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)
• Unreliable now. As others have noted, RealClearPolitics has made a big shift into the fringe and is now completely unreliable as a source. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable per John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. starship.paint (exalt) 09:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliabe per comments above. SlackingViceroy (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable propaganda vehicle funded by right-wing free market supporting billionaires and their ilk, via The Real Clear Foundation. Acousmana (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Chetsford. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, they are frequently cited even by FiveThirtyEight, their main competitor. —Wulf (talk) 23:08, 28 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" [19]. 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: [20], 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 [21] - 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 Option 2 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 [22]. 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)
    • Thanks for that. Moved my vote from option 3 to option 2 based on it. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:36, 20 March 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)

Unacceptable WP:ASPERSION and dispute personalization, —PaleoNeonate – 19:54, 8 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)

Are you going to suggest deprecating New York Magazine and the Washington Post for saying the same things? —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 March 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 [23] , KIRO-TV [24], The Guardian [25], NBC News [26], 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)
• Option 4 per NorthBySouthBaranof, XOR'easter and David Gerard. starship.paint (exalt) 09:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 a partisan organ of opinion that is widely noted for its conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per its publication of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the wake of the 2020 US presidential election.Grnrchst (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. The evidence presented clearly shows that this source repeatedly published false and fabricated information and promotes conspiracy theories. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2, by the reasoning given by User:Atsme Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Newslinger. Chompy Ace 21:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 propaganda vehicle funded by right-wing free market supporting billionaires and their ilk, via FDRLST Media Foundation. Acousmana (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Atsme and Chetsford. RS:OPINION definitely applies here, as the source does not differentiate between news and opinion articles. See, for example, three articles about Edward Snowden all published in December: Edward Snowden Is A Hero Who Deserves a Full Pardon by Jordan Schachtel, Edward Snowden Isn’t A Hero And Doesn’t Deserve A Presidential Pardon by Alex Plitsas, and Rand Paul: President Trump Should Pardon Edward Snowden by… Senator Rand Paul). Additionally, their content is frequently featured in the Wall Street Journal’s Notable & Quotable and Best of the Web sections. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 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:[27]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories[28]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health"[29]. 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 [30]? 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. [31] -- --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)

That piece did not actually recommend “that people hold ‘chickenpox’-style parties for the coronavirus”. Rather, it suggested that the government consider establishing controlled infection and quarantine centers. It is not true that it “specifically advised people to go out and get infected”. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 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)

  The Canary is certainly biased. It's difficult to say more biased than The Federalist given the sources have very different biases and primarily cover different markets, but they are certainly both more biased than average. On the basis of the evidence provided though, "more false" is certainly incorrect - The Canary has not been proven to repeatedly promote completely debunked conspiracy theories after they have been debunked. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• I just read the article that NorthbySouthBaronof cited in his iVote - and yes, the headline is sensationalistism but they all do it, and there's bias mixed with spin but they all do it. The article ended with the following: Unless election officials in Michigan and Wisconsin can explain the overnight vote-dumps and, in Michigan, the “typo” that appeared to benefit Biden, and Pennsylvania officials can explain their rationale for counting ballots with no postmark, the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. Was there a follow-up? Regardless, that article is opinion journalism mixed with facts and they all do it. If that's the reason for downgrading this source, then downgrade them all because they all do the same thing except with a different bias and spin because they are writing for their demographics. The main difference is whether they spin right or left. I think people who align with the left can readily see the bias in articles that lean right and vice versa. Bias is not a reason to deprecate or downgrade a RS. That is an IDONTLIKEIT reason, and has nothing to do with CONTEXT or the reliability of a source. The author John Daniel Davidson is a credible journalist, and has had his work published in the WSJ, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, etc. Here is his January 2021 article which speaks to the same topic. Our job is to include such material per DUE using in-text attribution cited to that source. We don't bury it because we don't like what he's saying. We provide ALL significant views, but if we keep downgraded sources just because we don't like what they say and don't align with political perspectives, then we're going to run out of the kinds of sources we need to maintain NPOV, and that would be a travesty. Atsme 💬 📧 00:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Chronos Encyclopeadia

Hi Folks! Does anybody consider the Russian Chronos encyclopedia to be reliable as a source? It is located here: [32]. 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." [33] 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" [34] 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: Encyclopedia Chronos

This is an RFC to determine if the Encyclopedia Chronos is a reliable source. It is located at [35] 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)

• Is an RfC really necessary? Has the source been brought up here before? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:16, 9 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[36] 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,[37] and (b) conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[38] (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.[39][40][41][42]; (d) as well as Grayzone contributors, it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[43] (e) it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[44] (f) it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[45] (g) one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[46]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[47] (h) it published a Daily Mail-style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[48] (i) it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[49] (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[50][51] (k) before setting up the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[52] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[53] and (l) it published Pizzagate-style fake news about Seth Rich's murder.[54][55] 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,[56] Owen Jones[57] or Momentum's David Osler.[58] (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.[59] 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 ([60]) 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 [61] 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[62] is misleading: the source the Canary cites[63] 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[64]), 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[65] 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;[66] (i) the publication of Russian-sponsored stories about the Salisbury attack, claiming various perpetatrators other than Russia (this[67] 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[68] 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’".[69]
    • 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."[70][71]
    • 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."[72] (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."[73]
    • 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). "[74] 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.[75] (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.[76] 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":[77] Should be placed alongside, for example, the misleading article about Starmer's "Israel lobby" funding noted above.[78] 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)
• Option 3 per the unreliable nature in sensationalism and promoting falsehoods as demonstrated above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per regulation via IMPRESS and regular and prompt updates and corrections. (it is also rated as reliable by Newsguard and MB/FC if people here think that they matter). ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. BobFromBrockley and others have highlighted examples of inaccurate and poor reporting. It's not a good publication, both for its content and opinionated-beyond-the-point-of-usefulness nature, and shouldn't be used as a source for factual claims or to support notability. Ralbegen (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per above. Many of its articles exist for commentary and don't often act as sources in and of themselves. Their original content does often prove to be unreliable, with a clear and present bias. I don't think it deserves to be deprecated, but it should definitely be treated as a tabloid.Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• As discussion appears to have concluded here, I've requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 26 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)
• Option 1 - I don't see any glaring issues with this source, and no specific examples of its use have been cited as being problematic. It is generally reliable in its areas of expertise, and has a strong editorial team. Of course it would be subject to normal editing guidelines to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is a reliable news site.Sea Ane (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 Brought here by a bot. Generally reliable, though like many other sites given to some sensationalism and such. Also agree this probably didn't need an RFC unless someone was actually challenging the sourcing provided by this site. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Hawkeye7. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 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)

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 [79] and [80]. 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 [81], 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)

  I've learned a lot through your well-written comment. Thank you; will have to do some more thinking about this issue for the future. Urve (talk) 09:29, 9 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)
• Not reliable relatively new, with a clear bias and no good track record of reliable reporting. Opinions could be attributed but are probably undue weight. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for most of the reasons that have already been stated. The site is very new and clearly exists primarily to publish anti-trans thinkpieces. Potentially reliable as a source of the opinions of its contributors, but certainly not for anything factual. Aquaticonions (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable The original content (even those under 'Reports') are all opinion based, so there's no original factual content. The interviews (which I would consider the site as a whole to be reliable for) are just syndicated from Boyz (magazine), so all informative content can easily be found from another source. Uses x (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for facts, but I would allow it for attributing opinions. I hate getting political here, but I have to do it. To think some idiots think that the trans "movement" came out of activists instead of science, yet this is an anti-trans activist site that goes against all reliable research proving trans people are valid. I can't wait for Mark Dice, Steven Crowder, Actual Justice Warrior, Sargon of Akkad, J.K. Rowling, Tucker Carlson, and Ben Shapiro to play the "cancel culture" card here in knowing editors won't be able to cite lies from bad-faith website like this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable, some the articles would probably be considered hate speech in several countries, their lead article today is a good example of this. John Cummings (talk) 16:21, 25 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 [82]. 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 or 2, before May 2019, but option 3 after the story with Ivan Safronov junior when many people left the newspaper [83]. 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)
• Option 2, only due to media freedom issues in Russia and possible Kremlin coercion, otherwise this is one of the best Russia has to offer.Nyx86 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 due to limited media freedom in Russia. As reliable as they can try to be, with the limited media freedom in Russia, independent media are not allowed to publish things that go against their government and their interests. Therefore, source shouldn't be used for conflicts/international affairs that the Russian government has interests in (e.g. Syria, CAR, Nagorno-Karabakh). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think there is a good reason to deem Kommersant deprecated. Though, editors should be cautioned about its usage when it comes to Russian government-related topics, like foreign wars that carry Kremlin's interests and domestic issues such as human rights abuses, as the Russian government pressures the free media within the country. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, from the point of view of a native Russian speaker I can say that Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media [founded back in 1909] and never found unreliable articles till today. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It depends on the topic. Overall, we have much better Russian sources than Kommersant, so it is very important to know where you want to use it and why.--Renat 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. Context is important. Whoever cites Kommersant should keep in mind the level of press freedom in Russia and the incident pointed out by My very best wishes. Having said that, I don't see a reason to treat them any differently from a top newspaper in a country with limited press freedom. Judging by this discussion, Kommersant seems to be much closer to Fox News than People's Daily, in that it is merely close to a political party, rather than being directly controlled by one. feminist (talk) 17:10, 21 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". [84] 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)
• Regarding the NK conflict reporting by Kommersant, especially on the issue of Turkey's involvement, Kommersant's reporting was nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification. I would not call that high quality journalism. In general, I would say that Kommersant should be used with certain care, because the quality of reporting is uneven. But I would not say that it is totally unreliable as a source, it just depends on a particular article and journalist. Grandmaster 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What makes you say that it was "nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification"? Are there other reliable sources saying this? Can you provide examples when their reporting on this topic has been contradicted by other RS? Alaexis_¿question? 09:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• The (pro)-Azerbaijani / (pro)-Turkish editors appear to be unhappy with Kommersant because during Nagorno Karabakh war in 2020 it reported (?revealed) things that were supposed to stay secret between Turkey and Azerbaijan (Turkey's direct participation on the war). The (pro)Armenian editors appear to be happy with Kommersant's reporting during the NK war for the same reason. To remove this conflict of interest from RFC,it should discuss the newspaper in general, and not it's reporting of NK war in isolation, and people participating in it should state any conflict of interest they may have. For example, I have conflict of interest due to editing mainly Armenia / NKR related topics. And, yes, the method of scaling the users' opinions by the number of their edits is a biased approach to things. Regards --Armatura (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN

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

---

What do you think about the reliability of CNN?

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#RfC: CNN

Firestar464 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any particular reason to doubt the results of the previous discussions? Just asking without any other details is unlikely to produce a different result: It's a top-quality source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that roughly represents the mainstream of cable news, and is the gold standard of cable news to the extent that such a thing exists. It's also the most nonpartisan and unbiased of the major cable news networks in the US, to the extent that that is a thing. Obviously some would argue that that is itself a form of bias, but it's roughly as unbiased as any major news source can reasonably expect to be. --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think CNN is reliable. I think Project Veritas is not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This shit again? This isn't a properly formatted RfC anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC" from the section heading, since this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment. Please see also "RFC on CNN" (August 2020). — Newslinger talk 06:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NL. Was going to do it after being slapped by Hemi. Firestar464 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the entry in the perennial sources list. There's a backlog of discussions to be listed and I'm working on it. If you would like to help, feel free to add any discussions that are missing per the instructions at WP:RSPI. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger is this backlog listed somewhere? Elli (talk | contribs) 06:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elli, if you see any discussion on this noticeboard (or any of the archives) that meets WP:RSPCRITERIA, please feel free to add it into the perennial sources list. The instructions are at WP:RSPI and I am happy to assist if you have any questions.

I used to patrol the archives around the same time every day (approximately 4:00 UTC) when the archive bot processes the page, review every single archived discussion, and then add the qualifying ones to the perennial sources list. However, my prompt indexing may have discouraged other editors from helping build the list, and I paused this practice (starting at archive 303) to encourage participation from others. Unfortunately, this leaves the list with some gaps, and I'm going to resume from where I left off to ensure that no discussions are missing from the list. My new plan is to wait a week (or some other time frame) after a discussion is archived before indexing it, so that there is enough time for others to jump in ahead of me if they want to do so. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN is generally reliable. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I generally favor status quo regarding CNN as a RS. One thing I can think to mention is that Glenn Greenwald (who lives in Brazil) has compared the localized brand of CNN in Brazil (CNN Brazil) to Fox News. So too has The Intercept (Greenwald used to worked there). Here is a clip which Greenwald shows and he says is a featured commentator on CNN Brazil minimizing the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is a clip he shows of apparently a CNN Brazil employee saying hydroxychloroquine is a proven cure for COVID-19. He last year claimed this is regular on the network. Also, he says that a similar thing happened with CNN Turkey. Now, I don't speak Portuguese or Turkish. So I don't know exactly what is going on over there, but this seems relevant to bring to attention here. There could be problems with at least some of CNN's localized versions. At the very least, CNN Brazil appears questionable, unless something changed since last year. This probably isn't unique to CNN, either. I'm sure more than just CNN have separate branches in separate countries that are run in a different way. --Chillabit (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think Greenwald's personal opinion carries much weight in WP:RSN discussions, given his strong opinions on both the media and politics. He's spoken highly of RT, for instance, which is certainly not a reliable source, and has criticized numerous sources that we consider reliable in similar terms. (It's also slightly misleading to say that he merely "worked" at the Intercept; he's one of its founders.) You can look over the archives for similar discussions in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• (Actually ran into an edit conflict trying to post this) I'm going to quickly backtrack here. After digging around in their site's COVID-19 section for a bit with a translator, I detect none of this craziness. Their written reporting as far back as May regarding hydroxychloroquine appears to be sound. Maybe this is just a problem with their talk shows or something, which I doubt we would be citing anyway. --Chillabit (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• He's spoken highly of RT, for instance, which is certainly not a reliable source. Speak for yourself. Maybe if people like Greenwald can admit it is then perhaps Wikipedia should grow up and admit it is too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The article by Greenwald that you linked makes some very reasonable points. It's specifically about Assange's show that aired on RT, and Greenwald correctly points out that Assange booked a high-impact guest (the leader of Hesbollah) and asked tough questions (that go against the Russian government's position). I see no reason to discount Greenwald's opinions, based on that article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think CNN Brazil is a CNN branch or part of CNN. I think its an independent media outlet which licenses the name in their local market. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if Assange had been granted more of a wide berth in that role, such an exception doesn't necessarily "prove/trump the rule", as they say. The proverbial "rule" being the general consensus that Russian government has quite a bit of editorial control over RT, both direct and indirect (though admittedly more of the latter). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Subject to the same restrictions about not confusing editorial or commentary as the same as journalism; CNN's news reporting is as reliable as it can get. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of what its news operation reports. --Jayron32 14:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• CNN isn't that great a source but they are good enough to qualify as RS and they are a major news site so in general their articles will have weight. The network, rightly, has some black eyes and I don't think anyone would dispute they have a bias that impacts their work but that isn't sufficient to call them unreliable. I see no reason to change the RSP entry. Springee (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Only thing I've noticed of late with CNN is more clickbaity headlines (usually a highly opinionated statement atop a non op-ed piece), but as headlines are explicitly excluded from being an RS and we review the body for any issues, this is not a problem, and CNN remains a second-tier (just under BBC/NYTimes/WaPost) RS to me. --Masem (t) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable news source but it may not be reliable in other types of articles like science or history. Spudlace (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, what television channel could be considered a reliable source on history? They are typically less detailed than the average periodical in their coverage. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Definitely not top tier, but it's generally reliable. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• As with any source, filter out any opinions and political views, and get the pure facts out of what's being said; that's what Wikipedia is all about, and I don't think CNN has a problem in terms of not being factual. For political articles, they often show bias by omission (most of their competitors do the same), but just combine that with the facts presented by other sources to get the full picture and it'll be fine. Uses x (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

New America Terrorism Database

New America (organization) created a database which they describe as "comprehensive, up-to-date source...about terrorist activity in the United States since 9-11. You can find a link to it at the bottom of this page. The database and corresponding research is used as an RS on multiple pages on wikipedia already however I couldn't find any discussion of it in the archives. Would like to get some clarity on how authoritative this organization and their research is.Nweil (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the issue, it isn't of reliability. The editor wishes to add a "terrorism" category at Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl‎, and thinks because their raw data is hosted in a file called "terror_plots.csv" that's an acceptable reference. It's probably an acceptable reference for their attributed opinion (which already appears in the article), but not an outright statement of fact. The raw data includes entries such as Murder of James Craig Anderson (case prosecuted, no terrorism charges nor evidence it's commonly considered an act of terrorism), Kenosha unrest shooting (case underway, no terrorism charges nor evidence it's commonly considered an act of terrorism), 2021 Atlanta spa shootings (investigation underway, no terrorism investigation underway nor evidence it's commonly considered an act of terrorism) and probably plenty more if I bothered to investigate the list more fully. As such, there is no way their opinion can be used without attribution. FDW777 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

New America's research into terrorism is already cited on Wikipedia here) for Further Reading plus here, here,  here, here, here and here as an RS. Here a database of theirs appears in the info box, used to quantify the number of drone strikes in Yemen. So the question does not just apply to the page you are referring to. It has quite a large reach. Regarding the specific incidents you mentioned, your determination that those are not terrorist incidents would seem to fall under original research. I pass no judgement on why they are in the database, only that the author clearly thinks they should be in there. And also to be clear, the database is just underlaying the overall research paper, which is available on JSTOR. I am not pushing for any outcome.  Perfectly open to whatever consensus is reached.  Nweil (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on description, the database provides a compilation of already published data. People who compiled this information seem to have a good level of expertise. There are two questions. (1) Are they known for making any errors or false claims? I do not see any such criticisms on page New America (organization). (2) Do they provide direct linking of every case in the database to the source publications? (in a biological database that would be links to Pubmed). If the answers are "no" and "yes", then they might qualify as a weak RS (not for significant BLP claims). My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you link the JSTOR research? The database is based on it, right? --Chillabit (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As regards the Portland shooting, these are the sources for that part of the document: The arrest warrant, The Seattle Times, Vice News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times (three times), CNN, and ProPublica. Out of these, the only one that I can tell sort of calls it a terrorist attack is ProPublica, but it's not terribly explicit about it, is it? Am I missing something here? --Chillabit (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comment seems more suited for the talk page of that article. Is your determination that New America is unreliable? Nweil (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of its overall general reliability, of which I don't have a specific comment on, the claim it is being cited for definitely matters. This is true of any source. For the category proposal being made at Talk:Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl#Category addition reverted, the presence of that incident in a list compiled by New America isn't enough on its own. Now citing it with several other supporting sources that list it similarly, the debate begins to verge in favor of New America's position, but to move it into slam-dunk territory, academic sources discussing the terrorism label of this specific incident in prose is needed. Is there anything like that, or does it just have a presence on a long list that appears in the background of a larger study? If it's the latter, then I don't think that's enough for this specific category claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica website

I made a citation of Britannica.com on Louis III of France. Is it a reliable enough source to utilize?

xdude (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: Is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_III_of_France&diff=1013775046&oldid=1013718087 this] the case you are concerned about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. That was the citation. xdude (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Xdude gamer For something like that, I think it's ok, assuming EB actually says that. A historybook would be even better, see WP:BRITANNICA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks, it helps out the project a lot!

(I've been trying to reshape the article) xdude (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable Britannica has a high level of accuracy. We don't require exhaustive citation in the form of (as cited by) followed to the primary. Most of the so-called "secondary sources" use a mix of secondary and primary sources, much of it teritary. Modern (mostly post-critical) scholarship is strongly preferred and builds mostly on the established secondary scholarship. Britannica is fine as long as editors are careful about the weight issues. It's understood that articles are always improving and reliable enough, to answer OP's inquiry. Spudlace (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't verify the relevant information Reliability is not the issue. The referenced article doesn't seem to mention Ferrières Abbey or support the specific claims that Louis's reign was especially short and is best remembered for his military victories (although the former might be WP:BLUE and the latter is indirectly supported by the fact that his military victory over the Norsemen is mentioned in the opening sentence). The citations should be removed in the short term and ultimately replaced with a more detailed source that supports the content (unless the content is wrong, in which case it should be changed). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  The Britannica article starts with "[king....] from 879 to 882, whose decisive victory over the Northmen in August 881, at Saucourt, Ponthieu, briefly stemmed the incursions of the Scandinavian invaders into northern France." and ends with: "Louis’s victory at Saucourt (the memory of which was preserved in the chanson de geste called Gormont et Isembart) inflicted heavy losses on the Vikings, but the able and energetic king, not yet 20, died in the following year." So there is some support there.Nyx86 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I know (that was the gist of the above parenthetical statement); I'm just not sure that a short Britannica article that merely states that he lived/reigned for X number of years is enough by itself to support the specific content in the article: maybe his reign was not especially short for his time and place, and as for his coronation the date is something that could be verified by any list of kings of France in a reliable source, while the location isn't verified by the Britannica article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the Daily Signal + congressional record RS for a congressional statement?

On the Andy Ngo talk page there is a discussion relating to the recent removal of content relating to Andy Ngo's 2020 congressional testimony[[85]]. An editor removed a paragraph which basically stated that Ngo testified that, "violence against journalists was often perpetrated by protesters rather than by law enforcement officers."[[86]] (Daily Signal article[[87]], copy of testimony from congressional records [[88]]) This sentence is easily and obviously verifiable in the written testimony (first paragraph). The argument used to delete this content from the article is the Daily Signal got the content from the Daily Caller which is deprecated thus Daily Signal = Daily Caller and should be removed. I don't think this is a valid reason. The Regardless of the Daily Caller connection, the Daily Signal maintains editorial control in this case and the simple statement can be verified to a clear primary source. Additionally, the Daily Caller was deprecated because editors argued it presented false information. In this case we can verify the statements so false content isn't an issue and this isn't a question of interpretation by a source. I won't argue that the Daily Signal is a top source or without bias but just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, simple claims that can be verified by primary sources shouldn't require extensive sourcing. The Daily Signal passes our basic RS standards and thus should be acceptable for a statement which we can independently verify. What are the group thoughts? Springee (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC) ‎ Note the discussion below is conflating two issues. Some editors are questioning if the Daily Signal is a reliable source. That is not the question at hand. The question at hand is if a source syndicates content from a deprecated source do we treat that as material from the deprecated source or the site hosting the content. As a local hypothetical, if the WSJ syndicated a story originally by the Daily Caller, would we say it's RS'ed because the WSJ is publishing it or would we say it's unreliable because a deprecated source is the original author. Springee (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Signal is not an independent reliable source - it's the house organ of The Heritage Foundation, which provides all of its funding. A cursory glance at the current homepage finds five articles labeled "Commentary" (including one which declares that anti-Asian racism is a left-wing anti-American lie) and only one labeled "News," and that one is a dog-whistle about the 2020 presidential election. At best I would put it on par with Media Matters for America - usable for attributed opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. If the only source which can be found is a Daily Caller article republished by The Heritage Foundation, I would argue it also fails WP:DUE. "Deprecated source republished by an explicitly-partisan source" is not a particularly strong basis for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Signal has been discussed several times in the past. Editors here have expressed concerns related to using it for some topics (climate change for example) but the discussions do not say the source doesn't meet out basic RS standards. It has an editorial board, is cited by others etc. Since the statements of fact can be verified why are you concerned about publishing false information in this case? Springee (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not an independent reliable source for facts - it's an outlet for partisan commentary and clearly partisan-slanted "news." For example, this article, labeled "News," is an uncritical regurgitation of what two conservative academics said at a Heritage Foundation event. It contains no dissenting views, no broader context, and not even the slightest hint of an attempt at balance. Just "hey, look, these two conservatives said something at an event our sponsoring organization organized." It's more akin to a press release than a news story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable - This is a syndicated piece written by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The ref has already been replaced by a Fox News article, and two more reliable sources (The Intercept and The Independent) have been brought forward at article talk. There's absolutely no reason to make an exception for a deprecated source in this case.

Regarding the question of verifiability: If you wanted to learn about a murder trial, would you choose a source that just repeated bits and pieces of the suspect's best friend's testimony with no context or analysis? –dlthewave ☎ 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Correction: The other sources I mentioned (Fox News, The Intercept and The Independent) cover different hearings entirely. I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering the June 29, 2020 hearing mentioned in The Daily Signal. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, it was published by the Daily Signal, not the Daily Caller thus we look at the RS status of the Daily Signal. Additionally, we can verify the content via the primary record. The Intercept and Independent don't state what Ngo said in a way that can be verified and both are heavy with their own author's opinion/commentary. Since they don't support Ngo's statements they aren't a substitutable source. This also doesn't address the key question here which is your opinion that a reliable source publishing content from a deprecated source automatically unreliable. As Lionel noted the Daily Signal was quoted by Fox News, CBS, Slate, and Daily News (New York)[[89]]. Springee (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable; as a publication of the Heritage Foundation, the Daily Signal defaults to falling under our normal assumption of unreliability for think-tanks and their publications (see eg. [90][91]) A think tank's purpose is to push policy, not to perform fact-checking and accuracy, and this applies to their publications unless we have a strong reason to think otherwise, rendering them generally unreliable. The only place where it would really make sense to use it is in an article about the Heritage Foundation or the Daily Signal itself. Using them to cite the opinion of a BLP - let alone the opinion of a BLP making sweeping WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements about third parties (fourth parties, since Ngo is already a third party here?) is completely unacceptable. And, obviously, the idea that a patiently generally-unreliable source like the Daily Signal could be made usable by combining it with a primary source is plainly absurd. -Aquillion (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would any of your concerns not equally apply to sources like SPLC? Also, this isn't an opinion but a basic statement of fact which can be verified via primary sources. Are you suggesting the claim in question is factually wrong? WP:V says the reliability of the source depends on the nature of the claim. In this case the claim is easy to verify so why would we question this source's reliability in this case? Springee (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC is cited only for its own opinion, and it is used in that way, with attribution, only because its reputation gives it enough significance that its opinion is considered widely-relevant; it's treated as the gold standard on hate groups and the like by numerous other sources, yet it is still not used for facts the way you're trying to use the Daily Signal, and is only used within the narrow area under which it has a widely-acknowledged expertise. The Heritage Foundation and the Daily Signal have no such reputation; damningly, the best anyone could find when trying to justify its use was a handful of passing mentions focused on a single story - nowhere near satisfying WP:USEBYOTHERS, and far, far short from the overwhelming and extensive level of respect the SPLC gets. Finally, while WP:V is central to RS, it's not the sole reason we require RSes - using something from a primary source to make an exceptional implication, without a proper secondary source, is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some additional things I turned up: This paper on Coronavirus misinformation classifies it under junk health news. The graph in this paper classifies it as "hyper-partisan news" and, more importantly, puts it below Infowars in terms of reliability. This chapter classifies it among sources that are right-biased, often fail the fact checks, and some of their news are misleading and often appeal to emotions and stereotypes (though it cites Media Bias / Fact Check for this.) This paper lists it as part of how a story on an academic paper was quickly buried in an avalanche of fake news, misinformation, and disinformation emanating from the right-wing media networks. This does not look like coverage of a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for this purpose The Daily Signal is cited by others as shown in prior discussions. The source has an editorial board and the other structures we expect of a reliable source. It certainly is biased but that isn't by itself reason for exclusion. Additionally, in this case the basic statements of fact are 100% verifiable via primary sources. Springee (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Daily Signal is cited by others as shown in prior discussions. Absolutely not. The context of use matters. Putting aside Fox for obvious reasons (a source that lacks a consensus on its reliability for politics can't credibly endorse others), the other "uses" cited in the single comment you keep bringing up do not satisfy WP:USEBYOTHERS. Slate (in its own blog!) describes it as Lawmakers may have a whole new line of questioning from a report published this week by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson on the Daily Signal, a blog funded by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. Not only does this describe it as a blog, it also makes it clear it was covered solely because lawmakers were discussing it, ie. it is the news, it's not something Slate considers reliable. Slate is openly dismissive. The Daily News (which is likewise yellow in RSP) likewise makes it clear that the Daily News is the story here, not the source: Raymond Maxwell, formerly head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, made the accusation to the Daily Signal, a publication backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It surfaced as the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares to hold its first hearing this week. These are not WP:USEBYOTHERS, and the fact that someone tried to push them in a previous discussion (and that this is, I would assume, the best they could find in a Google News search, a single case where the Daily Signal was mentioned because it was the focus of the story) underlines the fact that this is not a RS. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Springee, you seem to have omitted your signature on the opening post. You can't initiate the discussion and then vote that your own proposal is reliable. ValarianB (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I just added it. This shouldn't be a !vote to begin with but why can't the person who starts the discussion express their opinion. I think we have two questions and one is getting missed. Dlthewave's justification for removal was not that the Daily Signal wasn't reliable. Their claim was that that any thing that is effectively sourced to the Daily Caller is automatically deprecated. I don't see how that is true. If the WSJ published a story sourced to the Daily Caller (yes a hypothetical) would we say the story stands on the fact that the WSJ is the publisher or would we say it has to go because the Daily Caller is the original creator. Incidentally, this again shows an issue with our push to deprecate so many sources. No one has claimed the claim in question is inaccurate. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's a publishing arm of the Heritage Foundation. That is the beginning and the end of the discussion. ValarianB (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we apply the same standard to the SPLC? Springee (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That's what we call Whataboutism, I'm afraid. Not to mention the sledgehammer you are dropping on the universal opposition to your proposal, something which sometimes winds up as the building block for topic bans. ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I share your bludgeoning concern, Valarian, and it's also reflective of Springee's behavior at the PragerU and Andy Ngo pages. From a POV standpoint it's especially concerning that Springee was recently making the exact opposite argument (that reliability should be judged by the original source material, not the publisher) regarding Yahoo News [92][93]. –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my arguments. They are not the same in these cases. Springee (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I said above, the SPLC has an overwhelming reputation within its relatively narrow topic area, which justifies prominently including its opinion as WP:DUE within that area of expertise - it's the gold standard for studying hate groups to the point where the majority of discussions of the topic in reliable sources cite its evaluations. But even then, when we use it, we only present things cited to it directly as the SPLC's opinion, not as fact. The Heritage Foundation has no such reputation in the area of... Andy Ngo? Congressional testimony? Antifa? I don't think the Heritage Foundation has a strong reputation even within its wheelhouse (and the Daily Signal certainly does not), but even if it did this would be outside it. And yet you're trying to use it for a statement of fact! The two things aren't comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't bad whatabouttery, I think, but a request to ask why the two cases are different. I'd put it this way: the default with think tanks and their organs is to regard them as deprecated, since most of them are glorified propaganda ops. A few of them are better than that, and produce quality research and have meaningful editorial principles. These are the exceptional cases, which can be used as reliable sources, although generally with some caveats. The SPLC is one of the few think tanks which do not deserve to be deprecated, while we can document that the Heritage Foundation is as bad as think tanks generally tend to be, so we allow one as a source and not the other. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the SPLC doesn't have a history of promoting climate change denial while taking money from fossil fuel interests. Something which clearly demonstrates a corrupted relationship with scientifically factual reporting. --Chillabit (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. This article is syndicated from The Daily Caller News Foundation, an organization that redistributes articles from The Daily Caller (RSP entry), a deprecated source. Syndicated articles inherit the reliability of the original source, since republishers do not modify them at all. Additionally, the fact that The Daily Signal syndicates articles from The Daily Caller in their entirety is an indicator that The Daily Signal is unlikely to be a reliable publication. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

See my question above. If we replace Daily Signal with WSJ would we reach the same conclusion? Perhaps it's a signal that not all Daily Caller content is unreliable. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any instance in which The Wall Street Journal (RSP entry) has syndicated an article from The Daily Caller or The Daily Caller News Foundation in its entirety. But yes, if such an article exists, it would also inherit the unreliablity of the original. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm asking as a hypothetical. My view is if the WSJ is willing to run the content then they are putting their editorial stamp on the material and thus it becomes "reliable". Consider a case where a car company chooses to rebrand another company's product as their own (Toyota and the current BMW-Supra). Which company is ultimately on the hook for the content? Toyota feels it's acceptable to sell a BMW based car as the Supra and they are the ones who have to handle any warrantly/legal issues. If there is a recall Toyota has to own it, not BMW. Same thing here. If the material has gone through the WSJ's editorial review and the WSJ is responsible for the content and any retractions why would we treat the content as something from the Daily Caller? Since you are arguing the reverse how would you treat content written by say the AP but syndicated by the Daily Caller? Again, this is a hypothetical to make sure we are being consistent. Springee (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that there is enough trust in The Daily Caller to keep the original article unmodified, an article from the Associated Press (RSP entry) that is syndicated in The Daily Caller would inherit the reliability of the original. I would prefer to cite the article on the AP's website. If that's not available, I would prefer to cite a syndicated version of the article in a more reliable publication. However, if none of these are available, the syndicated version in The Daily Caller would be acceptable if there is consensus that The Daily Caller can be trusted for syndicating articles from other sources. — Newslinger talk 14:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that is consistent but I also think ultimately backwards. If Amazon, Radio Shack, Toyota, REI, Craftsman etc puts their name on a rebranded product the company with the name on the product is ultimately the responsible party. Many shoppers understood that Sears-Craftsman wasn't manufactured by Sears but they also understood that the name came with a level of customer support that the original tool maker may not provide. I see the same thing here, not all readers will realize the content was not written by the WSJ (again a hypothetical). To go a step further, who would bear the legal responsibility if the content was contained slander? Who would the victim take to court? Could the WSJ absolve themselves of responsibility by just saying "we didn't check the content"? Springee (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the product analogy is always that way. Speaking from personal experience, I recently had to file a warranty claim on a rebranded product, and the customer service contact was of the original manufacturer. Back on topic: the legal liability of the published content, I assume, would be determined by the license that is negotiated by the original publisher and the republisher. However, the author of the content is the original publisher and not the republisher.

Here's an example from the other end of the political spectrum: the marginally reliable Salon (RSP entry) syndicates articles from the generally unreliable AlterNet (RSP entry). Those syndicated articles are generally unreliable, and reflect poorly on the reliability of Salon as a whole. — Newslinger talk 14:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the purpose of this digression anyway. Neither the Daily Signal nor the Daily Caller are reliable, so the Signal covering stuff from the Caller is meaningless. And, obviously, the congressional record is WP:PRIMARY, so we would need a reliable source covering it to use it in an article in a non-trivial way (which this certainly is - extracting a quote from it making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims without any sort of context or analysis carries the implication that that quote is significant, meaningful, and that the claims made within it pass at least basic due diligence, which nothing here supports. Part of the reason we need reliable secondary sources for such quotes is so we can characterize them properly.) No secondary sources in this chain are reliable, so nothing is satisfied here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's easy, are we being logically consistent or is the outcome based on our opinions of the specific sources in question. If this is an argument on principle then the outcome wouldn't change if it were the NYT or WSJ vs the Daily Signal. I note that you didn't address that question. Springee (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comparison doesn't make any sense. The NYT or the WSJ are generally reliable sources; the Daily Signal is absolutely not. Obviously, per WP:RS and WP:V, the outcome of an WP:RSN discussion changes depending on whether a source generally has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. More specifically, when you ask RSN "is this source sufficient for this claim", you are asking editors for their opinion on whether the source meets the WP:RS / WP:V requirements for what you want to cite to it; so to turn around and say "well you're just giving me your opinions on the reliability of the Daily Signal, what if I had asked about a better source instead" doesn't make any sense. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It does make sense. The content was removed not because it was hosted by the Daily Signal. It was removed because it was syndicated from the Daily Caller. Thus I asked a simple question, would we react the same if this were the NYT's site? What is your answer? Springee (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if a reliable source covers something, it becomes acceptable regardless of their own sources, though I would express a degree of caution for syndicated content in that you'd want to make sure the RS actually applies its editorial controls to what it syndicates - it's a bit different than the NYT writing its own article on something, where we can be confident it's going through their normal process (this isn't usually a problem in practice because sources that heavily use syndicated content from unreliable sources are rarely reliable themselves in the first place for reasons that ought to be obvious.) But that is moot for the purposes of this discussion because the Daily Signal is not reliable - it has no meaningful reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to lend to the things it covers, so something from the Daily Caller isn't improved an iota by being published there. If you expected people to consider whether a piece by the Daily Caller is rendered usable by syndication in the Daily Signal (and therefore inheriting the Daily Signal's reliability) without considering whether the Daily Signal itself is generally reliable then I don't know what to say, since obviously the Daily Signal's reliability is the crux of the argument you're trying to make. Or, in other words - I'd have thought may answer to your question was obvious from the fact that I'm focusing on the reliability of the Signal and not the Caller, since that's the one that matters more for this discussion. If I thought otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time assessing the Signal's reputation, I'd just be saying "hahaha we've already established the Caller is generally unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ngo's testimony is available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Ngo%20Written%20Testimony.pdf - it's a primary source, so not ideal, but surely better than linking to the organ of a think tank with a documented record of misrepresentation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the testimony is a primary source, so we would also need reliable secondary sourcing to establish due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I would think that testimony given before the US Congress is inherently DUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Remember that US Congress can produce massive amounts of testimony; making it all automatically WP:DUE invites editors to extract whatever quotes they want from it to suggest whatever conclusion they decide is appropriate, leading to WP:OR. Large amounts of text and transcripts like that are exactly the sorts of places where we need secondary sourcing to prevent misuse of a primary source. Pulling quotes from a larger body in order to make specific points or present specific arguments isn't an appropriate use of a primary source, since doing so is inherently applying evaluation and analysis to the source (it says that this is the important quote, etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If the testimony is being taken out of context, or used to support OR, then it can certainly be challenged on those grounds (is OR an issue in this case?). This is exactly why we DO ALLOW primary sources... but also say to use them with CAUTION. That said, the potential for OR has nothing to do with the question of DUE/UNDUE WEIGHT.

Something else to consider... Context matters. It is appropriate to give more weight to fringe views in articles ABOUT those views and who hold those views. In the bio article ABOUT Adolph Hitler, it would be appropriate to quote from Mein Kamph in order to explain Hitler’s views... something that would be highly inappropriate in just about any other article. Quoting Mr. Ngo - in the article ABOUT Mr. Ngo - is appropriate, even if that same quote would be inappropriate in some other article. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I half agree. That Dlthewave has removed the July 2020 appearance is a problem. All three instances should be mentioned if nothing else per IAR. However, what is specifically said about each should be based on RSs. A problem I have is that editors seem to want to use strict standards for including sources as if all sources were making extortionary claims. No one here has suggested the Daily Signal article had any factual errors yet it is being excluded as unreliable. This again is one of the big issues with the RSP list and deprecation. It becomes a cudgel to force inclusion/exclusion of sources without using common sense to evaluate the specific claims in question.Springee (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No one here has suggested the Daily Signal article had any factual errors yet it is being excluded as unreliable ... That's spectacularly not the point. Newsmax could post a heartfelt piece of investigative journalism regarding why 2+2=4, but it will be rejected for use anywhere in this project because of the past fraudulent antics of Newsmax itself. When a source is bad, it's bad. Not bad, but. Zaathras (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• No. The Daily Caller, which is what we'd actually be linking here, is a deprecated source. My answer to "Should we source X to a deprecated source?" is always going to be "no". It doesn't matter if they're repeating what some other organization has said. It doesn't matter if it's a minor point. Really no caveats matter. If we've deprecated a source, that means we don't just think that they're unreliable but that they are liars, or have such egregiously poor editorial standards they might as well be. That is actively contrary to the point of sourcing facts, and means that even merely passing thru a deprecated source renders information useless. Loki (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable, but Undue. If a source has been deprecated but has WP:USEBYOTHERS, that suggests we were wrong in our deprecation. Regardless thought we are meant to be an encyclopedia and not a platform to advertise someone's political views, even if they were presented to Congress. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree if this were some other article... but in a biographical article, surely the subject’s stated views are encyclopedic. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Better source needed - Aquillion's post summarizes it well and as Loki said, it's already recknowned for unreliability. —PaleoNeonate – 20:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: metal-experience.com

Which of the following best describes the reliability of metal-experience.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

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (metal-experience.com)

1. Option 3 - As noted below, I retain my prior stance that it is not a reliable source. I didn't see any evidence that professional, credentialed writers or editors produce content there. I'm happy to re-evaluate if someone finds something new though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as to say that the content is fabricated, but there's no evidence that it's anything more than one person asking for anybody to contribute reviews to the website, no editorial control or professional writing and it's clearly been dormant since 2014. Richard3120 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Option 3 It's clear that this site lacks professional editorial oversight. It doesn't intentionally make things up, but it doesn't make sure someone else isn't doing that. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 19:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Option 3 There is a lack of professionalism in there articles.Sea Ane (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Option 3 - There are no clear editorial controls, and with the way the content is written I don't think this is anything near what we'd consider reliable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
6. Option 3 because it is not a great source.Nyx86 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
7. Option 3 really more of a fanblog than anything else, doesn't appear to have any professional standards of reporting. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
8. Option 3, as per the above views. If there are interviews with bands/artists they can be used for basic biographical information, but not exceptional claims. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (metal-experience.com)

• Metal-experience.com was first discussed at WikiProject Albums (since archived), but received insufficient participation to gauge sufficient consensus. As such, I am bringing it up here. Pinging the only two participants in the previous discussion (excluding myself), @Sergecross73 and Richard3120:. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "World Israel New" a reliable source for a BLP

Rudy Rochman (pretty much of a hagiography and mainly self-sourced) uses it as a source[94] - I'm also wondering about "Hakol", the Jewish newspaper of Lehigh Pennsylvania.[95] Note this is an ARBPIA article. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, There is nothing controversial about claims being made so the only question if its WP:DUE Shrike (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• At a glance, it doesn't look like a great source to me (it seems very obviously biased and opinionated if nothing else), but I didn't look too closely because what Shrike said is correct - citing someone's publications, even from a normally non-WP:RS, to outline unexceptional positions they have taken, in a carefully neutral tone that doesn't try to advocate those positions, is usually considered a valid use of WP:ABOUTSELF. The statement He is also a critic of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) clearly falls under that - it's hard to see how that could be self-serving, it's unexceptional, and it says nothing about third parties, so it's fine under WP:ABOUTSELF and the reliability of the source doesn't matter. That's the kind of way an opinion-piece ought to be used - it makes no effort to convince the reader, it just says "the article subject believes this" in a neutral summary-style tone, in an article where the subject's views are obviously relevant. If you're worried the article feels like a hagiography, I would focus more on the first two paragraphs of the views section, which looks to rely a bit too heavily on YouTube videos by the article subject - compare the relatively brief neutral WP:ABOUTSELF "he takes this position on an obviously relevant issue" in the sentence you're focused on to the two sprawling paragraphs that don't just present his beliefs but his extensive arguments for them, cited solely to his own YouTube videos. Overall those two paragraphs probably brings over the line in terms of violating the article is not based primarily on such sources restriction of ABOUTSELF, especially considering that refs 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 18 are all him talking about himself and his views to one extent or another. But I would leave in the bit you focused on, since it's brief, obviously-relevant, unexceptional, and plainly neutral in tone. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Aveleyman.com

Have any of you had any experience with the Aveleyman.com website to know whether it is reliable? I have seen it used as a source in a couple of biographies. I searched the Noticeboard archives and found no mention of it, and I can't see anything on the site that tells about sources of its content. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Never seen it, but IMO it screams WP:SPS. Not the established subject-matter expert kind. "This year I thought I'd have a crack at something like it." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Forbes India Brand Connect

I wanted to confirm whether Brand Connect is paid/sponsored advertising for Forbes India, and whether that should be updated in the RSP. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Brand Connect articles in Forbes India are labeled with "PAID POST", which indicates that they are sponsored content and should be considered generally unreliable.

Also, note that Forbes India (forbesindia.com) is not the same as Forbes (forbes.com) (RSP entry). In 2013, R. Jagannathan – the editor-in-chief of Firstpost who later became the editor-in-chief of the generally unreliable Swarajya (RSP entry) – took over Forbes India and the top editors were fired. Afterward, the staff of Forbes India was consolidated with the teams of other Network18 properties, and as of 2013, an "integrated newsroom" of Network18 journalists started producing content for not only Forbes India, but also Firstpost, Moneycontrol.com, and IBN Live. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sky News

It has been mentioned in previous discussions but I could not find specific discussions about the source [96] nor is it listed at WP:RSP. The website is here [97], it has been broadcasting since 1989 and has a detailed corrections policy. In addition, according to the website it is editorially independent part of Sky UK. So is Sky News generally reliable? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, even more so in recent years as it's no longer part of the Murdoch empire. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Sky was reliable even in the Murdoch days. More akin to the Times than the Sun. Sceptre (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, as per the above. Use historical articles with caution where they are reporting on the Murdoch's or related companies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Walkerville Times - Cedar Point

• Source: Cedar Point: The Queen of Great Lakes Resorts – Walkerville Times
• About author: Chris Edwards and Elaine Weeks
• Article: Cedar Point

This source is cited multiple times at the Cedar Point article in its history section (source #10) and seems legit to me, based on the author's credentials. Looking for a few second opinions, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Problematic scholar

I believe that Garnik Asatrian's works should be deprecated and should not be considered RS. It is especially urgent since he is frequently used on Wikipedia, especially to discredit Kurds.

I could write pages and pages about the issues surrounding him, both in his works but also interviews that clearly showcase his contempt towards Kurds but I did make this section (Garnik Asatrian#Views and criticism) months ago that does display the issues concisely. I'm therefore going to refer to that section here. An editor also made an entry on him on this board ten years ago [98] but received no reply at all, so I'll try this time.

The problems with Asatrian lies both in his works but also his statements in interviews. An example of this is that he discredits his own unreferenced claims. In his (in)famous work from 2009[99], he writes "As for Luri... generally regarded by Kurdish authors as a Kurdish dialect, it is related to the South-Western, Persic group and is a radically different dialect, rather close to New Persian. (see Vahman/Asatrian 1995) (page 11)" Which Kurdish authors? Are we talking about scholars of Kurdish origin or? The 1995 reference he does mention is 'Poetry of the Baxtiãrís' which is a collection of Bakhtiari poems and is a reference for the second part of the statement and does not contain any rebuke of any Kurdish author.

Then we have his interviews which are also mentioned at Garnik Asatrian#Views and criticism. Thankfully I'm not the only one who have noticed the problem with Asatrian as even researchers have questioned his statements (i.e. expert Rodziewicz).

He's also a member Armenian Revolutionary Federation which insinuates he's an Armenian nationalist. As mentioned, Rodziewicz questioned his neutrality and believes that his positions stems from the Armenian [nationalist] attitude towards Kurds. Asatrian himself said in the Golos Armenii interview in 2006 that: "The creation of a Kurdish state - whether on the territory of Turkey or Iraq - is a great threat to our national interests." Heck, he even advised the Armenian government to close all Kurdish schools out of fear of a growing Kurdish nationalism in the country.

Thus, I hope I can gather support in making him be considered not reliable on Wikipedia. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Labelling scholars reliable or unreliable is almost certainly an exercise in futility and I don’t see this guy being so far off the rails as to be WP:FRINGE. Attribution is key, we shouldn’t be taking this scholar’s opinion and placing it in wikivoice but I think that an attributed opinion from him among other opinions might be WP:DUE in some circumstances. He does seem to be used to represent a certain (as you note non-neutral) viewpoint by WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The main reason I felt compelled to make this entry was because of the way in which he has been used on Wikipedia. Sure some of his writings can be used as a reference in some circumstances and he does also work on other subjects than Kurds, but the divergent/controversial opinions on Kurds that clearly are a result of his personal contempt for Kurds are being presented in a way to question Kurdish history and roots. Frankly, I wouldn't use him on anything that concerns Kurds. If non-controversial opinion of his can be found elsewhere, we should use those scholars. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle

Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting on these topics.
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information on these topics, and should never be used in relation to them.

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

• Option 4 re the British left, Option 3 re Muslims. The Jewish Chronicle has in recent years been found to have libelled, or contravened IPSO regulations regarding misrepresentation, on at least 7 occasions. It is also being currently investigated by IPSO with regards to allegations against a member of the Left-wing Jewish organisation Jewish Voice for Labour. Its general view of the Labour Left is extremely critical, and its coverage, even when no direct lies, factual inaccuracies or actionable misrepresentations are present, is exceptionally biased.

Links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

7 of the above cases relate to organisations on the British left, primarily the Labour party. Three of the 8 cases mentioned above related to false claims against British Muslims, and it frequently publishes the work of individuals highly critical of Islam such as Melanie Phillips, and claimed islamophobia did not exist. It is my view that it should be treated as being generally unreliable with regards to claims made about living Muslims, Islamophobia and Islam generally. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The evidence consists mostly of IPSO rulings. I see that they have issued multiple rulings against other newspapers, including The Times and The Telegraph, so what makes these complaints special and would warrant a topic-deprecation? Alaexis_¿question? 10:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Between 2018 and 2020, there were 7 breaches involving left-wing individuals, plus one in which the newspaper was required to add information to its story as a result of IPSO mediation. This constituted all the breaches and mediated settlements imposed by IPSO. JC is a weekly newspaper, so we can compare to other weekly titles. In the same period, the Mail had 4 breaches and 3 mediations, one was related to the British Left. The Sunday Times had 1 breach relating to a member of the British left and 1 mediated correction, out of 9 breaches and six mediated corrections. The fact that the Jewish Chronicle has a problem with its reporting on the left is pretty clear from these numbers. --Boynamedsue (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I understand the IPSO is voluntary organization and having IPSO overview giving additional layer of reliability if you think that JC is biased we can always attribute. --Shrike (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember you taking the same position on the two much less serious IPSO rulings against the Canary. I would say that both are biased sources, but Canary is more accurate in its factual reporting. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I was against deprecating/"unreliabling" the Canary as well. If breaches found by IPSO is such a big deal, should we consider The Times unreliable as well who have 3 breaches in 2019?

There are no IPSO rulings against The Canary as it is not regulated by them but by IMPRESS. Being regulated by IPSO is generally seen as a sign of reliability, whereas IMPRESS has yet to establish a reputation. If IMPRESS rulings alone were the problem with The Canary, reliability wouldn't be an issue; there were several other issues raised about The Canary - are there other issues with the JC? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there really a problem of multiple editors trying to base information about Islam on it? Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 prior to 2010, no opinion afterwards. It seems that the incidents in question have been pretty recent, so I find no reason to doubt that the paper's historical coverage, dating back to 1841, is unreliable. I expect for such a long-running newspaper that it did have a strong reputation for providing accurate news for almost all of its history. For Islam generally, there is a great deal of scholarship on the issue, no reason to use any newspaper for that. (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The incidents of libel against the left actually go back to the late 1960's, but it does seem to be only in the last few years when the exceptional level of IPSO judgments start.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please provide any source to your accusations? --Shrike (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, above there is a post which links to the comparative figures for the Mail on Sunday, which had far fewer decisions against it in the same period, only one of which related to the British left. The Sunday Times had slightly more in total, as it carries much more news, but only 2 were against the British left. --Boynamedsue (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't found anything about 1960 please could point in what link they talking prior 2010? --Shrike (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no probs. hereBoynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

In this incident, Mayhew's complaint was REJECTED by the press council. Finding ONE incident over the course of 40+ years is hardly evidence of non factual reporting. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Like Alaexis said there are similar ruling against other UK news outlets. Being member of IPSO give them additional credibility. For example The the Guardian its not part of IPSO at all. Does it mean we should depreciate it? -- Shrike (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Attribute re Labour party, Palestinians and Muslims generally. Recent change in ownership not really had time to bed in. But the sources are clear enough:

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/subject/jewish-chronicle/ and https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/press-regulator-finds-jewish-chronicle-guilty-of-multiple-breaches-of-editors-code/ "The findings make clear that the reporting of the Jewish Chronicle and journalist Lee Harpin fall far below the professional and ethical standards expected of journalists working today — particularly as pertains to accuracy and fact-checking (the most basic principles of reporting)." Seems there is another trouble brewing:- https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2021/03/jewish-chronicle-double-legal-trouble.html

• Option 1 - A paper in publication for nearly 200 years is bound to have some complaints directed against it, and some of them upheld. The fact that it published corrections in response is a point in its favor, not against it. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It has had 8 false stories in three years, relating to the British left. The preceding 197 years I am less worried about. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It did not publish "8 false stories". It had 8 complaints upheld against it for inaccurate claims (e.g it claimed a left-wing person was expelled for his anti-Semitic views, when the available evidence did not clearly or explicitly show that) or failure to produce evidence for some of its claims, and it addressed them by publishing corrections. These exaggerations seem to indicate that you are on some sort of personal crusade here. I suggest you let editors, whose input you are presumably soliciting here, provide such input, without bludgeoning them with commentary when they fail to toe your line. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I must watch my tone. I was actually agreeing with you in part. I don't see that writing off their entire past content is justified. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 for the Brleft, per Buidhe for the rest; it hasn't always been so reactionary, and for most of its existence has been a paper of record for the community. It's mainly under the current regime that the malleability of facts begins. As Buidhe points out, there's unlikely to be a need to use it as a source ert Islam, except for its own position. ——Serial 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A newspaper which regularly publishes libels, and which has published articles in defense of Islamophobia. The Daily Mail is sensationalist, but unlike the Chronicle it did not accuse charity organizations of having ties to terrorism. I would not want the Chronicle used as a source in any BLP article. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The opening statement is incredibly biased for a RfC, making this RfC inherently flawed. It also contains false statements, for instance link 8 is to JVL's website, a highly criticized organization, saying it lodged a complaint with IPSO. However ISPO actually ruled there was no breach - after investigation. The JC has been facing targeted complaints (by groups accused of antisemitism) in recent years. Despite this, the number of complaints upheld is not particularly large. This is a long running news organization that is highly reputable. As for Interpal's terrorist designation, while the UK's Charity Commission on its own investigation did not find Interpal to be supporting terror, it is still designated as terrorist by the US, dating back to 2003 (Guardian coverage in 2019). Money transfers to Interpal have been blocked in 2020 by HSBC,[100] and their bank accounts were closed by multiple other banks in the past.[101] This is not a black and white situation, and rulings here vary by country.--Hippeus (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 A newspaper as old as the Jewish Chronicle is bound to have some complaints from time to time. The press in Britain doesn't have the same First Amendment protections as in the US, so libel lawsuits are much more common there. And the IPSO has been extensively criticized for being an overly bureaucratic regulator. Nevertheless, JC issued corrections and/or full retractions whenever they did make an error, which is a sign of a good WP:NEWSORG. It would probably be a good idea to use attribution for matters concerning the Labour Party. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

While this doesn't necessarily cancel out your point, I would just state that most criticism of IPSO is based on the point of view that it is insufficiently strict and run by the newspapers rather than being truly independent. --Boynamedsue (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 this is one of the oldest Jewish newspapers in the world and of course they may get one or two things wrong. Should we now depreciate CNN and the NY Times for the same? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  The argument is not that they have "got one or two things wrong" over the last two centuries, but that over the last 3 years they have published at least 8 articles regarding a specific subject that are, allegedly, false and inaccurate. I don't currently have an opinion about how reliable it is, but "it's old" is not a useful comment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If we started sanctioning every news sources that gets something wrong X times in Y years, that is an axe to which the community will flock, keeping score, the forest of sources we rely on will be quickly chopped down. Sanctions need to be treated with care because in fact every news sources in the world gets things wrong, on a regular basis, such is the nature of it -- GreenC 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That's another straw man. The argument here is that there has been a signficant change in the reliability of this specific source, either generally or with regards to a specific subject. That's not unique to this source (see for example the RSP entries for Huffpost (more reliable since 2012), Letra.ru (unreliable since 12 March 2014), Human Events (unreliable since May 2019), etc. The argument from those concerned about the reliability of this source is also not "they got a few things wrong" but that they have published multiple articles with very significant factual errors that allegedly demonstrate, at best, a lack of fact checking - the exact basis on which we evaluate reliability of sources. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 but with the caveat that this is strictly within the context we have been asked to consider and is not my judgement of the source’s body of work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The paper is reliable, specifics need to be hammered out on talk pages if a particular author or fact is reliable for a given citation. -- GreenC 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per GreenC, Sir Joseph, and Hippeus. The opening statement of this RfC has false statements (A post on JVL website that was rejected), the newspaper has a very long positive track record. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for both, but Option 1 for the newspaper historically as per the discussion above. It would worry me greatly to think that some of the multiple unsubstantiated or false statements they've published only in the last few years were used in a BLP. Volteer1 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for both per Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1. Possibly even Option 4 for reporting on the Labour left, specifically since 2018. (IPSO noted "significant concerns" about the handling of certain complaints and referred the JC to the IPSO Standards department as a result.) 7-8 complaints (with more on the way). in a fairly short period of time is significant for a non-national weekly publication.--DSQ (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 in the topic-areas mentioned. It is unequivocally a WP:BIASED source in those areas (I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise; they're very, very upfront about their policy goals and outright declared that they were seeking to eliminate Labour's leadership), but that alone wouldn't make them be unreliable; and as others have said, a few unrelated IPSO judgments against them wouldn't be unusual. The problem is that they have a significant number of IPSO judgements that all point to very specific unreliability in the context of their bias, which demonstrates a consistent willingness to skip fact-checking and accuracy when it fits their ideological goals; in other words, they show a systematic problem which makes them a poor source to use in those topic-areas. Its track record on other topics does not change this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The fact that it is properly regulated and complies with regulator's decisions is an index of reliability. Some of the breaches are more serious (the first listed) while others less so, so it is not really fair to lump them all together. In the case of the 8th example, IPSO did not uphold the complaint: https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=28437-20 Two of the examples relate to British Islamist organisations, so it seems a very big leap to "Islam". If people think two corrected articles on Islamist organisations indeed require additional considerations on topic-specific unreliability, I'd phrase it more narrowly. The more serious issue would be in relation to the left. However, considering the huge volume of articles the JC published about Labour antisemitism in this period, five upehld complaints leading to corrections doesn't amount to an awful lot. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, as BobFromBrockley points out it is properly regulated and has a good reputation, the amount of upheld complaints is small in relation to scope of reporting, and the 8th example is actually a rejected complaint.Nyx86 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

• See The Jewish Chronicle --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecation requires an RfC, which this discussion is not correctly formatted as. If intended to be an RfC, then the opening statement is a clear violation of the requirement to Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Apologies, and thanks for pointing out the mistake. I was not necessarily wanting to create a formal RfC, but I do support deprecation in that limited area. Reading the guidelines however, I'm not even sure it is possible to deprecate in a topic area. What is your suggestion of the best way to proceed from here? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reformat this into a general RfC about the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle, move your current opening statement to your vote and provide a new brief, neutral opening statement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting into an RfC is not required. All Boynamedsue has to do is change "Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated" to "Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated (which would require a followup RfC).

If, for example, there is a strong consensus for option 1, an RfC implementing option 4 would be a waste of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. Is it possible to deprecate a source on a topic-by-topic basis, or am I misusing the term "deprecate" here? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to prescribe usage for specific topic areas. For example, Fox News is listed by consensus somewhere between Options 3 and 4 for "American politics" and "scientific" issues, ostensibly leaning toward three. But by default, Option 4 applies when there are more reliable sources. It's otherwise reliable in other topic areas. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Legend. In general, if a source is deprecated you can't use it for anything. For what you appear tpo be looking to do, a consensus of "Publishes false or fabricated information about Left-wing organisations and individuals and about Muslims and Islam" is all you need to stop it from being used as a source for those topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I have changed the question to remove any use of the term "deprecate", Option 4 now has wording similar to that suggested by GM. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure we can use IPSO decisions uncritically. In one of the links provided above it's said that:

“ The Jewish Chronicle has paid out £50,000 in libel damages to a UK charity that provides aid to Palestinians after wrongly linking it to terrorism. The Chronicle claimed in an article in March that Interpal had been listed as a “specially designated terrorist organisation” by the United States in 2003 for allegedly funding militant Islamist group Hamas. ”

Now it's very easy to see that Interpal has been designated as such by the US [102], [103]. Alaexis_¿question? 11:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

”In its apology, The Chronicle said: “We accept that neither Interpal, nor its trustees, have ever been involved with or provided support for terrorist activity of any kind”.

“We apologise unreservedly to the trustees for any distress caused and have agreed to pay them damages for libel.”

“The Chronicle also apologised for wrongly claiming that Interpal chairman of trustees Ibrahim Hewitt (pictured) held “extremist views” in the report”.

Burrobert (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the article, I'm trying to understand what they wrote which turned out to be not true. English defamation law is rather special and the court rulings do not constitute the absolute truth. Alaexis_¿question? 14:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are publishing a story in Britain and state a legal organisation supports terrorism without evidence, you are not a reliable source. All 7 cases reveal an out and out disregard for fact-checking, they simply publish false information with an astounding regularity for such a slim volume. The motivation for this is ideological, the paper has a strong pro-Conservative, pro-Israel line. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

But in this case there IS evidence- Interpal has indeed been designated a terror-supporting organization in the US Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

https://charityandsecurity.org/news/uk_charity_commission_interpal_not%20supporting_terror/ Clear case of not fact checking.Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

is it, or is it a case of insufficient checks by the UK Charity commission? https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js672.aspx Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the US were asked for evidence and produced none.Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

that's not supported by the source you provided. And it is irrelevant, in any case. A news organization can rely on official designations by, e.g the US government, to claim that a charity is connected to terror. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

From the source "In all three investigations, the Commission had asked for a legal or evidential basis for the designation but the U.S. government has declined to do so each time." Guess you missed it. And last time I checked the JC operates in the UK not in the US.Selfstudier (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a claim , by the Charity Commission, not a fact, that evidence was not provided to it, not that evidence is not available. The US may gov't may feel it is not obligated to reposed to the Charity Commission, or it may have good reason for not divulging its sources. But you completely missed the point: if multiple governments have designated an organization as supporting terror, a news outlet can reasonably claim the same in its reporting, regardless of where it operate (UK vs US - a wholly irrelevant Red Herring) Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll take their claim over your opinion if that's OK with you. The JC has also printed that Interpal has no terror connection, are they lying?Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You're free to do as you wish, but your personal preferences have absolutely zero bearing on the reliability of a news organization referring to published designations by multiple government agencies. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

They are trying to stay true to British libel law. Yet, it's RS to say there are ties to terrorism, the US includes the charity on its sanctions list. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: if JVL told me it was raining, I'd stick out my hand to double-check. Given their track record of defending open anti-semitism (e.g. Ken Livingstone's holocaust denial, Jackie Walker's Farrakhan-esque conspiracy theories on the slave trade, etc), I'm very loath to take an RfC that relies on them seriously. Sceptre (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So the 7 examples where IPSO found the JC to publish false information in 2 years don't count? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Back to the crusade, I see. Didn't you say you are going to watch this tone, above? I repeat - It did not publish "8 false stories". It had 8 complaints upheld against it for inaccurate claims (e.g it claimed a left-wing person was expelled for his anti-Semitic views, when the available evidence did not clearly or explicitly show that) or failure to produce evidence for some of its claims, and it addressed them by publishing corrections. See the discussion below re: CNN and WaPo, which has very similar characteristics (inaccurate reporting, which some are calling "false"), corrections issued by outlets). Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you to keep it WP:CIVIL, I find the word "crusade" to be dismissive, inaccurate and offensive in view of its historical connotations. The JC published 7 stories which contained factual inaccuracies about living people, which was proven to the satisfaction of a press regulatory body. That means we should be careful about using it to source claims, especially on the subject about which it is most frequently inaccurate, the British left. The user I was responding to chose to ignore these inaccuracies, I asked them about it. You choose to believe these inaccuracies don't matter, given that this board is all about the accuracy of information provided by a source, I find your view hard to understand but pawb at y peth y bo.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The press regulatory body is one that the JC, unlike other British papers, voluntarily participates in. It responded to complaints by publishing corrections, which is a point in its favor, no to its detriment. That is one of the criteria for evaluating reliable sources- "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections ". Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No other paper, not even deprecated papers like the Sun and Daily Mail that also participate in IPSO, has had 7 judgments affecting it relating to the same organisation in 3 years. This is a display of systematic bias which likely reaches into other articles that do not relate to specific individuals who might be defamed and make a complaint. The Daily Mail(!) has less judgments against it covering all topics in the same period than the JC has, despite running twice as many stories every day than the JC does weekly. And those papers that choose not to participate in IPSO do so because they consider it to be biased in favour of the newspapers, not because they want to avoid its scrutiny.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If the JC had decided, like the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, not to participate in IPSO, what would this RfC be based on? Nothing. You are taking the fact that an organization voluntarily agrees to be regulated, and then acts to correct issues identified by the regulatory body as evidence against its reliability. It is absurd. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent would argue that they regulate themselves to a higher level than IPSO. However, that is not really relevant to the matter at hand. Being a member of IPSO is not, of itself, enough to state a source is reliable, given some deprecated sources are members. However, a large number of decisions against a newspaper for false information, taken by a body which many believe to be too soft on false information, is strong evidence that false information is regularly published by said paper. This is especially noteworthy when, unlike all the other longer and often more frequently published papers, the JC systematically chooses one exceptionally specific group of people to defame. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what they would argue, the fact that The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent decided not to submit to IPSO's regulation makes any argument along the lines of "JC is worse than all the other longer and often more frequently published papers" (who are not members) meaningless. Membership in IPSO is not , in itself , evidence of reliability, but "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections " - which is exactly what we have here. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't put things I have not said in inverted commas, it is misrepresentation. If you have genuine doubts about the reliability of the Guardian et al, you should certainly start a section about them detailing your reasons. However, it is not possible to state that membership of IPSO establishes that "a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy". IPSO includes among its members no less than 7 deprecated publications, all of which publish corrections when IPSO mandates them. The JC doesn't reach their nadirs of quality, except in its recent coverage of the British Left and Muslims, which is why I have not asked for full deprecation. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that this RfC is relying on JVL. It's one of several things that participants are considering, and afaict only two people seem to see it is as a significant aspect of the discussion (and one of them is you). Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note I have resotored this discussion from the archive as it would benefit from formal closure. I'll list it at WP:ANRFC shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Politics.co.uk

I have been redirected here from another page, so I have copied and pasted my question from that page onto here:

Simple question: is politics.co.uk a reliable source for DOB of members of the British Parliament? I noticed quite a lot of them have this source only as the information available. Most of them are very short, brief paragraphs and usually quote Wikipedia articles verbatim and as far as I’m concerned offer little credibility. Could I have some advice on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:83f:be8:1cfb:39be (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How do we know it isn’t reliable? I spent ages adding the dates of birth for new MPs the other day, which appeared to have been removed en masse, and I cited Politics.co.uk as a reference. It seems to be a reputable website which has been around for 15 years, and the site’s editor, Ian Dunt, is fairly experienced. A number of well-known organisations use the site, and at least one MP writes for it. I’ll admit that many of their MP profiles do bear a similarity to what’s on Wikipedia, so it’s possible they have plagiarised this site in part, but not all articles are verbatim copies.

I’m a bit fed up of the (petty, IMO) arguments here about "deprecated" or disallowed sources for MPs’ dates of birth on Wikipedia - the latest intake of MPs have not published such information in one mass media, freely available and reliable source. The Times Guide to the House of Commons does have many of the dates, but it’s really expensive. I find it hard to believe no Wikipedia user has a copy, though it likely backs up the data we already have. I did add a few dates from that book which were given to me by a friend who has it.

Wikipedia is inevitably going to be plagiarised by other sites and news sources. But we have no proof that politics.co.uk has done it in this instance. MPs could easily complain about that site and have the data removed if they didn’t like it. How do we know that Wikipedia didn’t plagiarise politics.co.uk, rather than the other way round?

Dates of birth shouldn’t be controversial, and it’s quite important detail, especially for frontline politicians. I’d rather the DOBs here which use the politics.co.uk site as a reference were left alone, at least until they can be replaced with a different source (use the tag if necessary).—TrottieTrue (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don’t think anyone needs to 20:44, 26 March 2021‎ 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2take lectures from you. You constantly use primary sources to back up content. You really don’t know anything on this subject if you don’t know not to use primary sources from government websites as sources of information. Nice try though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Please sign your posts on talk pages, you do this by writing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The user isn’t registered, it seems. They seem to have become abusive and rude quite quickly too (see comment below, presumably from the same person), so I think the Wikipedia admin need to keep an eye on this. I think they’re referring to the fact I used pages at Companies House as a reference for dates of birth. I wasn’t aware that was considered a primary source which cannot be used.

There’s a good argument for only letting registered users make edits. That, or giving articles on MPs an extra level of protection.—TrottieTrue (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Trolling, abusive language. Zaathras (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nice way to not answer the question by spouting irrelevant rubbish. Good one. Last time I checked this was a discussion. We need straight questions and answers. Do you have one? Or are you conceding your source is total rubbish? I don’t think you’ll get away that easily simply by deleting whatever I say and then changing the subject. Nice try once again, though.

(@OP) Based on their aboutpage [104] I wouldn't use this site for WP:BLP stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see anything suggesting it’s unreliable as a BLP source. In any case, it’s better not to remove any DOBs which reference the site. If necessary, use the or tags, rather than removing the info altogether.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you see suggesting it’s reliable as a BLP source? Also, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I'm not saying there's a current consensus that politics.co.uk is a poor source for DOB:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing concrete indicating reliability, but nothing indicating it isn’t. It’s primarily a news site. Those are generally considered RS - like non-tabloid British newspapers.—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: this subject has also been discussed at:
  • WP:RSN: here
  • WP:BLPN: here and
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom: here.

JBchrch (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

I'm aware of the past discussions, now archived, concerning the reliability of this site for Wikipedia's purposes, but perhaps it might be better to revise its listing at RSP as "Marginally reliable" (yellow shaded), rather than "generally unreliable" (red shaded)? I pose this question for discussion in light of the fact that the Wikipedia Library is now in partnership with Ancestry.com for authorized Wikipedians to use it for "Genealogical and historical records". See the announcement here: Books & Bytes newsletter, Issue 40, July–August 2020.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It uses official records. Hardly unreliable.—TrottieTrue (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue with places like Ancestry.com is not the reliability in the typical sense, but being sure that it is about the exact same person you are looking for. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, isn't it already established that Ancestry.com is usually unreliable, per Wikipedia:ANCESTRY.COM-EL? I thought that was already established... --Historyday01 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am saying whether it is reliable or not does not mean we should use always use it, as we can't be certain it is about the same person. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think its still unreliable, having a partnership with wikipedia is irrelevant (and any suggestion that we should show favor to parter organizations is inappropriate) and while they may be a good research tool to find WP:RS they are not themselves to be used as one. They simply don’t vet the information they collate in a way which would make it usable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Greenman Review (allegedly?) by Jafari Willis & Dr. Maksim Kask

Could somebody look over The Greenman Review for reliability? It looks right and wholesome, but looks can be deceiving, and neither of the principal contributors have articles here either, worrying me somewhat. Before I cite one of their earlier pages, can I get an okay? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Undergraduate journal article

The following source, which seems to be from an undergraduate research journal, is cited in several articles including Marriage, Incest taboo, Incest, and Kinship.

• Jones, Ashley. "Incest in Ancient Egypt" (PDF).

Are undergraduate journals typically considered reliable sources? Is this one reliable? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, almost certainly not. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As per FDW777 probably not, but if the content sounds reasonable then tag with template:better source needed instead of outright removal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be reliable but it's unlikely to pass WP:DUE. (The journal's "About Us" webpage is here for other editors interested in investigating this.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Some might be, but this is a student association running an in-house publication. This is not a reliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone told me once, I can't remember who, that we usually look for at least PHD level, if that's right, then this is a no-no.-Selfstudier (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

lostworlds.org

I've tried searching the archives for this site, lostworlds, but nothing popped up. Like ancientorigins dot net, they seem to be a mix of some mainstream archaeology, spiced up with WP:FRINGE pseudoarcheology of the "Mayas colonized the US southeast" variety. Most of the articles seem to be written by Gary Daniels, "a media producer with a background in television production and interactive design", and do not cite cite any academic journals, books, writings, etc. for the articles. I do not consider them a RS. Does any one else have any opinions on the matter? Heiro 20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

For some context, other work by Gary Daniels "MAYAN CALENDAR PROPHECIES | PART 3: CYCLE OF COSMIC CATASTROPHES". Heiro 22:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And filming scenes for the notoriously WP:FRINGE pseudoarchaeological tv series "America Unearthed]". Heiro 22:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any dispute about this? The obvious answer is if it includes fringe content, then probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is, but see Talk:Crystal River Archaeological State Park#I’ve got evidence that the ancient Mayans built Crystal River. A new user wants to use it as a cite, I'm not sure they are going to take only my word for it. I just wanted other input, and to create a consensus since there does not seem to be one in the RSN archives for this site. We should not be citing them. Heiro 22:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Distractify

Is Distractify reliable for celebrity and pop culture news? versacespacetalk to me 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Laming

Are a mans claims about his achievements and qualifications in a radio interview and in a speech to parliament reliable sources for his BLP? Discussion at Talk:Andrew_Laming#Autobiography?. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:ABOUTSELF is the test there, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)