeled as sponsored. There's some people that use AP good name to mislead about the source, and I think a note would make sense. That does not mean lowering the rating of AP itself, just explaining this. We have similar notes for Forbes Contributors, which has always been a source of confusion, because it is often assumed it is reliable because it's on forbes.com. There are also notes clarifying for Business Insider, for example. --MarioGom (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't, in particular, think we need to note anything about the AP specifically. A general statement that the authorship of the content (and not the website it is hosted on) is what the reliability attaches to. Sources republish content from each other all the time; CBS News website may republish a story written by Reuters, Bloomberg may carry an AP story, etc. The origin of the material, and not where you found it matters. It's like "Is YouTube reliable"? YouTube as an organization produces no content; who produced the video itself? That determines if it is reliable or not. Similarly, who wrote the content need to be the determining factor; this is true about ANY content, and is not particular to AP. --Jayron32 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, I thought it would make sense, since we do it for other generally reliable sources whose press releases are often used for promo. But I don't see this as a big deal. If this doesn't look like a non-controversial change to other editors, I'm ok with it. MarioGom (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's worth including a note similar to what we use for Forbes contributor pieces, since (as with those pieces) if someone just clicks the link or glances and the URL, the fact that it has AP on it in big letters is likely to make people immediately categorize it as an WP:RS by mistake. It's something worth warning editors about so they know to glance more closely at sources on that domain. EDIT: Although perhaps it's not enough of a problem to be worth it; a quick search only found five uses of it as a source, some of which were for minor details trivial enough that it's probably acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is actually a big problem and was previously discussed at Nicholas Alahverdian when a self submitted obit was published by AP without any indication it wasn't from their editorial staff. I would say anything that doesn't have a byline shouldn't be considered and in the case of this source, it's clearly labeled as a press release. CUPIDICAE💕 20:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Since the article in question is explicitly labeled as a press release ("Press release content from Accesswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation."), it should be treated as the equivalent of a blog post on the company's (Cloé Luv LLC's) official website, a type of self-published source. It is generally unreliable, but can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions of the company. — Newslinger talk 21:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• It is very clearly labelled as "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from Accesswire" on top and "Press release content from Accesswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation." on the side. This isn't an issue specific to AP, wire services often re-transmit releases and new organization websites have outside content as well. In my opinion this does not merit a caveat note on AP, as it this applies to most news sources.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a broader point to be made that should probably be noted on RSP if it isn't already that no source can be considered always reliable. As an example of an AP failure, take this obit I referred to earlier which does not indicate whether or not it was checked for accuracy, who wrote it and where it came from. We cannot paint any source as being always reliable like we can for unreliable sources, so sometimes it is worth a discussion. CUPIDICAE💕 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Historical Society - University of Massachusetts History Club

There is some interesting information about how Benjamin Franklin was strategic in his training and placing patriotic printers in what became a network of printers in colonial cities.

I found a site] that says:

The Benjamin Franklin History website was created by the Benjamin Franklin Historical Society as part of of the University of Massachusetts History Club. Our objective is to give honor to Benjamin Franklin as one of our founding fathers and to recognize his importance in the development of civic responsibility, science and entrepreneurship in colonial America.

I am interested in this page for the Ann Timothy (daughter-in-law of Elizabeth Timothee-->Elizabeth Timothy). I like it because the information is clear and concise. I would like to add it for context re: the Siege of Charleston impacts on the family. Would this be a reliable source for that information?

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Kommersant

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Kommersant's reporting?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Kommersant)

• Option 1: The New York Times appears to have cited reporting in Kommersant for information on controversies in Russia and the Caucasus (1 2 3 4). The The Wall Street Journal writes that "Kommersant, which was at the center of Moscow’s political intrigue in the 1990s and has since been widely viewed as one of Russia’s more independent publications, is owned by Uzbek-born billionaire Alisher Uzmanov, a tycoon with close ties to the Kremlin" and that the paper has come under fire for firing journalists that speculatively reported on the future on a member of the ruling United Russia party. Politico appears to have used reporting from Kommersant uncritically, but did so with attribution. The Washington Post appears to have cited Kommersant's reporting in making its own reports (1 2). The BBC has used reporting from Kommersant regarding the identity of an alleged US-Russia double-agent. It appears that the newspaper is generally reliable and independent, though there are some concerns regarding its independence from the Kremlin and reasons to conclude that the source may very well be biased. Kommersant does not appear to have a reputation for fabricating information or for publishing false information, so I think deprecation is out of the question. Its reporting should probably be attributed in-text — though RS seem to indicate that it is more independent from the Kremlin than most Russian media, some RS appear to report that Kommersant may still have some bias in its reporting on political issues of interest to the Russian government. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see the comment above. Also, Kommersant has been called one of the three most respected newspapers in Russia by the Guardian [232]. Specifically in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh war, the information on the combatants should reflect what the majority of RS say, so if it's only Kommersant who claim that Turkey was a party to the conflict, I wouldn't include it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, at least before May 2019, but possibly options 2-3 after the story with Ivan Safronov junior when many people left the newspaper [233]. But one should always also check who were authors of specific publications.My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Kommersant)

• As usual with these kinds of sources, it should not be used as the sole source for political matters the Kremlin is involved in. Turkey stands accused of providing Azerbaijan with better weapons than Russia, but Russia and Israel still remain the largest two suppliers of weapons to the country overall. From Al Jazeera "But analysts agree that the main risk for Turkey is if Azerbaijan crosses one of Russia’s red lines". [234] Spudlace (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• (Outside observation (Editors mentioned)): Just an observation I wanted to state that isn't directly about Kommersant. First, I know almost nothing about Kommersant or the discussions leading up to this RFC. In the initial RFC though, Mikehawk10 mentioned 3 editors, each with different points of view. Armatura is a new editor with less than 2,000 editors, however, they have been an editor for 14 years. Grandmaster is an experienced editor with over 22,000 edits, however, it appear maybe 200-300 of his last contributions have been related with the topic of the war. I don't know his status with it, but there could be a chance for a bias especially with that many edits on a topic. Solavirum appears to be an experienced editor with over 10,000 edits and his last 500 contributions seem to be a decent variety of edits (not just on a topic). Out of the 3 editors mentioned, Solavirum's comments to me would be the most "reliable" in terms of why it should not be used just due to the latest edits they have done. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Elijahandskip, hi. I didn't wanted to opine here. I'm currently topic banned from the issue, and I don't think it is to best to use my comments to see the source reliable. Though, I appreciate your comment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: I agree that the initial dispute isn’t about Kommersant generally, but rather its specific application. It got me curious into whether or not the source was useable more broadly, which is why I created the RfC for the source’s general reliability, though obviously there are additional considerations in making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note — Գարիկ Ավագյան, an editor for 11 years with just under 4600 edits (including deleted edits), was also mentioned in the RfC as being in favor of treating Kommersant as reliable. It seems like there was no local consensus on the source's specific reliability during the dispute that inspired the RfC, though this RfC is (was intended to be) about the newspaper's/website's general reliability.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is heading down an odd path. Please read WP:CON. The consensus of discussions is determined by the quality of the arguments, not by edit count and seniority. Editors do not have a reliability-ranking that grants their opinion more weight than another editor's opinion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That is why I said this was an outside observation. I wasn't making any contribution to the discussion other than stating the editors that were mentioned and a brief thing about them. Sorry about missing Գարիկ Ավագյան. The point of my thing was basically what Mikehawk10 said which was no local consensus. Also Schazjmd I know about WP:CON, however, I have discovered that editors with more experience are probably more likely to do their "research" on a topic and are less likely to have a strong bias. I wasn't meaning for my thing to be a long rabbit hole discussion, but it was just to help show a "no local consensus" without stating that. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Below is the portion of the initial opening statement that has been moved from above to shorten the statement per Redrose64's comment: — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have recently closed a discussion on the talk page for the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. This discussion was relatively close, and there appeared to be no local consensus regarding the reliability of Kommersant, a Russian newspaper that the BBC has described as :one of Russia's leading business broadsheets and the flagship of the Kommersant publishing house." The source is based in Russia, which is a country with relatively low press freedom.

One user in the discussion, Armatura, wrote that this Kommersant source was a reliable source regarding the status of Turkey as a belligerent in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Another user, Grandmaster wrote that the reporting of the paper on this topic "[c]annot be considered anything but gossip" due to its use of an anonymous source. A third, Solavirum curtly told Aruatura to "read WP:RS", but did not elaborate. Գարիկ Ավագյան also seemed to indicate that they believe that Kommersant is a reliable source. None of the editors appeared to appeal to WP:USEBYOTHERS.

The BBC has reported that the newspaper publication has protested against court-ordered censorship, though the BBC report that I found is from 2005. There have been some previous discussions on this noticeboard that have involved the use of Kommersant, though none appear to have a consensus one way or the either. —Initially posted as a portion of the RfC summary by Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media and is a reliable source. Russia seen as an authoritarian country with no press freedom which gives "not appropriate" impression that all media are state-owned and unreliable. However, if this goes about involvement of Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not only Kommersant reported this based on its own sources but also Sergey Naryshkin who is quite notable figure Russian Today, RIA Novosti. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo! News article for PragerU

Hi all. Is the source Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation written by journalist Catlin Dickson reliable enough for inclusion on PragerU? This is not syndicated--it is a Yahoo News piece. There is also a small content dispute through DUE which I don't think is appropriate for this venue, but hope to clear up the RS question here.

Opposition to inclusion on an RS basis seems to involve claims of churnalism or low-quality reporting. Springee and Hipal describe the article as a "puff piece" and a "warmed-over press release". Noteduck and dlthewave disagree, describing Yahoo!News as a generally reasonable source in general (if not of the highest tier, I would say) and this article in particular as a combination of original reporting, original analysis, and analysis described from a nonprofit group's report.

On the basis of the quality of this story, should it be considered RS? Is this affected by its publisher, Yahoo News? Jlevi (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging other participants: Loki, MasterTriangle12, North8000, Ryk72 Jlevi (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Hipal also was a participant. Springee (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's a bit late now, apologies to Jlevi, as Hipal was pinged. Springee (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yahoo News! has never been a major topic of discussion at RSN as far as I can tell (other than some of its syndicated content). Jlevi (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• They used to be known as exclusively an aggregation and reprint site. They still do a lot of that, with a bunch of content sharing deals that muddy the waters a little, although other publications' material seem to be clearly labeled as such. But they began publishing their own journalism a decade ago. This Nieman Lab page is pretty old but describes some of that move. Now their original content seems pretty reputable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I note that most of the material on Yahoo News consists of reposts of articles from other outlets (although I am not sure if this is the case for the specific article cited above). So, some caution and due diligence is needed - to ensure that the originating outlet is considered reliable. An article originating from (say) the deprecated Daily Mail would not become reliable just because it was reposted on Yahoo. And when the originating outlet is considered reliable, best practice would be to cite that, and not Yahoo. I have no opinion on material originating with Yahoo’s own staff. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the direct Yahoo News article: [235] shows no indication that this is a republished story. --Masem (t) 17:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• PragerU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:PragerU#Is_a_Yahoo!_News_article_including_material_from_the_Alethea_Group_due?

Hmmm. I don't know why we're here. The concerns are with NOT and POV, not RS. --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues of SOAP/NOT/POV seem to come from the argument that this piece is churnalism or a press release (example diff). My understanding is that this argument comes from the 'press releases' subsection of WP:NEWSORG, which makes this noticeboard the right location for broader discussion. Jlevi (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hipal As you seem to be the primary person challenging reliability on the talk page, this strikes me as strange. You have claimed that it's churnalism, a warmed-over press release, and promotional. Those are RS issues. Ah. Somehow didn't see that Jlevi wrote basically the same thing just above, sorry). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think there's an RS issue, no sign that the Yahoo piece is unreliable, and barring doubt published from other RS, any reason to doubt what the Alethea Group or GDI have compiled as reported by Yahoo. What I will say is that the inclusion of the piece, as is currently being edit-warred, is part of the continued problem of editors too focused on the laundry list of every bad thing a group/person seen negatively by the press has done, rather than being a proper summary. For example, a "theme" around PragerU is its misinformation (not just COVID related), and thus I would expect a section to talk about how others discuss PragerU's misinformation, what has been done (eg Youtube's labeling), what PragerU has responded with, and so on, in a summary style and avoiding proseline/timeline style approaches. That would mean this specific article would fit into that section as one part of their misinformation aspects. In other words, it is definitely not UNDUE as claimed, but only if the article's structure is properly brought into line as we'd expect a summary of how the mass media sees Prager is properly summarized. --Masem (t) 17:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, except there's a lot of work to be done before we know what is due/undue to present from this one reference. We certainly can use this Dickson(2021) ref, but to what extent will depend upon the broader context. These are POV issues. Ideally, we'll have academic references that give broad, historical context, making one-off reporting like Dickson(2021) irrelevant or nearly so. --Hipal (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• The source is fine, this is good, independent reporting and not a reheated press release or promotional as has been claimed. There is some seriously biased sanitisation going on if sources like that are excluded through wikilawyering. Fences&Windows 18:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• I could find no fault in terms of reliability, especially with such a basic claim, the GDI analysis has a published methodology and the article about it was by a widely written journalist. I can't speak as much to Yahoo News in general but I was not aware of any notable problems with the outlet. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable and due. The original reporting of Yahoo! News is generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG, as Yahoo! News – the "web's most popular news site, with more than 88 million unique visitors in the month of April 2011" – has delivered original reporting as early as 2014 (and likely earlier) to a large audience with minimal controversy. The article under examination is very detailed and features interviews with both the researchers and the groups that were being researched. There is absolutely no evidence that the article is a press release or "churnalism", especially considering that, according to the article, the researched groups are denying some of the researchers' conclusions. — Newslinger talk 00:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• My concern is DUE, not so much if this is reliable. Much of the yahoo content is simply stating what the report said. But why should we care about what this particular group says? One of the original red flags for me was the content in the PragerU article focused on what the Alethea group report said. So who are they and why should we care? If the WSJ chose to quote a report from the Alethea Group then we assume weight based on the reputation of the WSJ. Conversely, we often include material from prominent activist organizations/think tanks even when covered by a lesser RS because these are well known organizations. In this case we have a group with very little weight and a new sources with little weight saying what the group said. That becomes a simple case of UNDUE to me. I will close by saying I think Masem is correct in that a problem with the PragerU article is editors are often fixated on dumping every negative report into the article so long as it can be remotely justified based on RS etc. That makes for an overall poor article as it tries to make the trees bigger than their forest. A section talking about general problems with their videos would be good. It should describe a high level pattern then show examples. The Mother Jones article actually was a decent model except that they made factually false statements about several of the videos in their article. Springee (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable Yahoo News is a reputable news outlet that has been doing its own original reporting for years with no major issues that would raise reliability concerns. This is not a press release ("warmed-over" or otherwise) or promotional content; the writer independently verified and analyzed the Alethea Group's findings and requested comment from the five companies mentioned. –dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Thats not churnalism or a warmed over press release. As for the claim that editors are packing the article full of negative coverage... This is an article about an organization which is primarily notable for the (often comically) low quality of the content they produce, it seems like some editors are unwilling to accept that fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't question PragerU is going to draw negative coverage, and our article can't shy from that. But again, the issue with the current state of PragerU (and most articles of topics that recieve negative coverage) is that editors see a bit of negative coveage and add it to a running list to the article, which over time can create excessive and undue coverage of the negative coverage if every little bit of negative press is added. Per WP:CRIT the article should strive to cover this more narratively - as I mentioned above, there is absolutely a theme related to PragerU and misinformation, of which this Yahoo! article would absolutely fit within. The article's coverage of PragerU's should be summarizing from this bigger picture -- which may mean some smaller events that turned out to be nothing may need to be dropped. We absolutely should not be able to strive to identify every time PragerU is faulted (that falls under RIGHTGREATWRONGS), but instead try to understand and summarize why PragerU keeps on appearing in negative coverage in the press and popular opinion. But that is far from the question of RSes at this point. --Masem (t) 15:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I don’t see what we have here as being distinct from the universal problem of WP:RECENTISM. Another University thats not really a University on my watch list (University of the People) has similar issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Part of it is the general issue that WP:PROSELINE also develops from in how the wiki model works - an editor sees something to add and the easier way to add "yet another bullet point" than find a cleaner point of integration. We need editors, at times, to deconstruct such list of bullet points and recreate them as summaries. This applies to both factual aspects that PROSELINE tends to draw, and stuff like media criticism like on PragerU. But again, this is well beyond the RS question (of which I agree, there's nothing here to question Yahoo! as an RS for this purpose). --Masem (t) 15:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) You've made part of the point I was making in the ec, but I'll leave this here anyway. It seems like you're making a different point from what this section is about. Nobody has said "we must not summarize". The thing is, summaries are even harder to find consensus for than the piecemeal approach, so calls for "we must not add piecemeal" is an effective way to just omit the material. The most effective way forward here IMO is to include the material that should be summarized first, and then come up with a summary. Trying to argue over both at the same time isn't productive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dharma Publications

Is this source and the publisher Dharma Publications reliable? I see they are someway associated with Lulu.com which is a self publishing company. Should we be nnot using the source for being associated with Lulu.com or it is unreliable on it own, publication, author, et al. Help needed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance

The Institute of National Remembrance is a Polish authority in charge of researching, archiving and prosecuting WWII and Communist-era crimes. It was nicknamed the "Ministry of Memory" by scholars.

Starting on March 4th the article underwent a "cleanup" of criticisms, including some high profile sources (cf. before and after). Some of the removals include:

• An interview with historian Gideon Greif as "low quality"[236]
• A paper of record as "not meeting source requirements" (see discussion)[237]
• An article by historian Jan Grabowski for "[involving] personal dispute"[238]
• A criticism by the Simon Wiesenthal Center as "outdated recentism"[239]

Considering the scope of the changes - I've challenged 28 of the diffs myself - I'd rather more eyes were on this. Discussion is taking place here. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This was originally posted at NPOVN, but since the issues encompass both NPOV and RS I've decided to move it here. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FR, I thought you were going to wait for my full response before escalating the dispute. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway. It's not true it was "nicknamed"... anything. One scholar called it that though despite the fact that some editors are trying to pretend otherwise, this wasn't meant in a negative way. It was described as a "Ministry of Memory" in the sense of an institution, like many others across the world (for example, Yad Vashem), whose task is to preserve historical memory.

For others - the Greif link, youtube interviews are indeed low quality sources and that reference wasn't even needed. Haaretz does indeed does not meet sourcing requirements here, particularly with an article based on information provided by user who has been globally banned by the WMF (which you know very well for obvious reason). Even without the sourcing restriction we wouldn't be using this.

The AP source is also problematic. First WP:NOTNEWS. This is old stuff and has not received long standing coverage. Second, man, just look at that headline: "Poland urged to fire publisher". Like, wtf? Is "Poland" a person or something? Like do you ever see a source that says something like "United States urged to fire a publisher"? Or is "France" ever "urged" to do something? "Canada urged to be less polite" "Mexico urged to host fewer parties" (actually I wouldn't be surprised if there was a headline like that) "Germany urged to do something about its popular music". "Malta urged to honor more cats". "Britain urged to implement sinks in its bathrooms that actually make sense". Whoever wrote that headline is seriously tone deaf. The headline is just a prime example of some real bias, bigotry and prejudice - when you treat a whole country as if it was some kind of a monolith with everyone in it sharing all the same characteristic. Anyway, that info IS outdated. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)