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

Jewish Chronicle

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

---

Which of the following 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)

Sorry, somehow I missed BobFromBrockley's comment here. Yes you are correct about the Canary, IMPRESS is viewed as much stricter than IPSO, fully implementing the Leveson Inquiry. My mistake. IPSO on the other hand regulates such paragons of virtue as The Sun, The Star and the Daily Mail, which are deprecated on this website. IPSO membership is not an indicator of reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 2 April 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)blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

He received a public apology in the High Court. That is a fairly strong indicator of false information being published. However, I agree the problem relates specifically to recent years.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 2 April 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 2/3 Attribute re Labour party(3), Palestinians(3) and Muslims(2) 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 Changed my opinion a bit after this piece.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• 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)blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

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)blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

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,[1] and their bank accounts were closed by multiple other banks in the past.[2] 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)
• Option 2. It's usually reliable but has to be treated with caution on certain hot-button issues, where WP:ATT would apply. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: it's as reliable as any other newspaper on these topics, which is not to say that the origin of information/opinion does not sometimes need to be attributed to the source. It is also not to say that the source does not have a bias (every source does): in this case it has at least an anti-left wing political stance (I don't know enough about its reporting on Islam). Boynamedsue calls it "exceptionally biased"—but I think this whenever I read The Guardian or The Times. What's new? Every source has a strong selective bias (and almost all of those biases clash with my own). The number of complaints seem unsurprising for such a major publication, while the membership of IPSO is a point in its favour. There's a clear fact-checking process with editorial oversight and a corrections process. Bobfrombrockley makes some good points. — Bilorv (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It has double the number of IPSO rulings against it than the deprecated Mail on Sunday, a paper several times its length. The only weekly title with more IPSO rulings against it is the Sunday Times, which again is much, much longer. The crucial difference with other newspapers is that their errors are randomly scattered by topic, whereas every single one of the JC's errors relate to falsehoods published about the British left, including 6 about the same woman! (dealt with as a single case) This shows a systematic pattern of publishing false news about a particular group, rather than the normal errors one finds in the process of news gathering. As for IPSO, well they regulate seven deprecated publications, so membership is no guarantee of reliability. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Further to the questions about IPSO's reliability, I notice that IMPRESS hasn't yet taken forward very many complaints. IPSO has published its external review naming the directors of the funding company and the editors' code commmittee, and IMPRESS will publish its own review in 2022, so at this stage I don't think there are sufficient grounds to make negative comparisons between regulators. At any rate, I'd say membership of either regulator would demonstrate a public commitment to the external regulation of accuracy and ethics. I'm not sure how many IPSO cases we'd expect to see in the seven years since records start in 2014 for a comparable publication from a religious / cultural / ethnic minority in extremely turbulent times, but I counted 17 which struck me as pretty low. As pointed out above, there are rulings in similar vein for other publications which are accepted as credible sources here, so there would need to be more to this proposed deprecation than just rulings. As stated above the opening statement here is out of date - further to the JVL complaint the JC was cleared (see IPSO ruling 28437-20). Moreover, for half the cases against jc.com and a third of those against the Jewish Chronicle in the same timeframe, the ruling was that there had been no breach of the Editor's Code. Meanwhile JC has published and continues to publish articles by left politicians, activists and commentators, so I don't find the claim a track record of systematic hostility convincing. I take all this to indicate that standards are generally being met. In summary the JC seems comparable with other credible sources here. TrabiMechanic (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 As per the responses from Aquillion, Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1 and for all the points Boynamedsue has also made. It has been very faulty concerning its reliability regards many British Left-wing organisations and individuals, Muslims and Islam and Palestinians. Its exalted age and past quality track record on other topics does not give it a free pass. Historically (prior to 2010) and in other areas it might well be Option 1 or 2, but for the specific question of this RfC it is undoubtedly Option 3. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per the analysis by TrabiMechanic and BobFromBrockley. Longstanding organization that has been under an organized attack, and even so the amount of complaints and their contents are not particularly significant.--Droid I am (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for recent coverage of the British left and Palestine/Palestinians (do not use material from ~2016 onwards and be extremely careful with stuff from around 2010 to around 2016). Option 1 generally reliable for other matters, but strongly consider attributing for content related to Islam/Muslims. This is based on the totality of evidence and comments presented and linked in this thread. The source is clearly currently problematic regarding a specific subject area, and it's long track record does not excuse that. Outside of that single topic area though there is no evidence that it is any less reliable than before. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 for broadly anything coming under the ARBPIA topic area. As has been said, other sources which are as or more reliable have been found to be unreliable or deprecated. It's normal for news organisations to have clear biases, but much of its content is so far beyond the bounds of accuracy as to be propaganda. Rather than just carrying out reportage, it has political agendas. It criticises the Board of Deputies of British Jews, no shrinking violets, for not being hardline enough and, indicating its priority isn't impartiality, calls on the Israeli government to produce better hasbara. Its articles are sloppily written, showing little fact-checking rigour. Writers often show a lack of knowledge. Having been heavily criticised for its editorial standards by the press regulators, the claim that the paper is "well-regulated" is fairly risible. It disregards normal journalistic ethics, altering articles after publishing without noting the changes, sometimes deleting them altogether. On Wikipedia, its content is cited to excessively ram biographical articles of those disliked by supporters of Israel full of uncomplimentary material, editors doing so showing, if anything, the inclination to do the complete opposite in articles on those for whom they have a liking and also not showing any real appreciation for other points of view. Really, I think that the ARBPIA area would probably benefit from setting the bar high on sourcing standards as is done in articles related to Eastern Europe. As many of the sources which take a view opposed to that taken by papers such as the Chronicle have been judged to not be reliable, that means that much non-factual material is presented as fact. In the long term, I expect that much current material sourced to papers such as the Chronicle will be pulled as books become available.

  Currently I'm involved in a talkpage discussion involving the reliability of articles inluding one from the Chronicle in which a number of untrue or inaccurate factual statements underlie a claim of antisemitism being made against Kerry-Anne Mendoza, editor of The Canary.

  An article which I happen to be reading currently and is I think, through the people and organisations supported, rather telling about the position of the paper on the extremity spectrum. It's by Lee Harpin, whose Jewish Chronicle pieces have, by my count, been on the losing end of at least three recent court cases or press standards complaints for libel. Editors might like to Google: Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS); Saul Freeman (an LAAS member); GnasherJew (its Twitter feed was recently suspended); David Collier[3][4][5]. A couple of potential results which I think are worth reading: [6][7].

  Example smear: In January 2010, the Chronicle phoned Jenny Tonge early in the morning for comments on a piece in the Palestine Telegraph, of which she was patron, which mentioned YouTube videos which made claims that an IDF team in Haiti was involved in stealing body organs for transplant. Tonge expressed support for the team and, in response to a question, suggested that, to prevent the allegations going further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry (“To prevent allegations such as these – which have already been posted on YouTube – going any further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry immediately to clear the names of the team in Haiti”). The transcript of the phone conversation no longer appears to be on the Chronicle's website, although parts of it are quoted in later articles. The Chronicle then, by stages, transformed Tonge's suggestion as to how to stop the allegations going further into a demand for an independent inquiry: see the headline here, "Tonge: Investigate IDF stealing organs in Haiti"; see the headline and text of the article here, "Nick Clegg has sacked Jenny Tonge as the Lord's health spokesperson over her demands for an investigation into organ trafficking in Haiti by the IDF "; see the blog piece here, "I was lost for words when I read that Jenny Tonge wants Israel to disprove allegations that its medical teams used the opportunity to harvest organs while on a humanitarian mission in Haiti." The smear that Tonge demanded an inquiry has been repeated frequently, making a recent appearance in David Baddiel's book "Jews Don't Count."

  The following link is to a current example of a highly biased 'news' article which would skew Wikipedia if used as a source of fact rather than opinion. Note the use of polemical words such as 'denial', 'thrall', 'toxic', 'rampant', 'cancer', 'hate', 'madness' and 'poison'. Note that the BDS movement is controversial, but not the EHRC report (which "proved the Labour Party broke the law in its treatment of Jewish people") or Ian Austin, who is quoted at length, and his organisation Mainstream UK. Article: The Jewish Chronicle - Jake Wallis Simons - EXCLUSIVE: 70% of Labour members still think the party has no problem with Jew hate and don't want Corbyn expelled, 30 March 2021. (For comparison and a different viewpoint, see this article in the Electronic Intifada, a source which was found to be unreliable, partly on the grounds of partisanship, with the probable participation of a number of the contributors here.)

  From "The Candidate: Jeremy Corbyn's Improbable Path to Power", Alex Nunns, OR Books, 2018, page 741 of 1132 in the electronic edition: "The most powerful smears deployed during the campaign worked by suppressing all context, isolating a particular comment or association, and presenting it as evidence of Corbyn’s villainy. In its most grotesque form, this involved pulling out examples from Corbyn’s long history of advocacy for the Palestinian people in order to tar him as anti-Semitic. These claims were slightly different from the later anti-Semitism allegations levelled against the Labour Party in spring 2016. In those cases, there was an attempt to brand the Corbyn phenomenon as inherently racist based on the social media posts of a few mainly low-ranking party members, most of which were made prior to Corbyn’s tenure. The smears created during the leadership contest were more ambitious but less plausible as their subject was Corbyn himself. The Jewish Chronicle newspaper led the charge ... ."

      ←   ZScarpia   02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Hippeus, Dr. Swag Lord, and TrabiMechanic. GretLomborg (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Again, another poster-child for why these "should this source be banned forever for being baddy-bad-bad and saying nasty things about people I like" RFCs should never have been permitted in the first place. There are things that JVL probably isn't the most reliable source on (like, how good is their sports coverage?) but voting any other way on this RFC takes away editors' rights to decide how to use this source in general. IPSO reports taken in isolation aren't a good measure of reliability - you have to compare how many reports JVL received compared to sources regarded as reliable received. Simply having a position that is critical of the left and of Labour is not an indicator of unreliability, not unless the plan is to simply ban right-leaning sources from Wiki. Had this been linked to an actual content dispute (e.g., something specific in an article about Israel-Palestine?) it's very possible that I might vote differently, but the broad scope of this discussion leaves me with only one option. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, it's a major newspaper and the complaints are not so significant, the intro here also passes off a JVL complaint as having weight when IPSO rejected it. In hot-button issues on the UK far-left, if other sources have a different the attributing sources would be the wya forward.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting that you recently removed the mentions of a number of complaints and rulings against the paper from its article.[8] — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• It's a major newspaper. It is a newspaper, which puts it into one of the least reliable classes of source. Given its relatively tiny circulation and very narrow focus, I doubt that its justifiable to describe it as a 'major' newspaper. The UK's largest circulation newspaper is The Daily Mail, which, of course, is a deprecated source. In my opinion, at least in those subjects which encroach on its rather deep prejudices, the Chronicle shares many of the Mail's faults: sloppiness, disregard for fact, chauvinism, fairly extreme bias, sensationalism.     ←   ZScarpia   00:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. See top of this page: "Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available ..." -- as opposed to accusing it of "libel against the left", suggesting that failure to censor Melanie Phillips is a reason to censor it, etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per buidhe.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 but as with all news sources, exercise caution, corroborate the material, attribute as necessary, and remember context matters. Atsme 💬 📧 00:22, 20 April 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 [9], [10]. 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)

As far as the UK Charity Commission goes, note that from October 2012 to February 2018 (the Interpal case was concluded in September 2019), it was chaired by William Shawcross. As the article on Shawcross says, "in 2011 he joined the board of the Anglo-Israel Association and was appointed to the board of the Henry Jackson Society." The Henry Jackson Society, rightly or wrongly, is often seen as "a leading exponent of neoconservatism in the UK."[11] Shawross is now part of the consortium which owns The Jewish Chronicle.[12]     ←   ZScarpia   00:53, 16 April 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)

You wrote: "e.g. Ken Livingstone's holocaust denial, Jackie Walker's Farrakhan-esque conspiracy theories on the slave trade, etc" And which exactly were the sources from which you formed your views about those matters Sceptre?     ←   ZScarpia   01:38, 21 April 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)

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.

Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source

Brian Dunning, “science writer and author, and also the Executive Director of Skeptoid Media” has been used as an ostensibly reliable source to support a claim made in the WP Grey alien article. I submit however that Brian Dunning should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

Brian Dunning plead guilty to and was convicted of felony wire fraud (2014), scamming eBay out of an estimated $5 million dollars. With his Skeptoid podcast, Dunning purported to defend the wider public from fraud even while committing fraud himself – indeed, according to many commentators, including blackmailing a co-conspirator and defrauding his own Skeptoid supporters in the same scam. A further indication of Dunning’s character and reliability has been highlighted, also from within his own constituency: “I did not think it was right to gloat when the cultural opposition falters or ceases to be an issue as when Sylvia Browne died. I do not think it proper, or rational to gloat when a skeptic has faltered either.”

I would like thank the community and ask for a consideration of this matter. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, Dunning is a respected expert on this topic. His issues with eBay are not as simple as appears on the surface: he was basically stitched up, but acknowledged that he should have realised that what he was doing was impermissible. That's not relevant to his expertise on the subject of ufology folklore. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: what are your sources for these claims? - Scarpy (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Scarpy, I think it's all; covered at Brian Dunning (author). I should note that I first knew him as a FileMaker Pro guru, I listened to Skeptoid for about a year but stopped after his conviction because I was uncomfortable with the lack of judgment it implied. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I have to agree with Scarpy. What are the sources you rely upon for that assessment? If it is Dunning’s explanation (then talk to the guilty and and they will always plead their innocence to you), please see A Critical Analysis of Brian Dunning’s Explanation

And Dunning is certainly not a reliable source, his DDT fail is a perfect example.

Nor is he particularly respected by his own supporters, who tend toward outrage. “The outrage, however, comes from knowing that I enjoyed Skeptoid enough to do the $4/month donation for several months, finally caving to Dunning’s frequent postscript pleas for money. The donation requests were interesting, since Skeptoid once billed itself as “the only podcast that does not accept donations or sponsors,”

And a duplicitous hypocrite… In an interview with Alex Tsarkis, after Tsarkis has questioned Dunning about why he will not debate his opponents, Dunning argues the principle that it is easy to throw out false or misleading “one-liners”, but to prove them false often takes a great deal of time and effort.

“They’re [whoever Dunning’s opponent of the moment is] not limited to anything. They can say whatever the heck they want. They can throw that stuff out way faster and make it up way quicker than I could ever keep up with or respond to. I’ve found that many debates go that way. I attend a debate sometimes. I watch them.”

However, a few minutes later, after Dunning has engaged in the precise practice that he has just berated his opponents for, Alex Tsakiris politely notes Dunning’s hypocrisy: “You are fulfilling [laughs], you are fulfilling your prophesy about debate. You just laid out about ten points there that would have to be deconstructed and handled one at a time.

A few minutes later, Alex Tsakiris notes Dunning’s habit of lying by omission: “So you just mentioned Scargle’s commentary. Why don’t you mention Nelson’s response to it, published in the Journal for Scientific Exploration, a peer-review journal that he wrote a response to that? Or, the additional papers that have been published since then as a response to it? We have two folks debating here. Don’t we want to hear both sides of the debate?

Brian Dunning: Certainly. I don’t have that in front of me. I can’t read that for you right now.

Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s also an interesting context that do you remember where Scargle’s criticism, where that’s published? It’s published in the same Journal for Scientific Exploration that Nelson and Raden published their articles…”

Dunning is implacably biased…and the problem with Dunnings wilful ignorance of (potentially) falsifying evidence is that one must forever after be fact-checking whatever the man says. Demonstrably the man cannot be relied upon to provide an honest appraisal of whatever he is talking about.

Oh, and Guy, just because you know someone as a "guru" in one field (Filemaker), does not make them an expert in ufology, nor in FileMaker apparently... Dunnings self-proclaimed qualifications as revealed in his FBI interview prior to his charging and conviction (Dunning plead Guilty btw ETA: ...and he went to prison):

”Summary from FBI record of interview 19 June 2007 which records Dunning's statements: / 1. He has had very little formal education. / 2. He does not have a college degree. (He quit college.) / 3. He attended classes at BYU, UCLA, and UC Irvine. / 4. He is not an experienced administrator. 5. He depended on employees at Rackspace to do most of his technical server work. / 6. He does not have any formal training in computer science or any related technical field. 7. His [claimed] expertise in Filemaker Pro is self-learned.”Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, see also poisoning the well. This has nothing to do with his reputation as an investigator of claimed paranormal phenomena. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. For anyone interested, context for this section of RSN is available here, here, here, and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Comment. Sorry JoJo Anthrax, you forgot to indicate the primary context, that is here in relation to here.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, you made the claim that Dunning was some sort of "guru" - I was merely pointing to some pertinent facts to indicate Dunning might not be a "guru" after all. Those facts were directly relevant to the point you raised.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, I get it, you hate what Dunning says and are looking for a reason not to include it. My comment stands: he is a well known and respected figure within the skeptical community, and this is in his wheelhouse. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, you are an unreliable judge. That is, your opinions are biased - you termed Dunning a “guru”. Clearly, he is not a “guru” in anything.

You also claimed Dunning was “stitched up” – when he actually plead guilty, was convicted and was sent to prison. He also had a co-conspirator who he tried to blackmail - and who was also convicted and got an even lengthier sentence. That bias of yours, alone, disqualifies you from any input into a decision in this matter, let alone the following considerations.

And where are your sources for that claim? You don’t seem to grasp WP guidelines. If you want to make claims such as "stitched up, “this is his wheelhouse”, etc., you need to provide reliable sources for you claims. All claims require evidence, and unless you can supply that evidence, we are entitled to dismiss your claims as unfounded.

You also stated Dunning “is a respected figure within the skeptical community” However, my sources cited above come from within the skeptical community and they seem to be somewhat outraged, as they should be, as every thinking skeptic should be (you should see what some of the skeptical forums have to say about him - would you like me to supply more sources in that direction?). Yet you seem to laud the man, a convicted felon, convicted for fraud (!) no less, perpetrated on his own followers as well as eBay, as some kind of hero.

Further, with your poisoning of the well statement “you hate what Dunning says,” means you do not “get it" at all. You totally misjudge my character and purpose - go to at my talk page for example or read my comments on the Grey alien article in question, or the the article I constructed in my sandbox… (have you done any of those things btw?) ...besides, you have presented no evidence for that claim, which is in fact the commission of the fallacy of ad hominem. All claims require evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence, then we are entitled to dismiss them as unfounded.

So on those grounds I do not accept your ”my comment stands". Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What we can say, for sure, is that Dunning's fraud conviction is totally irrelevant to whether he's a subject matter expert, as it would be for any other person. If, to take a random example, Klaus von Klitzing was to be found guilty of fraud tomorrow, would it make him no longer an expert in quantum physics? Of course it wouldn't, that would be silly. The only thing that decides whether Dunning is reliable or not is whether he is described as such in reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A counter example: Jan Schön Schön scandal was considered to be a shining star of condensed matter physics. He was later found to have faked his work and is now not considered to be an expert on anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

With all due respect, this strikes me not so much as a counter example and more of a non sequitur. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a real counter example to a fictional speculation. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

The Dunning question is: if someone did something wrong in one area, can they still be a reliable source in another area?

You gave an example of: if someone did something wrong in one area, can they still be a reliable source in that same area?

Totally different questions. That is why it is non sequitur. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunning was committing fraud while claiming to protect people from fraud. Xxanthippe has presented a valid counter-example. Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, that isn't a counter argument at all. Schon isn't reliable in that area because he faked his work in that area. What is being claimed here is that Dunning isn't reliable in the field of skepticism because he was convicted of wire fraud. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If a person has cheated in one thing they have lost their credibility and cannot be considered to be reliable for anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC).

• Comment. It is clear that Skeptoid or Dunning cannot be considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that eBay fraud has nothing to do with source reliability. For the earlier episodes/material of Skeptoid, I think we'd have to abide by the rules for self-published sources because it's not clear what oversight Dunning had in his research and his main academic qualification is in engineering. On the pro side, Skeptoid 1. now has a board of directors, presumably meaning its information is not sourced to one person's judgment, 2. and Dunning's work has been syndicated/republished and covered by reliable news sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wingedserif, just to clarify, Dunning doesn't have any academic qualifications. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Nor does Skeptoid lauding Skeptoid count as a reliable news source. Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Having a board of directors and being syndicated by news sites are surely not exceptional claims. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it's fine. —Wingedserif (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• On Wikipedia, especially for fringe topics, WP:PARITY matters. Dunning is notable for reality-based criticism and can generally be used as such. WP:ATTRIBUTE as necessary if controversial. —PaleoNeonate – 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • • You will of course have reliable sources available for "Dunning is notable for reality-based criticism"? All claims require evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence, then we are entitled to dismiss them as unfounded. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Guy, Black Kite, and PaleoNeonate. Attribution as necessary. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Point of order: Again and again in the discussion above I am seeing the word "convicted". See our article on Conviction. The correct term is "pled guilty as part of a plea bargain", See our article on Plea bargain. The reason this makes a difference is that there are two common cases where what someone agrees to in a plea bargain is radically different from what the result would have been in a fair trial.

1. Case one: The jury would have almost certainly convicted on charge A but to save court time and costs and to avoid the possibility of acquittal the prosecutor offers a plea deal for lesser charge B. This may also happen if the defendant has information the police wants or is willing to pay back money that would otherwise be safe in an offshore account. Low level drug dealers often get a far lesser charge, zero time and no fine if they cooperate in bringing down the big fish.
2. Case two: The jury would have almost certainly not convicted on charge A but the prosecutor offers a plea deal where the accused gets a far lesser punishment. Imagine if you were accused of crime A which you didn't commit. You are given a chance to go to trial and serve 40 years if convicted, or plead to a lesser charge and get six months probation. Your lawyer says that you will probably win in court but that you are rolling the dice with a jury. Also, whichever way it goes you will lose your life savings in legal fees and spend months on the front page. Remember, in this imaginary scenario you are 100% innocent. Are you sure you would take a chance on the 40 year deal?

For these reasons we should always specify whether someone accepted a plea deal or was convicted in a trial. It is an important distinction.--Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is actually relevant to the disucssion, but pleading guilty does not mean you are not then convicted. When you enter a plea of guilty a judgment is entered without a trial, but you are still convicted of the charge you plead guilty to. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't correct. A guilty plea is often followed by a conviction but not always. For example, it may be followed by adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which may be followed by dismissal after adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. This happens when a decision is made to put off the convict/dismiss decision for a certain amount of time and if you keep out of trouble during that time, complete drug rehabilitation, or some other condition, your case is dismissed. Always check to see if there was an actual convicyion instead of assuming that there is one besed upon a guilty plea, Even if there is a conviction after the guilty plea it is important to distinguish a conviction by plea bargain from a conviction by trial. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• All interesting, but in this case it was followed by a conviction and 15 months imprisionment. Thus saying he was convicted of fraud is accurate. You can, if you wish, say that he was convicted after pleading guilty, but both the statement "he was convicted of fraud" and "he entered into a plea bargin" are true. - Bilby (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not to lengthen a digression, but I have to side with Bilby here. It is quite correct that dispositions other than conviction are possible after a plea, but where the disposition includes conviction it seems appropriate to couch it in those terms. Cheers. 12:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. Imagine that we were using OJ Simpson as a reliable source on something football-related, Bill Cosby on something comedy-related, or Harvey Weinstein on something movie-related. Would they become any less expert because they committed crimes unrelated to their fields of expertise? Brian Dunning is a well respected as a skeptic, even by people who say that they now have no respect for him as a person. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm finding this a bit difficult to answer. Is he reliable in regard to any fringe topic? No - that's far too broad. Is he reliable in terms of the history of UFOs? That depends on what expertise he has in the field, but given that I'm not aware of academic qualifications needed to be a UFOlogist, I'm leaning towards saying he is as qualified as anyone else can claim to be. Is Skeptoid reliable? It's a podcast, and seems to be (like many podcasts) self published, so it isn't reliable for BLPs, and has made at least one significant error in the past, so I'd be wary of using it in general. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. There is no connection between the conviction and the texts used as sources. If you want him to be classified as unreliable, you will have to find a much better reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution To be honest, I am not a big fan of the man personally, but Skeptoid has been cited and seems well-known. I don't know that it has been cited enough for general blanket reliability, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Dumuzid, yes, that's exactly my point. Dunning does have a reputation for putting the effort in, he cites his sources, and his show is not sensationalist. It's not SGU, but it doesn't need to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. Here is the sentence that we are being asked to determine if Dunning is a reliable source for: According to science writer and skeptic Brian Dunning, the Hill's alleged abduction introduced the gray alien into popular culture, although popular use of the term "greys" would follow years later. Dunning continues to be quoted by news and media as a scientific skeptic and subject matter expert: [13], [14], [15], so yes, he's a WP:RS for what he's being used for. As Guy Macon said, someone doesn't become any less of an expert because of a crime unrelated to their field [16]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I am sorry, but I cannot sit idly by while complete and utter fabrications in Dunning’s defence are promulgated.

Dunning directly admitted he was guilty on numerous public occasions and in official FBI interviews. For example: and ”Dunning pleaded guilty on April 15, 2013, to a Superseding Information charging him with wire fraud. In pleading guilty, Dunning admitted that, between approximately May 2006 and June 2007, he engaged in a scheme to defraud eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” According to the plea agreement, commissions paid to Dunning’s company, Kessler’s Flying Circus (KFC), which Dunning owned jointly with his brother, totaled approximately $5.2 million during that period from eBay’s domestic Affiliate Program. The parties stipulated for sentence purposes that between $200,000 and $400,000 of those commissions were the result of the fraudulent scheme.”

A critical analysis of Dunning’s statement in his own defence can be found here.

And if you are still in any doubt about whose version of events to believe, the court documents are available. For example (a selection):

…and if you are still in any doubt as to Dunning’s or Skeptoid’s character and reliability, please see

Other references you may find useful:

Hopefully by injecting some facts into the debate, we can forestall all misleading speculative opinion about Dunning and Skeptiod that is being promulgated above. Facts matter. Opinion not supported by reliable references may be dismissed as unfounded (and the old excuse that "Oh, we all knew him as a good guy, the life of the party, a pillar of the community, a stalwart for the cause... was said also about many wife beaters and serial killers ...the neighbors and colleagues are always surprised and many go into denial - a pattern I see repeated above. However, it is not a valid argument on which to base a judgement in any case, let alone this one.

The man is a convicted fraudster who has admitted his guilt. One cannot claim to be fighting fraud on behalf of the public while committing fraud at the same time and expect to be taken seriously as a credible source of information. On all the evidence above the man is utterly unreliable. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear from an obviously neutral and dispassionate observer who clearly has no emotional stake in the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. As per Guy Macon, Guy, Black Kite, and PaleoNeonate above Heiro 06:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for stuff like grey aliens. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, just need to add this then I'll shut up again.

Let’s take a closer look at LuckyLouie's referenced links. Dunning says Nostrodamus was unreliable. That is what makes him a reliable source? My 10 yr old could have told you that about Nostrodamus, but I wouldn’t trust him with scientific skepticism. Dunning says the best explanation for the “WOW!” signal is a radio signal from the direction of Saggitarius? That is mere unsupported speculation. But notice something? The WOW! signal was a radio signal and it did come from a particular direction …so in essence Dunning has said nothing at all. Is it that that makes him a reliable source? And Dunning says the US Navy Videos are an optical illusion? So, let me get this straight, all the people involved, including the pilots and the technicians and scientific support staff – that is, the technical expertise, might and resources of the US Navy, could not work out what the objects were, but Dunning breezes in and claims they were an optical illusions? “Oh,” the Navy says, slapping their collective palms to a forehead, “why didn’t we think of that! This Dunning guy must be an absolute genius!” Perhaps Dunning should speak to the pilots and witnesses who were actually involved? Given everyone actually involved is at odds with Dunning, your reference in this regard shows Dunning to be completely unreliable. He speculates an entirely implausible explanation that flies in the face of all the evidence and is not supported by any evidence itself. Just because Dunning claims something, does not make his claim valid. All claims require evidence. Dunning rarely supplies evidence for any of his wild speculations. Is it that that makes him reliable?

And then, what is this? Dunning said about his prison sentence ,“…he likened to life in a college dorm”. Soooo obviously no regrets then …and privileged much? Poor him. And ” Dunning recommends “getting in front” of the story and being completely open about one’s criminal record.”. Oh please, he has obfuscated and has been utterly disingenuous and self-serving about it.

Please. Can we just stick to the facts and apply some critical thought. There is nothing in what Lucky Louie linked to that might indicate Dunning as a reliable source – in fact, quite the opposite.

ETA: Sorry to Guy Macon, but Dunning committed fraud. And that is directly related to his alleged field of expertise. Moreover, if you claim Dunning is well respected, then you will be able to produce the reliable sources that say so. And precisely who are the people who have no respect for Dunning as a person, yet maintain respect for him as a skeptic? This is Wikipedia. I have been lead to believe (in no uncertain terms) that WP requires that all claims are verifiable by reliable sources. What is good for the goose must also be good for the gander, surely? Thank you in advance. Tesldact Smih (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit. Dunning committed fraud but it is only "directly related to his alleged field of expertise" in your fevered imagination. Why don't you tell us what your real problem is with Brian Dunning. I will be gobsmacked if it doesn't turn out that you strongly believe something that Brian Dunning says isn't true. Could this possible be related? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Language, young man. Oh, and apologies for my “fevered imagination”… Dunning was committing fraud while claiming to protect people from fraud. What sort of character does that make him in your eyes? Reliable?

ETA: And yes indeed, my essay, as you so helpfully reference here has quite a lot to do with it actually. Why, is there anything about it that is factually incorrect or unreliably sourced? Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunning does not claim to protect people from fraud. here is someone who actually protects people from fraud. You miss the point of my referring to your sandbox; even if it is 100% accurate and Dunning is completely wrong I think that your real problem with Dunning is that he disagrees with you, and I think your outrage against cookie stuffing is feigned. I may be wrong -- I can't read your mind -- but it would be very unusual for anyone who isn't involved in affiliate marketing to get so upset about something that only affects affiliate marketers. But aside from all that, cookie stuffing has zero to do with Quackery, Popular cultural misconceptions, Urban legends, or Religion and mythology. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh I don't believe this. I just noticed ...LuckyLouie is lying by ommission. It is actually this statement that Dunning is being relied on to support.

"In 1965, newspaper reports of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction made the archetype famous. The alleged abductees, Betty and Barney Hill, claimed that in 1961, alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer. Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" which she claimed located the home planet of her abductors in the Zeta Reticuli star system (allegedly the third planet of one of the stars of the Zeta Reticuli binary system). Betty thereafter began to refer to them as Zeta Reticulans. According to science writer and skeptic Brian Dunning, the Hill's alleged abduction introduced the gray alien into popular culture, although popular use of the term "greys" would follow years later."

I really don't appreciate such tactics and I don't believe Wikipedia should tolerate them either. Particularly in that I trusted Lucky Louie to at least be fair minded. I am sorry this debate seems to have taken such a negative turn, but that is not my doing. Tesldact Smih (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

convenience break

Comment. Yesterday I added two mainstream sources here, including The New York Times, to the intro of the Grey alien article that also support the accuracy of the line that uses Dunning as a source. In this instance, then, Dunning was a reliable source. What he said was true and had already been reported years earlier in The New York Times. 5Q5|^✉ 12:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure and consideration of block. In this thread User:Tesldact Smih has engaged in WP:BLUDGEON, has cast WP:ASPERSIONS against editors acting in good faith here (complete and utter fabrications in Dunning’s defence are promulgated and misleading speculative opinion about Dunning and Skeptiod [...] is being promulgated above), and worst of all has twice made egregious personal attacks against a specific editor here (LuckyLouie is lying and I trusted Lucky Louie to at least be fair minded). The target of those personal attacks, I must point out, has earlier bent over backwards to help Tesldact Smih (e.g., here and here, to identify only two examples). Enough is enough, and the consensus is clear. I request that an administrator close this thread and consider blocking User:Tesldact Smih now, before things get even worse. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support closure, Oppose block, for two reasons. First, this is the wrong noticeboard to have such a discussion. Second, the user has not received sufficient warning. Tesldact Smih, please consider placing Template:Uw-npa3 on the user's talk page and if the problem continues after that, post a report with diffs of the warning and post-warning behavior at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. I will take those steps immediately. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

5Q5, I decided to remove the text I originally wrote here. It was somewhat intemperate of me and inaccurate. What I should have stated was that it was false to assert that those references supported Dunning. A subtle difference to be sure, but I do not want to be accused of making false accusations. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

JoJo Anthrax, you just stated that I accused Lucky Louie of “lying.” I actually stated that Lucky Louie was “lying by omission” – which he was. So even when the text is right in front of everyone’s eyes, for all to see you cannot prevent yourself from committing a lie of omission. IMHO that indicates a zeal to achieve a certain negative outcome for me rather than a passion for doing something to improve an existing WP article that does not conform to WP guidelines.

And yes, I have been conversing with Lucky Louie and many times he has pointed out how and where I fall foul of WP guidelines (whether his intent was to be helpful or not comes down to a value judgement), but I always responded to him in good humour and I believed we had developed a relationship of respect, wherein, even though it was clear that we were on opposing sides of the debate, that at least we would treat each other in a fair minded way. Lucky Louie was also the one who suggested I come to this forum to get Dunning considered an unreliable source. That is what made it so galling for me to see his comments – it was a betrayal of trust.

Perhaps though, we might all take a deep breath, cool our heads, and return to the actual substance of the debate? Ignoring and kicking up a vexatious fuss to distract from the substance of the debate will not make it go away. There is a legitimate debate to be had here. Can we please return to it? Thank you in advance. Tesldact Smih (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusing someone of "lying by omission" is, by definition, accusing them of lying. You could say "left out crucial context" or "didn't mention" if you wanted to make the same point without calling someone a liar. I would advise that you consider that sort of rhetoric. What you have said here just sounds like doubling down, which is rarely helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes thank you Dumuzid, you are correct and WP is doing my head in. Ha.

Actually, I support Guy Macon and closure. (...and forgive me Dumuzid, one last "double down")

It is increasingly clear that one cannot use reason to dispel false beliefs that have not been arrived at by reason. Such a situation, where evidence and logic conflicts with fundamentalist beliefs, is a no-win situation for any scientist who is guided by logic and evidence. The outcome can only be negative for me - and I cannot see how that will improve by keeping this debate open any longer.

So let’s close this debate. Let WP keep the convicted fraudster as a reliable source, it hurts WP more than it does me (shrugs). Nevertheless, I admit I have made some mistakes in this debate that will not be repeated and I have learned some valuable lessons that I can carry forward. I can assure you, an exercise such as this unwise little venture will not be repeated in the future without a much deeper consideration. Thank you.

ETA: Ughh… even that sentiment is misguided. What hurts WP, by extension and association, hurts me as a WP editor. Which then makes it even more galling… ha. Ah well, lessons learned. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, request to close a discussion work best if the person making the request immediately ceases commenting in the discussion. I know it is tempting to get in one last word, but doing so sends the message "I don't really believe that this topic should be closed." No need to respond to this comment. You can reach me on my talk page if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tesldact Smih: Battleground behavior, aspersions, personal attacks, and more. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been topic banned from editing about UFOs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC: Coda Story

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

There is consensus that Option 1 best describes the source. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Coda Story is a 501(c)3 U.S.-based non-profit news organization with offices in New York City and Tbilisi, Georgia. It is a member of the Global Investigative Journalism Network and the Institute for Nonprofit News. Which of the following describes Coda Story the best?

• 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

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Coda Story)

• Option 1, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Coda Story is a non-profit news outlet that has recently won the European Press Prize for Distinguished reporting for its coverage of a particular Xinjiang issue and Columbia University's Alfred I. Dupont Award for a radio documentary that it had produced in partnership with the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. Its journalism has been republished in Rappler (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, etc.), as well as The Atlantic, and NBC News, each of which are listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP. Foreign Policy describes Coda Story as an editorial partner and has explicitly recommended Coda Story as a source for news on Xinjiang and Soviet forced labor camps. Politifact and Poynter have used reporting from Coda Story in their fact checks and reporting on COVID-19 disinformation (1 2 3). Its reporting has also been cited in Pakistan's Dawn, and republished in Israel's Haaretz as well as in the UK's The Guardian. In addition, the organization has a detailed editorial policy that includes a policy for corrections and it appears that there is editorial oversight in the content that it creates and a public corrections policy.

The recognition of its reliability by a diversity of reliable news sources across several countries, who gone so far as to directly republish and cite reporting from Coda Story for facts, when coupled with multiple awards received for its journalism lead me to conclude that Coda Story is a high quality, generally reliable news organization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• RfCs are only for perennial sources, so this RfC is inappropriate: Looking through the archives, I cannot find any previous discussion of Coda Story. @Mikehawk10: Do you have a specific question about reliability of Coda Story in a particular context? If so, then ask that specific question. However, this RfC is premature and should be closed without further ado. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • RfCs are perfectly appropriate where there are disputes over the reliability of the source, as they bring in outside editors. The source is used in over a dozen articles on Wikipedia, so it might be useful and proper to get input from the community on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how RfCs work here. This is a forum for questions about reliability of specific sources in specific contexts. If a source is repeatedly discussed, then there can be an RfC. A standard RfC here is supposed to begin by listing previous discussions of the source - there are none. If you have a specific question, then explain the claim you want to make, and link to the specific article you're citing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point me to the pertinent rule/guideline/instruction regarding RfCs on this page? I know it can be hard to judge intent on the internet. I am asking not to challenge you, but because I want to learn! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule, guideline, or instruction that forbids RfCs on this page. There is a note in the banner on the top of the page that provides "a common format for writing the RfC question", although the format is optional. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: RSN is supposed to focus on use of sources in context, not in general. The header at the top of this page explains that posts are supposed to include:

• Source. The book or web page being used as the source.
• Article: The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used.
• Content: The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports.

The header notes that, In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. There is a long-standing understanding on RSN that this refers to sources that are perennially discussed, and that the point of the RfC is to include the source in WP:RSP. A recent discussion of the misuse of RfCs can be found here. Still, even with an RfC, one is supposed to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. Mikehawk10 has not done so.

Based on my interaction with Mikehawk10 at Talk:Uyghur genocide, I think that this RfC is a round-about way of asking whether a specific piece published by Coda Story can be used to make a specific, highly controversial claim (labeling living persons "genocide deniers" for questioning the US government's allegations that China is committing a genocide against the Uyghurs). Mikehawk10 should explain that context, but they have chosen not to do so. I suspect that there would be more scrutiny of this request if Mikehawk10 were to explain to editors here what the actual proposed use of this source is. Instead, we have a vague discussion about Coda Story in general, with no idea about the very specific context that actually motivated this request. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I would support a meta-RFC on clarifying the language in the header. We might also tweak the language at WP:RSPCRITERIA to "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, AND an uninterrupted request for comment" (that AND is currently an OR). I sympathize with your (and others') point about RFC spam. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The header text RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6 § RfC: Header text, and I would caution that requiring an RfC for a source's inclusion on the list would increase the number of RfCs on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, the notion that RfCs are "only for perennial sources" seems to be confused, seeing as the fact that a source is not on the WP:RSP board doesn't preclude us from having an RfC regarding its reliability. Otherwise there could... never be new perennial sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's plainly not the case. If a source is repeatedly (you might even say "perenially") discussed here, then there can be an RfC. "Perennial sources" at WP:RSP are "perennial" because they've been repeatedly discussed at WP:RSN, not because there's been an RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Is someone disputing the reliability? Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: It appears that Thucydides411 is challenging the reliability of reporting regarding The Grayzone on Talk:Uyghur genocide. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If your specific question is about use of a piece in "Coda Story" to label people "genocide deniers" or something similar, then you should ask that specific question. RSN RfCs are for sources that have been repeatedly discussed. They're not to be used whenever there's a discussion anywhere about whether or not to use a specific source for a specific claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with Thucydides411 on this one. If you have a question about whether a source can be used for a specific claim, and it's not a perennial source, you should usually start by asking that specific question, especially if the issue is that it is potentially WP:EXCEPTIONAL or BLP-sensitive; avoiding mentioning the specific claim under discussion, in a situation where the people you're in a dispute with have specifically raised questions of bias, WP:BLP, and other things very specific to what you're trying to cite, comes across as a bit eyebrow-raising in a way that makes the RFC mostly useless to answer the actual question you're trying to answer. You're asking a question with a seemingly obvious answer, with (as far as I can tell) the intent to then try to turn it around and use it as the answer to something less-obvious, in a context where many of the people who answered the RFC may not have accepted the source's use even if they think it is generally reliable. Even with a generally-reliable source, the question of whether they can be used as the sole source for something that is both exceptional and BLP-sensitive should require specific consideration, especially in a context where it might be WP:BIASED - a bare "generally reliable" isn't going to answer the hidden question you're trying to resolve here, not when the objection is very specific to the claim you're trying to cite and you didn't make that clear when bringing it to the noticeboard. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Summoned by bot. I'd never heard of them, and had to read up a bit (and add their logo to their article). They are a minor publication, and don't show up on the media bias charts [[17]] that have been recently floating around. But, from reading their site, and their related Wikipedia article, Coda Media, it seems that they are neutral and don't have an obvious political agenda. I'd use their articles as sources for my articles. In general, I'd trust them. That being said, no publication is perfect, and everything has to be considered on a case by case basis. For example, Jayson Blair didn't cause the NY Times to lose their reliability - it just took a temporary hit. So I agree with Thucydides411 that if this is for a specific article and a specific claim, you're better off being more specific with your request for comment. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality: Coda Story is funded by the US government, through the National Endowment for Democracy (created in the 1980s to give overt support to pro-American political groups overseas, such as opponents of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua). But I think that this RfC is actually prompted by a very specific question about a proposed use of a particular Coda Story piece for a specific claim in a specific article. Rather than running an RfC on a small outlet that's never been discussed at RSN, that specific question should be posed, so editors can weigh in on the actual proposed use of the source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And this is where the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument comes in; if it's widely used in reliable sources for without comment for facts, then we have established that reliable sources believe the source to be reliable. Direct republication is one of the strongest ways of conveying confidence in a publication's reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1- I also dislike when users jump straight into an RfC for a source that has never been discussed before. However, it doesn't look like this RfC is gonna be withdrawn anytime soon. Coda seems to have a pretty solid editorial team and I see no evidence of failed fact-checks/promoting falsehoods. Nieman Lab speaks well of it, and it's frequently cited by reliable sources as Mikehawk pointed out. I don't see a strong ideological bias either. In-text attribution may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Coda Story (from Coda Media) is an acclaimed publication with a track record for reliable coverage of international news. In addition to the awards that Mikehawk10 mentioned, Coda Story was also a finalist for the 2016 Excellence and Innovation in Visual Digital Storytelling, Small Newsroom, award from the Online News Association for its reporting on homophobic violence in Kyrgyzstan, and a nominee for the 2018 European Press Prize Innovation Award for its documentary on the persecution of social media users in Russia.
  Coda Story has collaborated on stories with a large number of reliable sources. Adding to Mikehawk10's list, Coda Story has also partnered with The Moscow Times (scroll to "Media Partners" at the footer), the Mail & Guardian, and Wired (RSP entry). A full list of partners is on its About page. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have not heard of them but I can't see any obvious reason not to accept this source, it seems better than many I come across.Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per arguments already made above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. If there is a dispute between editors the onus is on them to prove it should be deprecated, but obviously be cautious with BLPs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC per my objections above; see here for the actual dispute at issue. It is clear that this RFC is actually being used in an effort to get an answer on whether a source can be used for a specific claim that is patiently both WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BLP-sensitive (and which therefore requires specific consideration), in a context where it can reasonably be considered WP:BIASED, and in a situation where nobody seems to have challenged the general reliability of the source - the actual objections there are related to WP:DUE and whether the source actually supports the statements it is being used for, yet it is obvious that, by asking for an answer to a much more straightforward question that nobody has actually raised, Mikehawk10 hopes to turn around and use that to override those very specific objections. Reliability is contextual, and while we use broad assessments of reliability for sources that come up frequently, this is a case where the context is particularly important; I would also argue that while there are a ton of sources that are so unreliable as to be barely useful outside of WP:ABOUTSELF exceptions, very, very few sources are so reliable as to be universally usable, unattributed, for any claim in any context; this source, generally reliable or not, is obviously not one of them. The claim in question, which relates to the US policy position on the Uyghur genocide and people who have questioned it, directly cuts at the source's own bias, since it is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which exists to advance US interests. Based on that I would answer the unstated question that this source - which, while probably reliable in a general sense, is also patiently WP:BIASED - absolutely cannot be used to describe or characterize positions on the Uyghur genocide without in-line citation that specifically identifies its funding, and is probably WP:UNDUE even with that in-line citation. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per the above discussion. Sea Ane (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, not sure an RfC was necessary but this is clearly a well respected high quality source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree that this is a bad RFC and Option 1 - The absence of any real context makes this a bad RFC. Yes, these general "let's ban source X" RFCs are bad but they are supposed to be for widely-used sources (though even the original Daily Mail one was not really very widely used). In the absence of any context that might give meaning to this RFC and an explanation as to why it has been brought, since it appears to be a source used by reliable sources without serious caveats as to its neutrality as discussed above, I vote for the option that gives editors the maximum freedom to decide whether or not to use it. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per arguments stated above by Mikehawk10 and others. Eccekevin (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Coda Story)

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.

Reports in Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat for an alleged Israeli massacre

1. Sources (nb. these are AR-language articles but the Google translate version of them is relatively clear albeit with the usual warning that it may appear clear but still be a mistranslation):

• Asharq Al-Awsat (2001): [18]: Article title: "The only resistance who survived the Al-Zararia massacre tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat the details of the confrontations with the Israelis"
• Al Akhbar (2018): [19]: Article title: "Zrariyeh ... the witness and the martyr"
  

2. Article: Zrarieh massacre.

3. Content: At present these are the only sources potentially showing WP:LASTING coverage of this "massacre" as required by WP:EVENT. However whether or not these are reliable sources independent of the subject is disputed (see AFD discussion here). FOARP (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat)≠

• To take the Al Akhbar translation here, I cannot see major contradictions between what it says about the attack and the available English sources. Arab News says the source is pro Hezbollah and "among the most read and respected newspapers in Lebanon". So perhaps a bit of bias but otherwise OK.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real reason to doubt the London based Asharq Al-Awsat translation other than for matters Saudi related which this is not.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• To also recap objections to these sources from the AFD argument: they are eye-witness accounts from "resistance" participants written in propagandistic language ("martyrs", "entity", "murderers", etc.) and not independent of the subject. FOARP (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat is one of the most well known Arabic newspapers on the planet. See for example this NYT rundown of Arabic news sources for why the idea that it is unreliable or not independent to an Israeli raid in Lebanon is not accurate. Al-Akhbar is on the same level as many Israeli sources, yes it uses language that represents a POV (martyr, resistance), whereas Israeli sources often use language that represents the diametrically opposed POV (terrorist, etc.), but POV does not make a source unreliable. See no reason these dont qualify as WP:NEWSORG given there are no sources brought that demonstrate any issue with their reliability, just an editor disliking their politics. Im not all that enamored with the politics of the Times of Israel or the Jerusalem Post, but they remain widely used on our pages as reliable sources. nableezy - 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat has substantially documented issues, including issues regarding their factual reporting (our article about them describes a particularly egregious incident in 2016), and should probably not be considered reliable. Al-Akhbar is openly pro-Hezbollah, and reliable sources that discuss them consistently mention their biases, so statements sourced to them should at a bare minimum be attributed as is standard with openly biased sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That incident resulted in a correction and the firing of the journalist who reported it. Issuing corrections and taking such actions is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. nableezy - 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not the only problem with their reporting, but this also goes beyond just a simple "correction". It's not like something was misstated but basically true (like the recent correction in the WaPo that has quite a few people up in arms), it was an entirely false story concocted for malicious reasons. It would have never held up under even a minimum amount of editorial oversight. The fact that a "journalist" such as that was ever hired speaks to the problematic nature of the publication, and I doubt that any retraction would have been issued, nor anyone fired, had there not been such a public rebuke from the supposed source cited in the article. "Corrections" are understandable. Publishing obviously fabricated stories is not, and does not speak to the robust fact checking and editorial oversight required of reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And the reporter was fired and a very visible correction was made. Again, issuing corrections and taking such actions is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. Your doubt on a hypothetical is interesting, but not all that relevant as it is indeed entirely hypothetical. nableezy - 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There is a substantial difference between correcting an error in an otherwise correct story (which could be an understandable lapse for an editor to have missed) and retracting entirely an article that was completely and maliciously fabricated (which is absolutely indicative of a nearly complete lack of editorial oversight prior to publication). On the balance of coverage in reliable sources, it seems that their editorial oversight system is much more concerned about ideological purity than journalistic integrity and accuracy. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it isnt my opinion, it is Wikipedia's. From WP:NEWSORG: Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Publishing corrections is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. nableezy - 16:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable Note that Al-Akhbar is not pro-Hezbollah, it has been publishing As'ad AbuKhalil articles since 2007 and he criticizes Hezbollah, Nasrallah, Iran and Syria. Also the massacre has nothing to do with Hezbollah as Israel claims it was targeting Amal. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Its Hezbollah mouthpiece that used for propaganda and anything negative about Israel goes in --Shrike (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh???? Who is "Hezbollah mouthpiece"?? The Saudi-controlled Asharq Al-Awsat, or the leftist Al Akhbar???? Huldra (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably Al Akhbar. I don't know that "mouthpiece" is completely accurate, but they have a well documented bias in favor of Hezbollah (New York Times says "They are a remarkable blend: the paper champions gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, even as it wholeheartedly supports Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement") and the court decision against them (for exposing the identity of purported witnesses against Hezbollah) is particularly damning: "With respect to the nature and gravity of the offence for which Mr Al A min is convicted, I find that the contemptuous behaviour here was particularly egregious: Mr Al Amin published the names, photographs and significant personal details of 17 purported confidential Tribunal witnesses and, after what was acknowledged by Mr Al Amin as public outcry and claims from various members of the public that his previous publication had infringed the law, he then published a second article with the photographs, names and personal information of a further 15"..."Furthermore, I have already concluded that portraying the 32 individuals as witnesses against Hezbollah is generally prohibited by principles governing the media and serves no journalistic value or pressing social need, and that in the impugned articles the author did not place himself as a neutral observer simply reporting on the results of an investigative inquiry but rather as a political advocate. Moreover, ample evidence demonstrates that the Accused's actions were inconsistent with investigative journalism." NonReproBlue (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; so we have a "Hezbollah mouthpiece", which allow atheist like As'ad AbuKhalil to publish in its pages? Lol, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Al Akhbar is a provacative anti-capaitalist rag that according to the New York Times has "news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion". Asharq Al-Awsat is bettet, but has major problems as well, in particular in issues opposed by its firm editorial line.Free1Soul (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, in this case: I would doubt anything Asharq Al-Awsat writes about the Saudi Royal family, but I see no reason to doubt them on this; neither do I see any reason to doubt Al Akhbar here, except a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Propaganda outlets with a clear agenda, not acceptable to report facts and events.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable Both newspapers are RS and mainstream media in the Arab world. They're not marginal party propaganda or loony Islamist ranting, they are top selling daily newspapers. If they are critical of Israel, I don't think anyone should be particularly surprised or holler 'foul' - that's really just down to a partisan WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias. The Arab world has every right to a voice and these mainstream media are as close to that voice as you're going to find, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alexandermcnab (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)14:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, closely affiliated with the terrorist organization Hezbollah:
  1. "Hezbollah-backed, pro-Aoun daily Al Akhbar"[20]
  2. "Al-Akhbar, a Lebanese daily newspaper, is widely considered a mouthpiece for the terror group Hezbollah."[21]
  3. "Pro-Hezbollah mouthpiece Al-Akhbar" [22]
  4. "Lebanon's pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper"[23]
  5. "A newspaper affiliated with Hezbollah, Al-Akhbar,"[24]

It publishes shock news and messages from Hezbollah.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly pro-Hezbollah and leftist, too. And I don't particularly agree with that. It has a political stance - what decent newspaper doesn't? But 'Affiliated'? And offering up the Times of Israel as a source on the reliability or partiality of Arab media is a hoot, to say the least. Al Akhbar is one of the top selling newspapers in Lebanon and as a source its known stance should be taken into account. But completely dismissed? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable, they do definitely have a political slant, but I see no reason to doubt that their reporting is factual. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Brazil the same as Rolling Stone?

Is this the official Rolling Stone Brazil? If so, does it carry the same status as Rolling Stone? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Purely going from the websites (I have no particular prior knowledge), I see that they've got different publishers (Perfil in Brazil, Penske Business Media for the English-language website). The English-language site articles always seem to have bylines, but the Brazilian site has lots of articles without them; those that do have bylines all have Portuguese names, so it's obviously not just a translation of the English-language website. I can't tell whether it's really part of the same organisation in any meaningful way, or if they've sold rights to use the name to another company.

Different publisher, different authors, presumably different editorial team - I think it would have to be assessed separately in terms of reliability. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia has an article about Rolling Stone Brasil which confirms that rollingstone.uol.com.br is the official website for this magazine. According to a 2006 article from O Globo, there used to be a pirated Brazilian version of Rolling Stone that was created in 1972 without permission from Rolling Stone, but the Rolling Stone Brasil that launched in 2006 is an official international edition of Rolling Stone. O Globo reports, "As a non–United States edition, the Brazilian 'Rolling Stone' will have half of the content translated from its American parent, and half produced by the local newsroom." ("A exemplo das edições fora dos Estados Unidos, a 'Rolling Stone' brasileira terá metade do conteúdo traduzido de sua matriz americana, e metade produzido pela redação local.") This is a standard practice for all international editions of Rolling Stone, which "typically reproduce 50 percent to 80 percent of the American version of the magazine, in their own languages, and supplement the rest with local content".

The publisher of the 2006 version of Rolling Stone Brasil is Spring Communications (Spring Comunicação), a media company also known for its acquisition of the broadcast network of the Brazilian media conglomerate Grupo Abril and for its ownership of the technology-oriented Loading TV channel. According to the Portuguese Wikipedia article (without a cited source), in 2018, Rolling Stone Brasil was sold to Grupo Perfil. (I can't confirm the date of the sale, but the website of Rolling Stone Brasil does state that it is currently owned by Grupo Perfil.) Grupo Perfil owns a number of publications, including the tabloid newspaper Perfil, the women's magazine Caras, the entertainment magazine Contigo!, and the history magazine Adventures in History (Aventuras na História). Rolling Stone Brasil then became online-only and opened a sister site, Rolling Stone Country (rollingstonecountry.uol.com.br). — Newslinger talk 05:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. — Newslinger talk 02:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've little doubt that it's the official Brazilian version of Rolling Stone. It's pretty much as Newslinger says - RS have marketed their brand name to create official versions of the magazine in several countries around the world, which are up to 80% US content... I live in Colombia, and the Colombian version is extremely difficult to find in stores, but it essentially consists of translated versions of the interviews and articles in the US version, plus a few pages of reviews and other local news (unlike the US version, it's very short, usually no more than 30 to 36 pages per issue). I'm sure Victor Lopes will want to say something here, as an active editor of music articles who's from Brazil. Richard3120 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard3120! I don't know if there's much more I could add, though. There's no doubt it's an official publication (i.e. authorized by the parent company). I've been using it as a source both here and on the PT Wikipedia for years and never had the slightest reason to question its reliability. Articles lacking bylines (or signed by "Redação", which is Portuguese for "newsroom") are usually (but not always) reproductions of press releases, so take notice of this when searching for independent information. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 16:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, as long as it's an official connection, they're probably going to be reliable. A publication with the reputation of Rolling Stone isn't going to license their name out to an amateur blogger with no credentials or something. They're not going to risk their reputation on something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Best Gore (bestgore.com)

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

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Best Gore?

• 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

92.24.246.11 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Best Gore)

• Option 4 I am genuinely disturbed and upset to see {{cite web}} going around links to this website in multiple places. For a website that made the claim to be devoted to the truth to the most extreme limits, a claim many have believed, it has no real relationship with (and possibly a restraining order from) the truth. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 and possible blacklist. Similar to LiveLeak (RSP entry). As a self-published blog, bestgore.com is generally unreliable. Shock sites like bestgore.com are frequently used inappropriately on Wikipedia for vandalism, and I've requested a COIBot report at WP:RSPAM § bestgore.com to see whether this is the case for bestgore.com. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Option 4, with blacklist instead of edit filter. Mikehawk10's link to the Toronto Sun article contains a quote from the site owner's lawyer saying that "He put it up to see if it was fake or real. Once it was determined it could be real, it was taken down." This is a problem because it suggests that bestgore.com only takes content down when it is "real", and leaves content up when it is "fake". COIBot isn't able to generate a report for bestgore.com; this happens from time to time and I'm not familiar with the technical reasons. However, I've reviewed the past discussions linked by 92.24.246.11 below, and it's clear that editors have previously tried to link to this website in an inappropriate manner. It is also unclear whether the content on bestgore.com constitutes copyright violations, which we would prohibited from linking to, per WP:COPYLINK. — Newslinger talk 01:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3: It shouldn't be used for factual claims, it has no credibility.Sea Ane (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 and blacklist. It's a self-published blog and it is an unreliable shock site without sound editorial controls. The blog owner's counsel has admitted in court that the blog owner has put videos onto the website not knowing if they were real or fake. To me, this indicates that the blog is utterly indifferent to true reporting and raises extremely high suspicion that the site publishes false/fabricated materials. It also indicates that its owner has no confidence in what the site publishes, so I don't believe there's any basis to believe that Wikipedia should have any confidence in it either. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, this is a site that publishes snuff.--Droid I am (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 and blacklist. If they don't know whether stuff is real or fake, it's obviously unreliable for any content. I can't think of a valid reason to link to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, I know am I usually against Option 4 but it applies here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 with blacklisting probably not a bad idea. Very hard to imagine a legitimate use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 - completely worthless. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 with blacklisting that is a worthless self-published, shock site, which sometimes using Best Gore for vandalism and/or disruptive editing. Chompy Ace 22:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, this site just publishes crap.PrisonerB (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, Truly an awful site both morally and intellectually. I have no objections to Blacklisting. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Best Gore)

Okay. Calling an RfC is waaayyyy out of my comfort zone. I hope it's the right move and I don't upset anyone. You may need to fix any mistakes but I took a long time trying to get it right. Sorry if I didn't.

Best Gore is generally viewed as a "shock site" dedicated to images of death and injury. They see (saw?) themselves as a "reality news site" and so too have various editors. They'd post little descriptions of each item they catalogued. This staggering GQ article notes the website's operator is a Holocaust denier, and notes that "Most traditional media, including newspapers and television broadcasters, are bound by internal sets of guidelines addressing things such as[...] racism" whereas Best Gore is/was not. On Canadian cop opined thus: "I would describe the website, myself, as my personal opinion, as a racist website, inciting hate, hatred, violence – violence above and beyond anything normal, anything close to what we’ve seen here".

On their homepage one can read a disturbing testimonial: "For example, it is thanks to the internet that so many people became aware of the fact that prior to the COVID-19 plandemic, the holocaust was the greatest hoax of all time." This comment goes on to praise Best Gore's editorial model.

Incredibly, this site has been used as a source. Right now it's on barefoot as a reference for content on standard techniques for hostage murders by terrorist group ISIS. On Deaths in December 2012 it's used to cite details about Anatoliy Zayaev. It's also an external link on Stephen Clancy Hill.

It's also been fought and advocated for (and also fought and advocated against) here in the past. Talk:Murder of Jun Lin/Archive 2#Bestogre.com begins with an assertion Best Gore is "a very informative primary source." Talk:Murder_of_Jun_Lin/Archive_5#Montana attorney describes it as "reporting" although in fairness doesn't suggest it's reliable and Talk:Murder_of_Jun_Lin/Archive_5#Split discussion suggests Wikipedians view the site if they can stomach it, though it's not an entirely serious claim. Talk:James_Foley_(journalist)/Archive_1#Police warn sharing James Foley killing video is a crime sees argument in favour of a Best Gore video link, and initially the only concerns were copyright and UK legality. Talk:Murder_of_Jun_Lin/Archive_6#Relationship With Clinton Teale is upsetting in that an apparently new editor cited it to support adding some information to the article, and nobody questioned or criticised that. Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 2#Is there really consensus for adding the video? features more suggestion to link and/or cite Best Gore. Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_2#Who was the first hero? again uses it to back factual assertions, while Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_2#Video sees it mentioned in another discussion about censorship rather than source reliability for Gest Gore specifically. Talk:Murder_of_Jun_Lin/Archive_3#Links question documents discussion around another link from mainspace to Best Gore. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_115#ISIL beheading videos sees further debate for and against Best Gore's suiability as a source.

There are multiple editors in the "for" camp, but one name keeps cropping up and I bring them up only because their talk page contains contextually important outrage. User_talk:Ianmacm/Archive_12#July 2015 documents additional uses of it as a source.

Both on and off Wikipedia endless debates about the extremities of morality have distracted from a big issue: This mass-read source is a dangerous purveyor of extremist hoaxes and falsehoods. Currently, all but the homepage seems to be down. I didn't feel like trying to verify that myself, obviously. That is said to be "probably" indefinite, not that I'd trust the owner on that. Yet it remains used as a Wikipedia source and if archived mirrors exist, it isn't really gone. The door is left wide open for a swift return anytime and if it happens attempts to justify its inclusion will increase still further. Morality aside, there's an arguable much much more serious problem: The distracting value of shock has diverted Wikipedia away from realising the dangerous misinformation being linked to.

I feel ill after reading and writing all that. Wowee. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bestgore is a shock site with no good encyclopedic use. I would just go straight to spam blacklist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:21, 18 April 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.

Is this Bellingcat article reliable for this specific BLP claim?

This question relates to contested claims about a BLP subject in the Andy Ngo article. The edit in question is here [[25]]. The Bellingcat article claims Andy Ngo put out a deceptive series of tweets during the unrests in 2020 [[26]]. At the end of the article BC tries to claim that Ngo did the same thing in 2019 during a confrontation between members of Patriot Prayer and Cider Riot patrons. This content is at the bottom of the BC article and includes the following claim, " In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists.". To support their claim BC includes a photo of the offending tweets [[27]]. My concern is the tweets are only Ngo stating that he was personally assaulted and asking for help to identify the assailant. The tweets do not say anything about who started the larger melee. Since the tweets do not support the specific claim I think the source is not reliable for this claim especially since it is making a negative claim about a BLP subject. Looking for additional input. Springee (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"The tweets do not say anything about who started the larger melee." The tweet: "Was assaulted... by masked Antifa thugs", with no comment on Patriot Prayer. I'm not seeing what's wrong in their reporting here. Saying he "framed" the brawl as such is pretty clear: he portrayed himself as the victim of an attack by antifascists, and didn't discuss Patriot Prayer, who per the Bellingcat source were the true aggressors of the conflict. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You quoted the retweet. The original tweet was a request for help to identify the person who assaulted Ngo. "I was sprayed in the face point blank with pepper spray outside CiderRiot, where Antifa had massed. They cheered as I was blinded. Before that, they threatened me & brought up my mother's name. A woman helped me across the street. Please help me identity this person [video embedded in tweet]". This is clearly Ngo asking for help to identify his assalent. Classifying this as something about the larger PP-CiderRoit patron fight is simply false and should not pass RS standards needed to claim, even with attribution that a BLP subject framed the PP-CR fight as an unprovoked attack by one side vs the other. Springee (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please justify this statement. Your claim of "reliable" carries no merit if you can't explain why a tweet where Ngo states that he was personally attacked is actually framing Patriot Prayer as attacked by antifacists. Springee (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the article seems reliable. First, the tweets are not used to claim "Patriot Prayer was attacked without provocation"; the article contains the more neutrally worded "Bellingcat stated that Ngo's tweets framed the brawl as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists." The tweets are preceded by this sentence His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists. "It" refers to the fight as a whole. The fact that Ngo wrote his tweets to describe no action on anyone other than antifa's part supports that claim. Second, as for how this relates to Patriot Prayer, the article includes other sources to make that link: Video recorded before the fight at Cider Riot clearly shows members of Patriot Prayer checking their weapons and discussing their plans to assault the bar. One person standing near Ngo says clearly: “There’s going to be a huge fight,”. He did not report on what he had heard while marching to Cider Riot. and Based on the strength of those leaked videos, six members of Patriot Prayer were charged with felony riot incitement. So BC is using both the video itself and the fact that it lead to a felony riot incitement charge to say that Ngo's framing is misleading. Since that kind of intentional misdirection has been established as a key part of Ngo's journalistic practice, I don't think it's an extraordinary claim. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

But the tweets don't talk about the fight as a whole, only about the assault on Ngo. How can that be taken to suggest Ngo's claims regarding the larger picture? We can take for granted that PP started the fight and still find the claim that Ngo said otherwise to be false because the tweets presented as evidence don't support the claim. Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

My point was that your presentation of the claim did not mention other information contained in the article, specifically that Patriot Prayer expected a fight and "[discussed] plans to assault the bar." BC then mentions that those details are entirely absent from Ngo's reporting on the event. With that additional supporting information, I don't think the claim is unreliable. I'm with Horse Eye's Back below in thinking that we'd need sources that contradict BC to say more. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick summary of the dispute (not exact quotes). Ngo tweets, I was personally attacked, please help me identify the attacker. BC claims that actually means, Patriot Prayer was attacked without provocation. Is that interpretation truthful enough include as a negative statement about Ngo's reporting in his BLP? Springee (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable. This isn't math class and we don't require reliable sources to show their work. Bellingcat is likely basing their statement on the tweet thread as a whole: after the screenshotted tweets, Ngo goes on to say that anti-fascists were "using business as base to prep attack" and then referred to the event as the "#antifa May Day riot". That Ngo was referring to the event as a whole and not only his assault seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. And for all I know, there could have been other tweets as well. But it doesn't really matter because reliable sources don't have to say how they arrived at a conclusion or provide any evidence at all. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

BC showed those specific tweets, nothing else. Even looking at the thread as a whole you would have to arguing to a conclusion vs arguing from evidence to make BC's claim. Also, no source is universally reliable and BC has a very limited history on which to base any reliability claim. A comment that cast such negative light on the motives of a BLP subject really needs clear evidence, not circumstantial evidence combined with an argument to a conclusion. Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable, both in general and in this specific case. Bellingcat does insanely in-depth research... Most of which is not detailed in their reports. Unless another WP:RS directly contradicts them I’m not seeing your point Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. Bellingcat show that Ngo was with a group of Patriot Prayer who attacked a bar in an incident he misleadingly described as if it was him who was personally attacked (he uses first person singular) by anti-fascists without mentioning they were defending themselves from the people he was with. As Bellingcat is a trusted reliable source, quibbling over interpretations and saying we know better than they do consitutes original research. As Woodroar says, Bellingcat may be basing their statements on evidence additional to the tweet they chose to embed. In any event, Dlthewave's edit attributes to Bellingcat so challenging it on this basis is even less worthwhile. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ngo was personally attacked. The video shows Ngo being attacked and does not show Ngo attacking or taunting others first. Conflating what is happening to Ngo himself vs the bigger story is misleading on the part of BC. Bob, I think its worth noting your user page includes an Antifa support banner. Springee (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Agree with above on Bellingcat in general. For the author Robert Evans in particular, a wide variety of RS have used him as an expert to interpret right-wing groups and right-wing internet phenomena. A recent example is his 2020 coverage of the boogaloo movement, which was used in sources ranging from the SPLC to the Middlebury Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism to Reason.com. Jlevi (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, per a lot of the above. While I understand the concern here, the small inferential leap we're talking about is one that an RS is entitled to take, in my opinion; Bellingcat is not restrained to simply reporting things verbatim. While it is negative in the larger picture, the context of this actual claim is less dangerous to me (i.e., he certainly claimed they attacked him unprovoked). All that said, I think it is appropriate to use it with attribution, as was done here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable I think the above comments to that effect pretty much summarize where I come down. Journalistic reporting doesn't always include every data point that backs up a given statement within the text itself; this can be a weird mode of writing when one is accustomed to scientific papers or even literary analysis, and not appreciating it can lead to a lot of missing the forest for the trees. Play it safe with in-text attribution. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable This is a valid interpretation by a reliable source. It's fair to say that the tweets were describing the overall brawl, even though Ngo misleadingly framed it as an unprovoked attack on himself. As others have mentioned, sources aren't expected to "show their work" as an academic paper (or a Wikipedia article, for that matter) would be, and analysis by a reliable source takes precedence over analysis by Wikipedia editors. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable in this case. Doubly so in falling short of the higher bar for BLP The particular statement logically looks like a baseless derivation/creation. It's not even reliable enough for wp:ver much less the higher standard for BLP. A negative claim about the person with no basis shown. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• A question (and this would apply broadly) is if Bellingcat is the only source that is reporting on the incident in depth that Ngo is talking about, or if Bellingcat is one of several RSes that have discussed the event with Bellingcat's coverage being the broadest or most in-depth? (This would be excluding RSes that are re-iterating Bellingcat's point). If it is the latter case, where there is corroborated sourcing to give the version of events as Bellingcat gives, then there's no question to reliability here per the above. But if it is basically Bellingcat's coverage (or any other quality RS) against what Ngo himself said what happened, with no other sources able to independently explain events around Ngo that night, this should be presented as attributed he-said-she-said rather than putting Bellingcat's statements in WP-voice. That said, at least the current version [28] appears to support that only Bellingcat is discussing the event that Ngo was involved with, and appropriately their statement is attributed, so this is perfectly fine. If there were more corroboration from independent RSes, the attribution would become unnecessary. --Masem (t) 15:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge BC is the only source that has made this specific claim about Ngo's tweets with respect to this specific event. The content in question appears at the very end of BC's article. The majority of the article is BC arguing Ngo falsely portrayed a different instance. In that case BC shows a long series of tweets and events that support their subjective POV. The mention of the 2019 incident was at teh very bottom of the article as a way to say, "this wasn't a one off thing". However, a significant difference is in most of the article Ngo is tweeting about something where he was not physically involved or assaulted. In the 2019 case Ngo was personally assaulted. The video does not show Ngo engaging anyone prior to being pepper sprayed and at least one of the sources in the Ngo article specifically said Ngo does not engage in any physical altercations. That Ngo would fixate on the attack against himself seems understandable to me. It is not clear if the larger melee had started before or after Ngo was sprayed. If after that could also explain why he didn't tweet much about the actual fight as he was likely recovering from being sprayed. Regardless, I agree that this is attributed and if BC is wrong then we aren't saying it in Wiki voice. However, that could raise a question of DUE. If this is a claim made by a little known source and who's presented evidence for the claim is weak they is the material DUE? When this content was first proposed in February there was not consensus that it was due. Given the flaky nature of the claim I still don't think it is but this isn't the place for that debate. Also, at this point DUE is often a !vote count and the outcome would depend on how many of the currently active editors are on which side of the debate this week. I won't raise it at NPOVN since I think it would be seen as forum shopping (though both the question of RS and DUE have been raised on the talk page). Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If the incident (specifically Ngo's involvement) is only sourced to Ngo's account and Bellingcat, that is a fair question of UNDUE; we are not here to list out every incident a person may be involved in just because it can be documented. The sourcing is fine if this meets UNDUE, but the UNDUE factor is a separate question. And as to the differences between what Ngo said happened and Bellingcat reported, unless the differences are clearly obvious (eg if Ngo said he was hit by a guy in a green shirt, and Bellingcat said he was hit by a guy in a red sweater), we at WP really can't be there to judge the differences in the video and Bellingcat's take, per OR/SYNTH. We simply can attribute them to Bellingcat. --Masem (t) 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is like "Ngo said red, BC said white" rather "Ngo said red, BC said wet". Instead we might think of it as scope. In the cited tweets Ngo said he was personally attacked/sprayed with pepper spray. So he is talking about his little part of the bigger picture. BC says the bigger picture is PP attacked Cider Riot patrons and Ngo's tweets suggested PP was the attacked without provocation. Ngo's cited tweets didn't say anything about PP or who started the larger melee, only that he personally was attacked. This is why I feel the gab between what is being reported ("Ngo portraying the fight between PP and the patron as unprovoked") is too much a subjective stretch from the evidence provided (or even the tweet string provided by an editor above). Perhaps in some other reporting on the subject BC's claims would have merit but as presented I can't see how we could say BC, a source with limited reputation and weight, has supported their claim. Since the claim is something negative about a BLP subject I think the standards for reliability should be strict hence why I see this as an unreliable source for this specific claim. My view would be different if we were talking about the tweet stream that was the primary focus of the BC article. Springee (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, also anything Ngo says about the incident should be treated with caution. His agenda is firmly pro-Fa. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee is IMO omitting an important piece of information. While Bellingcat is so far as I can tell the only source that has brought in Ngo's tweets, many many sources have covered Ngo's involvement with Patriot Prayer's attack on Cider Riot. The relevant section of our article is here; as you can see it's quite well sourced. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, there's more coverage to the May Day events - though only Bellingcat is apparently the only one talking about the tweets. But that said, reading though and given the subsequent and ongoing lawsuit Ngo filed, associating how Ngo discussed the attacks (and Bellingcat's characterization of them) would fit better there to explain why he filed the lawsuit. But untangling that is not straight forward, and beyond the question of Bellingcat's reliability here. --Masem (t) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Bellingcat has gained an impressive reputaiton in a short time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable Providing context for primary sources is exatly why we encorage the use of secondary ones like BC (WP:RSPRIMARY)—blindlynx (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Bellingcat has, as Guy says, gained an impressive reputation for investigative journalism, and in a short time. But, this smacks of the gossip pages. Springee's reasoning gives a good argument for not using it in a BLP and per Masem there are UNDUE issues. We could use it attributed but I don't think we should. Encyclopedia articles are not for "he-said-she-said" rumors. Spudlace (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • More importantly, if Bellingcat is the only RS that has talked about this particular incident (in depth or as part of a larger picture around Ngo), its a problem to call it out that was, regardless of how reliable Bellingcat is. Even if it was the NYTimes reporting that way with its impeccable reliability, we shouldn't include it as we should not be a laundry list of every news article that mentions a person. --Masem (t) 23:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable: Bellingcat is a generally reliable source and we generally aren't in the business of second-guessing reliable secondary sources unless they are blatantly incorrect. That defeats the point of relying on reliable secondary sources: we don't analyze primary sources like Ngo's tweets ourselves but rely on secondary sources like Bellingcat to do it for us. If we're analyzing the tweets themselves to say Bellingcat is wrong, we may as well analyze the tweets and directly put that analysis in the article. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• The source is reliable for such claims, but one must properly summarize what it say. According to the diff, "Bellingcat stated that Ngo's tweets framed the brawl as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists". Yes, this is true, but the main claim by the article (if one reads it) is that Ngo misinterpreded and misused the video. That must be crystal clear from citation. Right now it is not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the BC article discusses two events. The majority of the article talks about a Ngo's twitter commentary related to someone else's video from Nov 2020 protests in Washington DC. BC lays out a good case for while the presentation was misleading. At the very end of the article BC says, in effect, "Ngo did this before" and then shows Ngo's tweets related to the 2019 fight at the Cider Riot bar. Ngo was present at the bar and based on video evidence was sprayed with mace without provocation (beyond trying to film the conflict). Ngo's tweets only said he was personally attacked without provocation and asked others to help him identify the attacker. Springee (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Bellingcat prides itself for using user-generated content and research. Ngo is a frequent target of online citizen activists. It is highly likely that there is a direct line of information being passed between these activists and Bellingcat on this subject, and as such should not be relied upon for Wikipedia. The heavy slant is obvious from reading the content. Nweil (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible citogenesis from the Tehran Times

I've just added the following to Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents:

In 2016, an IP-editor added three unsourced statements to Chamaki, a place in Iran: that 600 Assyrian used to populate the village, that the language spoken was Modern Assyrian and that the local church is called "Saint Merry". [sic] In a 2020 article from the Tehran Times, these same three statements were repeated. No other sources have been found for these statements. While sources in Farsi may or may not exist for the population and language, this is unlikely for the "Saint Merry" spelling. The Tehran Times article was briefly used as a source before the likelihood of citogenesis was realized.

For "DYK" statements, I highly suspect the Tehran Times cannot be trusted. In this example, I think it is reliable for the fact that the church is being repaired. Just not for stuff they looked up to pad out the article. @4nn1l2: courtesy ping as this came up on AfD. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The art of copy&paste has flourished in Iran, and Tehran Times is a key contributor :) The Merry misspelling is ridiculous, as fa:مریم is the famous Mary, mother of Jesus. The number for population seems baseless too. According to the 1956 census (the first census in Iran), Chamaki's polpulation was 164 people (83 men and 81 women). The population has since decreased to 33 people in 1986 and exactly 0 in 2016. So the number 600 is nonsense.
• Not only Tehran Times, but also any other "newspaper" or "news agency" in Iran [the world?] is not a good source for statistics. Use the figures published by the Iranian statistical centre. They are reliable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis is a great concern with any source that doesn't show its work. When secondary sources cite their claims it allows readers to follow the pedigree through the published literature. It's absolutely essential for some readers. For neutral style of writing (not all academic writing is neutral) it is indispensable. This is an issue with all mass media sources, but is more common in countries like Turkey, Iran and India. These are not preferred sources for history. Spudlace (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Politics.co.uk

Hello,

I seek your guidance.

I would like to know whether the aforementioned website is an acceptable form of source for DOB’s for members of the UK Parliament. The first time I asked this question I did not get a very good response as most of the commentary was on a completely irrelevant subject, but I will let that pass for the moment. On every single page I have looked at, at least 100 of them, they take words verbatim, not just similar, but verbatim transcripts from Wikipedia. I have yet to see a single example of where this is not the case. The policies are clear: Wikipedia is not a source, and the very limited information and credibility of this website makes this very questionable source, indeed. Only one response relevant to my question was given last time I raised this, and they agreed with me that it is a poor and unreliable source. I have therefore marked all MP’s with this poor source indicated with “better source needed” tags, and this is the very least that needs to happen. I don’t think this source has any reliability whatsoever for the reasons set out, and it should be removed quickly.

Hi, I noticed your tags against MPs' dates of birth and followed you here to understand what you were doing. I'm not sure how reliable Politics.co.uk is and will be interested to hear others' views. I cannot see your earlier discussion about the same issue. I can say though that not all the text for MPs on Politics.co.uk is identical with that on Wikipedia. Stuart Anderson (politician), for instance, whom you have tagged, has a much shorter description on Politics.co.uk than his Wikipedia article, though I guess it is possible that Politics is mirroring an earlier version of the Wiki article. Daisy Cooper, also tagged by you, also has a much longer entry on Wiki than at Politics.co.uk. (And please remember to sign your contributions here with four tildes.) Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Previous discussions for reference (these are only the ones I am aware of, and there may be more):
  • WP:RSN: here and here
  • WP:BLPN: here and
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom: here.

JBchrch (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies on the comment signing. I completely agree with your comments, that it will be interesting indeed to see what others think and to have a proper consensus for or against this ghastly source. My charge remains steadfast: almost all (feel free to point out more individual cases where this is not the case) of these articles copy the words of Wikipedia verbatim. I believe any differences reflect what the Wikipedia articles said as the time of the publication of the politics.co.uk source, and I have checked those examples mentioned above which confirmed my suspicions, and they taken parts out of subsections of the respective articles. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. In those circumstances, I fail to see where this source would even have a leg to stand on.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C87D:DAA6:F3C9:28 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you all I will be raising this issue until a consensus is reached for or against this shabby source. I believe it is an affront to our policies if this source is continued to be used without any legitimacy as to its credibility.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:88A5:9E62:F968:31B9 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't personally see a problem with the source. Politics.co.uk is a reputable site. They're in "the thick of it" in terms of British politics and they conduct original research, interviews, write very thorough articles etc. Important to remember that just because you can't see birth years/dates from any other sources on Google, it doesn't mean that others don't have access to this information via avenues like subscriptions (e.g. Debretts, Who's Who etc.) or private spreadsheets and databases (which I can tell you, exist within parliament). You say it is indisputable that they just copy bios from Wikipedia, and yet you don't give any clear cut examples and the user who has responded above has demonstrated in two examples where this clearly isn't the case. Even the BBC structures some bios on the BBC Music site based on their Wiki page, and yet they add plenty of their own information too. There is a big difference between a source which copies irrefutable/already sourced and/or widely available facts (e.g. MP's election date, past professions) from here and one which just blanket copies paragraphs from Wiki pages (unsourced or not). I'm happy with the source and I don't think you've built out your argument enough to really explain just why it's "shabby", "unreliable" as you say etc. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Some of their MP profiles do bear a similarity to Wikipedia articles, but not all of them by any means. Tim Farron writes for the site, and the editor has appeared on Any Questions?. I think the above summary by Jkaharper is pretty reasonable. It would be good to have a better source for the DOBs, but I don’t think this website would want to undermine their reputation by publishing unreliable info on MPs. Their profiles aren’t technically brilliant, but if anything, they read like press releases from the MPs.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is demonstrably terrible and so many of its examples prove that. I suggest better sources be found to replace this awful source.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:6188:59B4:85BA:26E1 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You ask for examples? No problem. Here is a list of just some, not even all, but some examples of profiles which are taking words either verbatim or to a degree enough to make the plagiarism obvious to even the dimmest of folk. Believe me, I would be here all night if I were to stick them all here. The fact this one source with around MAX two paragraphs of writing has been used to source so many of these DOB’s in itself raises questions. Almost every single one was retrieved on 25 March by the above user, demonstrating they were just looking for a quick fix and were never really interested in verifiability.

Peter Gibson Gareth Davies James Wild Selaine Saxby Taiwo Owatemi Mary Foy Andrew Griffith Beth Winter James Sunderland Mark Fletcher Jo Gideon Simon Baynes Mark Jenkinson Gareth Bacon Luke Evans Tahir Ali Claire Hanna Nicola Richards Jerome Mayhew Ruth Edwards Lee Anderson Simon Jupp Chris Clarkson (politician) Richard Fuller Dave Doogan Sara Britcliffe Kate Osborne Sally-Ann Hart Anthony Mangnall Alyn Smith Paul Bristow Shaun Bailey Duncan Baker Allan Dorans Lia Nici Sarah Atherton

The explanation you provided, which was pure speculation and not fact, suggests that they are “in the thick of it”. Whatever that means, that answer is simply not good enough. I suggest you take a good look at these examples, though I very much doubt you will, and suggest to me again that this pathetic source has one iota of credibility. Yes, some of them are not verbatim, which I believe at best would account for around a third of the articles, again reflecting changes in Wikipedia’s articles that have not reflected on this shoddy website. All one has to do in any case is take a look back through previous revisions to see the ones which do have slight differences are near enough mirrored.

But what comes to mind is that time when a young ambitious Joe Biden stole some words out of Neil Kinnock’s speech, twisted the words a little and made out it was his. Would you turn around and say Biden wrote that speech? Of course not. The truth of the matter is that this terrible source, probably hastily written by a bunch of first year PPE students who clearly cannot even use a keyboard properly, for I spotted so many grammatical mistakes (such as ‘22th’) when posting that all important DOB.

As far as I am concerned, a source that has at best two to three paragraphs, numerous spelling and grammar errors and takes words, in many cases directly out of Wikipedia articles cannot even begin to be considered as an acceptable source. My charge still stands due to the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of your defence and because I want to respect what the above user said, I have not removed them and have instead put in place a better source needed tag. That is the very least that needs to happen, as we need better sources for DOB’s than sites like this. I say again that the fact a huge amount of MPs had this added as their DOB source, over a very short period of time on 25 March, is very concerning. I might finally just add how very telling is it that you apparently find the enforcement of policy a nuisance. Clearly, drab sources and suggesting one should be blocked for implementing policy are just your cup of tea. Thankfully, other users have explicitly pointed out that I deserve credit.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:6188:59B4:85BA:26E1 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. I can assure you at once I will never cease raising this issue until I receive a satisfactory response.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:8162:95A:112E:6ED4 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at your examples, I don’t see a significant issue. As for any similarity in wording between the source and WP, there are only so many ways you can word basic biographical info (and have you considered that if there was any plagiarism, it may actually be the other way around - ie our article copied the source, rather than the source copying WP). Sure, if a better source can be found, I would have no objection replacing it - but I think it is OK until a better source can be found. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The IP editor seems to be unnecessarily denigrating this source. Yes, its biographies of MPs could be better, but it also occurred to me that WP could have plagiarised them originally, not the other way round. Do we have any proof that they copied text directly from WP? It seems typical of the IP editor to attack others, including Politics.co.uk, which is nowhere near as bad as is being suggested. I inserted references from the site because they appeared to be the only readily accessible reliable source with those elusive DOBs. I don’t appreciate the accusation that I just wanted a quick fix and don’t care about verifiability, which isn’t true. This website has been online for a long time and appears to have established itself in British politics. The IP editor seems only too happy to remove dates or question references, without making any effort to find better sources themselves. The Times Guide to the House of Commons is £60, which is why I haven’t purchased it myself. For now, that’s the only other RS for these and other DOBs. It doesn’t even have all of them. Who’s Who will resend their form to MPs again this year. In summary: Politics.co.uk seems fine unless we find a better source - ie. one which actively seeks out DOBs, like those I’ve mentioned. See also this page for more info. Now, I think this discussion is too focused on one section of the Politics.co.uk website. When it comes to the site overall, it has a clear left-liberal bias in its reporting. That should be kept in mind when using it as a source, but The Guardian also has a similar ideological standpoint, and is still considered reliable. Incidentally, Peter Gibson is not the same person as the current MP.—TrottieTrue (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That is fine. But the tags will certainly remain and any I see removed will be reinstated quite quickly.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:1938:8F91:138:E650 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

MySpace, Instagram, etc.

• myspace.com  
• instagram.com  

There are numerous sources been cited as user-generated content, which makes it considered unreliable than other social media websites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter). --Frontman830 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:SELFSOURCE/WP:ABOUTSELF when deciding if an individual ref is acceptable for the claim it is said to support. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is also of interest. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is also a non-encyclopedic source and it is unacceptable, please avoid using any social media links. --Frontman830 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Please read the links I have given. It is the person or entity behind the post that matters. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be risk for citing these articles (even for unofficial ones), but there is no consensus, and it's unquestionable. --Frontman830 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

How is "no consensus" the same as "unquestionable"? Again, there is no issue with, for instance, Mick Foley's official MySpace being used as a reference for a quote from Foley. If you want to open an RfC to propose deprecation of these two websites and have all references from them stripped out of Wikipedia, you can do that, but you are extremely unlikely to get the answer you seek. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a silly and pointless attempt at an RFC and I'm not sure the OP is aware of the standards for opening something here. Social media sources can be suitable for sourcing statements about a subject per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF but not for generally controversial statements or statements about other people/things and can't be used to establish notability. TAXIDICAE💰 22:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae, my interpretation of OP's complaint is that those websites aren't as verifiable as facebook/Twitter/etc. viz confirming the identity of the profile. I don't know if this is true, but if it is it's reasonable to reassess their use re: ABOUTSELF. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Defending History

Is this a reliable source?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The best I can tell, it's a blog run by Dovid Katz. It's a bit of a tricky call for me, since Katz appears to have academic credentials in the area of Yiddish studies and Jewish studies, but his thesis and formal education appears to be more reflective of a linguistics background with a focus on Yiddish. The site seems to be an activist site created to fight back against the double genocide historical theory and it doesn't appear to have evidence of a strong and detailed editorial process, so I think it's probably the case that the site should be treated WP:SPS. That being said, it appears that the site also has many writers who could reasonably be considered subject-matter-experts, so the inclusion articles written by the experts to show their opinions might constitute due weight in some cases, but I would hesitate to use it as a source for facts without attribution to the author.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple references to this site are found in google.scholar: [29].

• Kristen Ghodsee (A Tale of "Two Totalitarianisms": The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism, Source: History of the Present, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 2014), pp. 115-142) used the DH article by Monica Lowenberg (“Riga, Capital of European Culture: Waffen SS, Stags and Silence?” DefendingHistory.com, February 4, 2014), and the context she used that article is as follows:

"European debate about the history of communism is not merely an academic skirmish about the past; it serves a wide variety of contemporary political purposes. In this essay, I explore the recent ethnographic history of this debate through three distinct moments: its roots in the late 1980s with the German Historikerstreit [historians’ battle]; Pierre Nora’s defense of the French refusal to publish a translation of Eric Hobsbawm’s TheAge of Extremesin the 1990s; and the broader political context of the Prague Declaration. The current upsurge in East European commemorations for the victims of communism originates from a regional desire for victimhood status. The victims are not simply constructed discursively as the direct heirs of their own totalitarian pasts; the double genocide language produces a historical narrative wherein post-Soviet and postsocialist nations become martyrs—nation-states sacrificed by the West on the red alter of Soviet imperialism. In countries such as Latvia where local populations and Nazi-occupied govern-ments participated in the systematic murder of domestic Jews, the double genocide narrative mitigates their culpability by questioning the uniqueness of the Holocaust."

We can see that Ghodsee is using DH as a source of information, and there is no criticism of its content.

• Per Anders Rudling (a renown scholar who studies EE history) uses the DH article by Bruder (Bruder, F. (2011). “Strasti za Banderoju (‘Bandera Passion’),” Defendinghistory.article) in his The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right The Case of VO Svoboda.

Katchanovski, I. published a paper in DH: Katchanovski, I. (2011). “Owning a Massacre: ‘Ukraine’s Katyn’,” DefendingHistory.com, November 28, http://defendinghistory.com/owning-a-massacre-ukraines-katyn-by-ivan-katchanovski/25761

• Dovid Katz authored the paper in East European Jewish Affairs, 41:3, 207-221, where he cited DH several times.

These facts demonstrate that renown scholars are using this web resource as secondary sources (and, importantly, not for criticism), and even publish articles there. If they are using DH, I see no reason why we cannot do the same.

However, DH is criticized by some EE scholars, but it seems the criticism comes from those authors whose views are a primary target of HD.

AI believe all said above demonstrates DH is generally a reliable source (except for the cases covered by WP:REDFLAG. However, as far as I know, DH does not publish anything that directly contradicts to multiple high quality RS; obviously, EE sources do not fall into that category).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is reasonably considered a "self-published subject matter expert" source, and I think that the guidlines at WP:SPS cover this pretty clearly

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer

. Whether or not its usuable depends entirely what it is being used for, and it should never be used for claims regarding living persons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. When ONE expert publishes their own views, that is definitely SPS. However, DH publishes articles authored by many scholars, and these articles are being cited by real peer-reviewed publications, and it seems DH is treated by them in the same way as other RS. In connection to that, I am wondering where is a borderline between a true scholarly (online) journal and web sites like DH. The latter seems more reliable and more widely cited that Galukopsis (which has all formal traits of a scholarly peer-reviewed journal). --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Edited by expert scholar, with many contributors. cited by other expers.

Free1Soul (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Not only this is a blog, by their posts sound very much like ru:Кукрыниксы who published in Krokodil. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wordpress on critical reception from writer already quoted in page

Hey there, I'd like to in include this article on Kaworu Nagisa, Critical reception section. Kraiser is used as reference #97 in a explicative article for IGN. I argued his personal blog could be used again as per WP:SPS but not everyone agrees. I understand this is less than ideal, but the article already has a lot of sources from sites I personally don't have a high opinion of and I think have a very clickbait line for these past few years, mainly Comic Book Resources, with more than a few very inaccurate articles showing opinion or fan theories as fat and making multiple mistakes. So I think this piece of critical reception is acceptable. What do you think?FelipeFritschF (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Debka.com

Israeli website Debkafile is used as a source on WP well over 100 times. As far as I can see it was last discussed at the RSN over a decade ago, with no clear consensus. An anon IP or two has been inserting it as a source into the Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war. I don't know anything about it, but it does not look like a good source to me. More informed views welcome. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at their Wikipedia article and the site itself, apparently they have a pronounced bias and there are some concerns about the lack of attribution but they haven't published outright lies. With regards to the Syrian civil war article, I think that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies: if they are the only source that says that NATO supports the opposition it's probably not good enough. Alaexis_¿question? 09:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It is a sensationalist site, posting many rumors.Free1Soul (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sputnik-Abkhazia

Sputnik-Abkhazia is a subsidiary of Sputnik which is a deprecated source known for publishing propaganda and conspiracy theories. An article published in Sputnik-Abkhazia was used as a source in the article about Kodori Valley for the current population of the valley and the occupation of the inhabitants. I have searched for an alternative source for this information and have found none as this is a rather obscure topic. Per WP:DEPRECATED, deprecation is not a blanket ban on using the source and I believe that an exception can be justified here on the following grounds:

1. The information is consistent with what is reported in reliable sources about the flight of the Georgian population from the valley following the 2008 war and the results of the 2011 census in Abkhazia. To the best of my knowledge, no sources contradict it.
2. If anything, the fact that only 5% of the pre-war population is left portrays Abkhazia and by extension Russia in a negative light
3. Going over examples of issues with Sputnik reporting, they don't seem to be about getting simple numbers wrong

Once a reliable source publishes something about the Kodori Valley inhabitants, we would obviously use it. Alaexis_¿question? 09:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Kodori_Valley#Current_population. I asked if there was any other source at all for the info, 'cos at least then we could reasonably leave it in with a {{cn}} - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Is The Art of Manliness a reliable source, and is Brett McKay an expert source?

Cleantheshymn wishes to use a podcast description by Brett McKay as a source at Jack Donovan for this edit. Cleantheshymn, and others on that talk page, have said they believe that Art of Manliness in general is a reliable source. Cleantheshymn gave as reasoning: "The Art of Manliness is not a blog. It’s an independent online men’s magazine. McKay is one of the founders. He is also a writer for the site, which has more than 10 million unique readers every month." They also state that McKay is "a noted expert on masculinity and manliness", presumably arguing that his opinions on Donovan should be included per WP:EXPERTSOURCE, though they have not provided any sources for this claim, nor could I find any.

I had previously reverted the edit, thus removing the source, with the summary "ce, remove poor-quality source with WP:PROMO quotes (see WP:FORBESCON)". I think I was mostly referring to the Forbes contributor article in that summary, but in my view both sources are poor quality. Art of Manliness appears to me to publish mostly self-help and clickbait articles (a look at the homepage right now shows "The Spartan Way: The Mindset and Tactics of a Battle-Ready Warrior", "How to Ram Through a Vehicular Roadblock", "The Top 8 First Date Ideas", etc.) I could see including McKay's opinion if he is an influential voice in "masculinity and manliness", but have seen no indication that he is.

See further discussion at Talk:Jack Donovan (writer)#Brett McKay / The Art of Manliness. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

well my first question is Who? He is such a notable expert we do not seem to have an article on him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Art of Manliness is a bottom tier source, unless this somehow falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in some way I am unaware I don’t see it flying in that context. Mr McKay does not appear to have any qualifications not related to the aforementioned The Art of Manliness, which is to say none that matter for our purposes here on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It strongly appears to me that "The Art of Manliness" is not a reliable source for facts. It has two editors listed on the masthead - Brett and Kate McKay. Neither have any notable academic or journalistic credentials. Searching for other, obviously reliable sources citing "The Art of Manliness" or Mr. McKay, I was unable to find any, except for a puff-piece in the Tulsa World, which describes The Art of Manliness as a blog [30]. Using this source for anything related to a fringe political figure seems wildly inappropriate to me. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:FORBESCON article and Brett McKay themselves call The Art of Manliness a blog [31]:

In the interview McKay talked about why he originally started the blog and how it's evolved [...]

Dan Schawbel: Why did you originally start your blog and how has it evolved since then?
Brett McKay: I started the blog back in 2008 when I was a second year law student.

As a result, I see no reason to treat this podcast any differently than The Needle Drop/Anthony Fantano, which is not considered a reliable source. JBchrch (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: The Needle Drop is now considered a self-published subject-matter expert per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Needle Drop. That said, I agree that The Art of Manliness seems like a low quality source that has a strong POV, probably undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you Hemiauchenia, I had not seen the closure. In any case, I would be very surprised if there was any form of consensus that Brett McKay is a subject-matter expert. JBchrch (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a blog. The site even describes it as such here. McKay's opinions are only DUE if he meets WP:EXPERTSOURCE. Like GW, I have not found any evidence that RS are citing McKay as a subject-matter expert. The disputed sentences should be excluded from the article unless someone proves otherwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I see none of the normal indicia of reliability here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If McKay is a "writer" for that magazine there's an obvious problem. According to [32] he and his wife and one more person are also editors. Maybe his wife and the other person review the articles he writes, maybe not, I see no clear indication of any real independent review. In other words, whether you want to call it a blog or something else, it seems at a minimum content written by McKay is WP:SPS. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable source This is a blog, as it's written primarily by a very small group of non-subject-matter experts. In fact, I would hesitate to call anyone an expert on masculinity, as masculinity is nothing more than traits/behaviors of men, meaning that it will vary wildly not just between cultures, but between individuals. Basically, anything that claims to speak with authority about "masculinity" is bunk if it cannot apply equally to a male kindergarten teacher and a male Special Forces soldier. This is a blog exclusively for men who subscribe to traditional, Western, Americanized notions of masculinity, and while it might be quite valuable to those, that hypothetical kindergarten teacher will find little of value in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com)

Is Byline Times [ https://bylinetimes.com/ ], [ https://bylinetimes.com/about/ ] reliable?

This Byline Times is not to be confused with The Byline Times at [ https://byline.com/ ]:

"In 2016 we inherited a site from the founders of Byline.com which – by this point – was the only major surviving crowdfunded news site left."[33]

Also see [34] and [ https://byline.com/2015/04/14/welcome-to-byline/ ] From 2015.

The Byline Times I am referring to was started in 2019:[35]

Some material is "Written by Byline Times and the Citizens".[36]

Previous discussion that started off confusing the two: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Byline Times

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

New, left wing, subscription model, reliable for something in particular? I'm sure the usual suspects will show up claiming it is just like the Canary :) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 April (UTC)

Used to trash various (mostly British) conservatives in multiple articles, and in a few random nonpolitical articles:

• [37] used in Simon Dolan
• [38] used in Killings of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman
• [39] used in Political activities of the Koch brothers
• [40] used in Dominic Cummings
• [41] used in Chris Law
• [42] used in American Institute for Economic Research

We have an article at Byline Times.

I think it is unreliable tabloid editorializing. They sometimes get the facts right, but we should rely on better sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. To me, it seems like hard-left agitation of the worst kind. I think they’ve got in trouble for what they’ve written before, but I could be wrong. Quote this source in context, as editorial opinion, but it’s hugely biased for anything factual.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of uncorrected errors? I note they're not on IPSO register (2019) and of course, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". Bias notwithstanding is there evidence of libel cases or extensive revisionism without stated rationale? Chumpih. (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't consider a source to be reliable just because we don't know of any uncorrected errors. per WP:RS the source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Lack of people suing them might just be because they are new or because they are careful to only make stuff up that won't get them sued. Who does the fact checking for bylinetimes.com? Have they ever printed a retraction? Also, look at the website. Do you see factual reporting in the "fact" and "reportage" sections or do you see editorializing? And who the hell are "Byline Times and the Citizens"? Crowdsourcing? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"We stand by the Impress code on corrections. Byline Times have made three corrections in 1,200 articles written by 120 writers over a year. For any news organisation, that's pretty good." 21 April 2021 Peter Jukes, Executive editor. Keep fishing, tho, might dredge up some actual muck somewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Because Selfstudier neglected to source the above claim, here it is:[43] It was a twitter post by Peter Jukes. (A later post changes that 120 to 220). The post was in response to "Is this like when you 'discovered' the hedge funds that 'paid for no deal brexit' by misreading some charts, Peter?" by Willard Foxton Todd. (I believe this is the same story that was referenced by Dr. Swag Lord below.)

Byline.com is regulated by IMPRESS.[44] bylinetimes.com is not.[45]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I just read that tweet again. Is Peter Jukes actually bragging about bylinetimes not making any corrections? [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] has him beat. They have never posted a correction. That makes them super reliable, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do other reliable sources import material and facts from the bylinetimes? Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Byline Times ran a fake (or, at the very least, highly misleading) story regarding Boris Johnson and Brexit (here, here, and here). And, recently, they ran a fake story on Priti Patel, the current Home Secretary of the UK (as shown here, and here). Reliable sources seem to almost never reference Byline Times for facts or reporting, so they fail WP:USEBYOTHERS, too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like bylinetimes has not printed any retraction or correction on any of those stories. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe so. For the first story, Full Fact stated that: "We have asked Byline Times for more information on which firms they consider to have been direct or indirect Vote Leave donors; they told us they would not release this information for “legal reasons” because they had not contacted those firms. Their follow-up article does not detail the methodology they used to identify these firms as direct or indirect donors." For the second story, Byline Times added an "Update" which was just a Tweet from the British Government--not a correction. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Biased and reliability unclear. The site appears to label its articles into four categories: "fact", "argument", "reportage", and "culture". The main way to tell if an article is in a particular category is to look at the background color, which does clearly delineate the sections but also might be confusing to editors, who have to take the odd step of noting the background color of an article to figure out which section it is in. That being said, some of seem to be very speculation-heavy and might very well be described as news-pinion rather than news. I don't see any plain fabrication of information by the source, since its descriptions are often framed in subjunctive mood or alongside expressions indicating that the source is engaging in speculation but it's clear that opinion gets fused heavily into the articles filed under its "reportage" title. Its "arguments" section is obviously opinion, while its "culture" section seems to contain both possibly news and opinion pieces that aren't clearly marked as either, so I'm hesitant to use its culture pieces as a source for facts. Regarding its pieces put in its "facts" section, I can't really speak to its reliability in particular, though I believe previous users have shown that these two stories in particular. Obviously we shouldn't jump to a conclusion on a source's reliability based upon two incidents (newspapers get things wrong at times), but the lack of a correction on the still-live web articles makes me worry a bit. I would certainly not use them for extraordinary claims, though I think they're probably reliable enough to source quotes.

The reason that I don't have outright certainty on if it's WP:GUNREL is that I do see some WP:USEBYOTHERS that would indicate trust of the sources. I do see use of articles listed in its "reportage", "fact", and even "argument" categories in publications that include a few peer-reviewed journal articles (and a passing mention in another), BMJ editorials and perspective pieces, and a few references to its reporting in a journal that focuses on the Labour party. It also has the obvious issues discussed by previous editors of having published misleading information and having very few news sources that cite it except to note that it published misleading news, which absent the use of the Byline Times for facts by some peer-reviewed journals would lead me to think of it as a clear WP:GUNREL. I think it is probably fair to assess the source as no better that WP:MREL and biased, though I really am having a tough time in determining if the source is better classified as marginally reliable or generally unreliable. I certainly would not use the source if it is the only source of an extraordinary claim or to support a negative claim in a BLP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable assessment for now, I'm glad you noted the use by others. For myself, I would put it as marginally unreliable, see where it is a year from now, of course it should be attributed in all cases.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I can agree with this assessment too. They're almost never referenced by traditional media sources, but it seems that a couple of journals have cited them for facts related to COVID. I would also show caution for matters relating to the Israeli- Palestine Conflict, due to articles like this and this. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliability unclear. I broadly agree with Mikehawk10. Per Selfstudier, I would not class it as "just like the Canary" because, as I said the last time it came up here, the editorial team and senior reporters are all extremely experianced journalists with excellent reputations and a history of working in mainstream legacy media, so I would expect high standards. Having said that, some of the contributors are more controversial, so when attributing it would probably be sensible to attribute to both the author and publisher (e.g. Duncan Campbell (journalist) or Jonathan Portes have strong reputations for accuracy; CJ Werleman and perhaps Nafeez Ahmed do not). The four categories that include "fact" and "reportage" versus "opinion" and "culture" should be helpful, but because individual articles aren't clearly flagged by category (except via colour-coding) it's not immediately obvious. There's definitely an air of sensationalism. I think the best thing would be to class as WP:MREL for now and monitor over time. If the number of misleading (especially if uncorrected) articles (like the Home Office expenses and short positions one) build up we can move to generally unreliable but for now we need caution and attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - proper journalists, doing proper journalism. Strongly opinionated. But not liars, and they cover noteworthy news - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  "Proper journalists, doing proper journalism" print retractions and corrections. Bylinetimes.com brags about not printing corrections, implying that they are so good that they don't make mistakes the way lesser sources like The New York Times do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Your statement appears factually incorrect, per above: "Byline Times have made three corrections in 1,200 articles written by 120 writers over a year." - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's a suspiciously low percentage (compare with [46]), and I can't find any of those corrections (the claim was sourced to a twitter comment that contained another error and thus it is fair to ask for evidence that they really made those corrections) by searching their site for terms such as "correction" "retract", "update" and "edited to". I didn't read all 12,00 articles, though, so maybe the corrections are there and I couldn't find them. What we do know is that that the bylinetimes.com errors identified in this discussion -- including the one that resulted in the "3 corrections" tweet -- have no corrections or retractions. --Guy Macon (talk)

  "Cover noteworthy news" is something I would have to disagree with. Per their own website: "Byline Times...produce fearless journalism not found in the mainstream media...Byline Times does not intend to report the daily news cycle. That’s for others. Our aim is to concentrate on ‘what the papers don’t say’." So, in essence, the kind of news they do report is not noteworthy. There are serious WP:UNDUE concerns if your only source is Byline Times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think its choice to focus on topics not covered more broadly in the MSM, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily imply that the organization doesn't produce noteworthy reporting. After all, Bellingcat also doesn't really do the same sort of reporting as the MSM, but its reporting is often noteworthy due to its quality and investigative rigor. It of course should be noted, however, that The Byline Times is no Bellingcat in terms of quality or rigor, so I agree that there should be strong caution in using it as the sole source for a fact. I agree that we should almost never use this particular paper for exceptional facts (or negative facts in a BLP) if it is the only source reporting it, though I caution against writing off news outlets that intentionally focus on topics that the MSM does not cover in as much depth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable have run into their stories before and the quality was very poor. Nweil (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - coincidently just noticed it and imported it yesterday and already finding it highly useful. Thanks for the great work. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been running it for awhile and find it very helpful. Thanks for creating it, Headbomb! Schazjmd (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, just installed it looks very useful. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been using this script since last year and find it very helpful. Thanks for creating it, Headbomb! Armadillopteryx 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I did not know about it. This will be quite helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been using unreliable.js for over a year, and it's a very nice script that makes it quick and easy to scan references for potential issues. I'm using it alongside Cite Unseen, which adds icons that indicate the sources' types. These scripts are particularly helpful for reviewing citations that are not formatted properly. — Newslinger talk 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dicebreaker

Dicebreaker is a board game website publishing news, reviews, and features on topics including board games, RPGs, and trading card games. They're listed as an 'editorial website' at Gamer Network, making it a sister site to reliable sources like Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

The website has clear editorial and review policies. Authors appear to be a mix of a few full time staff, and a list of contributors. The Editor-in-chief and Staff writer appear to both be long-time journalists. The contributors are less clear, I couldn't find any information about how non-staff authors come to publish material on the website, but the most prolific (e.g. Chase Carter, most others only have 1-4 articles) seem to be credible freelance journalists.

Can the news and reviews on Dicebreaker be considered reliable sources for tabletop topics? The topic is still relatively niche in reliable sources so it would be incredibly valuable to our articles on board games in particular to be able to use it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Appears generally reliable in it's topic area to me. Professional editing staff. Not clear that the review scores themselves are relevant, but for news in the space and descriptions of the games themselves, certainly appears on it's face to be reliable. Has it's use been challenged? If so, why? Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Like Hipocrite above, I would like to see some conversations where this is being challenged and for what reasons? The site looks decent; as well the material it is likely to cover is low-controversy stuff and I don't see there being lots of contention over what is written there. I need to see the objections in context, however, to see what exactly has been challenged over using this site. --Jayron32 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both - no specific challenges yet, I wanted to use it quite extensively in a couple of articles and wasn't completely confident so I wanted to gather some other opinions before going ahead :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, it looks like it is useful for things like reviews (which is not subject to reliability concerns anyways, only establishing that the person whose opinion you are citing is recognized as worthy of listening to their opinion) and rather banal information like the names of game designers, release dates, gameplay mechanics (which can also be sourced to the game itself), etc. I mean, if you were citing something contentious like "so-and-so eats babies for breakfast" then I might want to find a better source for that, but for stuff like "Such and such a game was designed by John Doe, and was funded by a kickstarter campaign; the first orders shipped in May, 2020" or something like that, that's fairly low-contentious stuff, and this website certainly seems like it cares about getting that stuff right. --Jayron32 18:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

JL Bell

In two recent edits, I added a link to Boston 1775, a blog run by JL Bell. He is a published author and speaker who specializes in Revolutionary-era Boston and New England. Though he is an expert and has been published on the topic in reliable sources before, I wanted to make sure that this source was appropriate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

JL Bell’s published work is good, but I don't see him setting up his blog with the intent that it be used as a real source... For instance he says "Boston 1775 isn’t meant to be anyone's final source for information. It’s meant to help us all think about interesting historical events in different ways. (Half the time I end up learning something or changing my mind as I write an entry.)” and the masthead makes it clear that in addition to history and analysis the site features "unabashed gossip.” So yes the author is a subject matter expert, but I don’t get the feeling that the author means for this blog to be authoritative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Given the first two bullet points I'm not sure he didn't mean for it to be a "real source" or isn't reliable, but your concern is fair. I removed the citations in both places. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Facts.Org.cn (Truth on Falun Gong)

• Source: Facts.org.cn[47], specifically in this article: [48]
• Article: Jun Hong Lu
• Content:

  The Guan Yin Citta Dharma Door created by Lu Jun Hong claimed itself as Buddhism, and was criticized by the public and other religious organization for irrelevant teachings and activities towards Buddhism. An example indicated by the religious specialist which is Lu and the Guan Yin Citta Dharma Door teaches the believer to burn the yellow paper, known as "Little house". However, the burning of "Little house" was pointed out that it is irrelevant towards Buddhism because it does not exist in the Buddhist teaching.The religious ideology founded by Lu were also criticized for intending to profiting the organization and Lu himself.

Notes:

• The purpose of this website seems to be used by some authorities in China to crack down on religious groups and other specific groups
• There is no way to verify the story covered by the website articles.

Is this quialifed as a reliable source to be used in BLP?

Thank you for your time and comments. AutoPrime (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be wary of using any official Chinese source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no indication that its a reliable source, it seems to be the sort of explicit government propaganda that is a big no no BLP wise. I would never use a Chinese government source for a BLP statement that in any way involves religious freedom. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable and possible blacklist. Propaganda website that does not disclose its government affiliation. See below:

These websites copy the design of news portals, provide information that is aligned with the official policy of the PRC and tend to disguise ownership and authorship, which most of the time is linked to State agencies. [...] Two embassies (Addis Ababa and Lusaka) also provide links to Facts.org.cn, an English-language page providing very critical information about Falun Gong, a religious group banned in China. Although the website is presented as being manned by a private citizen, it appears to have the backing of Office 610, a paralegal security agency responsible for the prosecution of Falun Gong.

Madrid-Morales, Dani (26 June 2017). "China's digital public diplomacy towards Africa: Actors, messages and audiences". In Batchelor, Kathryn; Zhang, Xiaoling (eds.). China-Africa Relations: Building Images through Cultural Cooperation, Media Representation and Communication. Routledge. pp. 129–146. doi:10.4324/9781315229096-8. ISBN 9781315229096. Retrieved 26 April 2021 – via ResearchGate.

— Newslinger talk 16:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Change from "possible blacklist" to "blacklist" — Newslinger talk 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the Routledge article, other state-affiliated propaganda sites (that do not disclose their state affiliation) include:

• 2 Xinjiang-related sites: chinaxinjiang.cn, ts.cn
• 2 Tibet-related sites: showchina.org, tibet.cn

These sites should also be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 16:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Fix wording — Newslinger talk 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say they are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've proposed facts.org.cn to be added to blacklist. And thanks for the information regarding the state agency links AutoPrime (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Obvious propaganda is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate and possible blacklist. These sites seem to be state-sponsored propaganda sites that publish false and/or fabricated information. Might be worth it to investigate some of the sites listed on this page to see if there are more sites akin to this one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  thanks for that website. all this is part of a propaganda campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_China).

  i've proposed facts.org.cn to be added to blacklist. AutoPrime (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Request - My initial impression is probably unreliable as only an activism website, but this is an invitation to post sources. Can other sources about this website be found than from a HK university? I admit not having visited the website yet but the cited quote above is not so surprising, that a cult leader would profit from his business. —PaleoNeonate – 10:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  The quoted source above was authored by Dani Madrid-Morales, who is an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Houston, and that chapter was published by Routledge in London. There's also a brief mention in another academic source by Benjamin Penny, an Australian expert on Chinese religious movements:

Interviewed in 2006 in prison by the government-run anti–Falun Gong website Facts.org.cn, Li [Chang] was apparently reconciled to his imprisonment, acknowledging that "Falun Gong should not be engaged in political affairs." He "recalled that on April 25, in the early morning, he intentionally drove around Zhongnanhai for some time. When he found that more and more people gathered around Zhongnanhai, he couldn't help feeling afraid for he knew what was happening was totally beyond his control. Used to being an official in the Ministry of Public Security, he figured out that he would be punished by law."⁹¹

Interviews with two more of this group, in which they praise the actions of the authorities and regret their lives wasted in Falun Gong, have also appeared on Facts.org.cn.

Footnote

91. Tan Deyin, "Li Chang: It's Tragic for Falun Gong to Go to Politics," online at www.facts.org.cn/krs/wfem/200801/t75987.htm.

Penny, Benjamin (March 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65502-4. Retrieved 27 April 2021 – via Google Books.

The link in the footnote is defunct, but an archived version of the Facts.org.cn article is available: "Li Chang: it's tragic for Falun Gong to go to politics" (2006). The remainder of the article includes statements from Li Chang apparently denying the reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China that were released earlier in 2006 (see: Kilgour–Matas report). Note that, while the interview took place, Li Chang was in prison for his involvement in Falun Gong as a "high-ranking and long-standing practitioner" who was "among those arrested in the first major roundup of Falun Gong figures", according to Penny. Li Chang was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1999. — Newslinger talk 14:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a website setup to oppose Falun Gong, it can't be reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and I support blacklisting. Thanks Newslinger for another source, —PaleoNeonate – 13:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blacklist: We don't accept Falun Gong as a source on the Chinese government, so we should not We don't accept the Chinese government as a source on Falun Gong. Both topics have plenty of reliable sources that we can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Depends Reliability depends on what the source is used for. In this case, the website has republished an article previously published in Kaiwind (September 27, 2006). In fact most of the website appears to be republication of articles from other sources. Whether or not any of these articles is reliable depends on whether the original article was reliable. When citing the website, we should follow Say where you read it. Credit the original source and mention that it was found in the Facts.org.cn website.

Original articles should be evaluated as self-published. Their reliability depends on whether or not the author is an expert.

The essay Wikipedia:Interviews provides helpful information about using interviews as sources.

TFD (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Facts.org.cn article in question was not republished from Kaiwind. The Facts.org.cn article link in the original comment is not the right one, but I can see from the page history of the Jun Hong Lu article that the disputed article ("The Beijing News: Guan Yin Citta is an illegal organization with the cult characteristics", now removed in Special:Diff/1020173540) is http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/201711/13/t20171113_5829162.htm – which has been moved. It is now available in three locations:

1. Facts.org.cn (new location): http://www.facts.org.cn/c/2017-11-10/1034773.shtml
2. 2020 archive of Facts.org.cn (old location): https://web.archive.org/web/20200226151659/http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/201711/13/t20171113_5829162.htm
3. Kaiwind: http://en.kaiwind.com/c/2017-11-10/1034773.shtml

The Kaiwind page (#3) is an exact replica of the Facts.org.cn page (#1), including the Facts.org.cn site logo. Note the text "Source:facts.org.cn" on the top-right, which indicates that Kaiwind is the site that republished the Facts.org.cn article, not the other way around. If you go to en.kaiwind.com, you can see that the Kaiwind subdomain is a mirror site of Facts.org.cn. Finally, at the bottom of the 2020 archive (#2), the text "Email: facts@kaiwind.com" indicates that Facts.org.cn is affiliated with Kaiwind. In fact, the 2020 archive of the Facts.org.cn home page has the same "Email: facts@kaiwind.com" text in the footer, confirming that Kaiwind and Facts.org.cn are operated by the same entity. This disclosure was removed from the current version of Facts.org.cn.

Additionally, I have done some more research on Kaiwind, and was able to confirm that Kaiwind is another anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office. See the section below for details. Both Facts.org.cn and Kaiwind should be added to the spam blacklist.

WP:BLP is the policy governing biographies of living persons, and WP:BLPRS calls for a strict reading of the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline for claims related to living persons (including Jun Hong Lu). Websites operated by the 610 Office, including Facts.org.cn and Kaiwind, do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by these policies and guidelines to be considered a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Kaiwind (凯风, Kaifeng; kaiwind.com)

After doing some more research, I can confirm that Kaiwind (凯风, Kaifeng; kaiwind.com  ) is an anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office (also known as the Office of Prevention and Handling of Cults), a government agency responsible for the persecution of Falun Gong in China. A search engine query led me to a document published by the Human Rights Law Foundation (HRLF) which confirms this: "HRLF FARA Report with appendices 1-4" (.docx file, 2018). I'm not familiar with the HRLF, so instead of quoting the report directly, I will examine the primary sources cited in the report.

Primary sources confirming the 610 Office's operation of Kaiwind, cited in the 2018 HRLF report

Footnote number	Source	Original text	Translated text
18	"中央610办牵头组织在《凯风网》" - Google 2017 archive of Google search result for "中央610办牵头组织在《凯风网》" ["The Central 610 Office is leading the organization in Kaiwind.com"] The search result shows a page on beita.gov.cn, the official website of the Beita District Committee of the Communist Party of China (中共北塔区委) and the Beita District People's Government (北塔区人民政). I am unable to access the domain, but a 2021 archive of beita.gov.cn is available here.	为深入贯彻落实中共邵阳市委610办公室《关于在全市集中开展反邪教法制 ... 今年9月－11月，中央610办牵头组织在《凯风网》进行“反邪教法制知识 ...	In order to thoroughly implement the 610 Office of the Shaoyang Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, "Regarding the Centralized Development of Anti-cult Legal System in the City... From September to November this year, the Central 610 Office took the lead in organizing the "Anti-cult Legal Knowledge" on Kaiwind.com ...
19	"《山中帝王师—朱子》简介" ["Introduction to The Emperor of the Mountain-Zhu Zi"] 2017 archive of a 2015 article on the official website of the Nanping Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (中国人民政治协商会议南平委员会)	该专题片由中央610办官网“凯风网”提供平台、福建省610办和南平市610办筹拍、南平市政协和南平电视台联合录制	The feature film was provided by the Central 610 Office’s official website "Kaiwind.com", prepared by the Fujian Provincial 610 Office and Nanping 610 Office, and jointly recorded by the Nanping CPPCC and Nanping TV Station.
20	"香格里拉市参加全州反邪教网宣工作培训" ["Shangri-La City Participated in the Statewide Anti-cult Online Propaganda Training"] 2017 archive of a 2016 article published by the 610 Office (政法委610办) of Shangri-La City on the official website of the Shangri-La Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (中共香格里拉市委) and the Shangri-La Municipal People's Government (香格里拉市人民政府)	省委防范处理邪教办凯风网主编李少波副处长分析了当前反邪教网宣工作的形势，介绍凯风网基本情况、凯风网作用与特性，凯风网权威性和专业性及未来发展的趋势，分析了我省撰稿供稿情况，同时对上报稿件的共性问题进行分析讲解。会上，李少波提出两点要求：一是克服畏难情绪，大胆投稿；二是发掘培养撰稿人，建设一支撰稿队伍；并指出今后全州上下要继续切实抓好反邪教网宣工作，要把反邪教网宣工作放在维护社会稳定的重要位置来抓。 此次培训丰富了香格里拉市防范处理邪教办工作人员的反邪教网宣理论知识，增强了反邪教网宣的责任感和使命感，对推动反邪教各项工作有着积极的意义。	Li Shaobo, editor-in-chief of Kaiwind.com, Deputy Director of the Office for Prevention and Handling of Cults [610 Office], analyzed the current situation of anti-cult online propaganda work, introduced the basic situation of Kaiwind.com, the role and characteristics of Kaiwind.com, and the authority and professionalism of Kaiwind.com and its future development. The trend of manuscripts in our province is analyzed, and the common problems of submitted manuscripts are analyzed and explained. At the meeting, Li Shaobo put forward two requirements: one is to overcome the fear of difficulties and submit articles boldly; the other is to find and train writers and build a team of writers; and he pointed out that the whole prefecture should continue to do a good job in anti-cult online propaganda work. It is necessary to put the anti-cult online propaganda work in an important position to maintain social stability. This training enriched the anti-cult online propaganda theoretical knowledge of the staff of the Office of Prevention and Handling of Cults [610 Office] in Shangri-La City, strengthened the sense of responsibility and mission of anti-cult online propaganda, and has a positive significance in promoting various anti-cult work.
21	"关于印发《凌云县防范和处理邪教问题 领导小组2016年工作要点》的通知" ["Notice on Printing and Distributing the Main Points of Work of the Leading Group of Lingyun County to Prevent and Deal with Cult Issues in 2016"] 2017 archive of 2016 article published by the 610 Office (610办) of Lingyun County on the offical website of the Lingyun County People's Government Office (凌云县人民政府办公室)	（六）进一步加强警示教育和宣传工作。积极拓宽反邪教警示教育资源渠道，为反邪教警示教育资源库建设提供优秀资料，充分利用资源库平台资源，提高警示教育水平；继续组织通过党员干部现代远程教育网络平台观看反邪教警示教育宣传片，加强党内教育；强化网上宣传工作，充分发挥凯风网广西频道特色栏目强化网上宣传，加强业务培训，加大原创力度，向该频道投送专业性的反邪教稿件，增强知识性、可读性，进一步提升宣传质量及影响力。	(6) Further strengthen warning education and xuanchuan [propaganda, 宣传] work. Actively broaden the channels of anti-cult warning education resources, provide excellent materials for the construction of the anti-cult warning education resource bank, make full use of the resources of the resource database platform to improve the level of warning education; continue to organize to watch anti-cult warning education xuanchuan videos through the modern distance education network platform for party members and cadres, Strengthen internal party education; strengthen online xuanchuan, give full play to the characteristics of Kaiwind.com’s Guangxi channel, strengthen online xuanchuan, strengthen business training, increase originality, and send professional anti-cult manuscripts to the channel to enhance knowledge and accessibility. Readability to further enhance the quality and influence of xuanchuan.
22	"关于组织市直林业系统党员干部参加反邪教法制知识竞赛的通知" ["Notice on organizing party members and cadres of the municipal forestry system to participate in the anti-cult legal knowledge contest"] 2017 archive of 2013 article published on the official website of the Xiangyang Forestry Bureau (襄阳市林业局)	一、竞赛方式 本次竞赛方式是网上答题（答题截止时间为10月31日）。请先从法制网、凯风网或中国反邪教网下载《反邪教法制教育学习问答》学习把握。同时动员组织每位在职党员干部自行登陆凯风网参加答题。具体操作步骤是：打开凯风网首页，进入“六五普法反邪教法制知识竞赛”。打开“竞赛试题”，熟悉所有试题及标准答案。在“我要答题”对话框内，选择所在地区“湖北”，填写本人手机号码，即行答题。在规定的100分钟内答完单选多选判断共60道题后，输入验证码的正确结果，提交答卷，完成赛事。11月份进行评奖总结。经电脑随机抽取的5225名获奖名单（奖金每人50－5000元不等）将在凯风网和有关媒体公布并颁奖。 [...] 并请及时上报本单位获得凯风网电脑抽奖人员情况报局党办，然后由局党办汇总后，统一报市直机关工委。市委市直机关工委将对竞赛活动组织工作成绩突出的单位将以适当方式表扬奖励；对行动迟缓、敷衍塞责、弄虚作假的单位予以批评扣分。	1. Competition method The contest method is to answer the questions online (the deadline for answering questions is October 31). Please download the "Questions and Answers on Anti-cult Legal Education Learning" from the Legal Network, Kaifeng Network or China Anti-cult Network to learn and grasp. At the same time, mobilize and organize every serving party member and cadre to log on to Kaiwind.com to answer questions on their own. The specific steps are: Open the homepage of Kaiwind.com and enter the "Sixth Five-Year Law Popularization and Anti-cult Legal Knowledge Contest". Open the "Contest Questions" to familiarize yourself with all the test questions and standard answers. In the "I want to answer" dialog box, select the region "Hubei" and fill in your mobile phone number to answer the question. After answering a total of 60 questions in the single-choice multiple-choice judgment within the specified 100 minutes, enter the correct result of the verification code, submit the answer sheet, and complete the competition. The award summary will be conducted in November. The list of 5,225 winners randomly selected by the computer (with bonuses ranging from 50-5000 yuan each) will be announced and awarded on Kaiwind.com and relevant media. [...] Please report to the party office of the bureau for the information of the personnel who have obtained the computer lottery draw of Kaiwind.com in a timely manner, and then the party office of the bureau will collectively report to the working committee of the municipal organ. The Municipal Party Committee and Municipal Work Committee will commend and reward units with outstanding achievements in the organization of competition activities in an appropriate manner; criticize and deduct points for units that are slow, perfunctory, and fraudulent.
23	"审计局开展'凯风网'上竟答'六五普法'反邪教法制知识竟赛活动情况" ["The Audit Bureau launched an anti-cult legal knowledge contest on 'Kaiwind.com' to answer the 'Sixth Five-Year Plan' anti-cult legal knowledge contest"] 2017 archive of 2013 article published by the Audit Bureau (审计局) of Chaoyang District, Changchun, on the official website of the People's Government of Chaoyang District, Changchun (长春市朝阳区人民政府)	按照中央610办工作要求，在依法治区办公室的精心安排下，在全区范围内开展“凯风网”上竟答“六五普法”反邪教法制知识竟赛活动。我局接到通知后，领导亲自按排布置，并于9月23日组织全局党员干部，在 “凯风网”上竟答“六五普法”反邪教法制知识竟赛活动，全局所有党员干部共同努力，认真答题，并且都取得了很好的成绩。通过这次竟赛活动，使全局党员干部进一步增强了反邪教法制知识，进一步提高全局同志的社会主义民主法制水平，全面推进依法行政，依法审计。	In accordance with the work requirements of the Central 610 Office, and under the careful arrangement of the district office under the rule of law, "Kaiwind.com" was launched across the district to answer the "Sixth Five-Year Popularization of Law" anti-cult legal knowledge contest. After receiving the notice, our bureau’s leaders personally prepared the arrangement, and organized the overall party members and cadres on September 23 to answer the "Sixth Five-Year Law Popularization" anti-cult legal knowledge contest on "Kaiwind.com". All party members and cadres in the overall situation worked together, answered the questions carefully, and have achieved good results. Through this competition, party members and cadres in the overall situation have further enhanced their knowledge of the anti-cult legal system, further improved the level of socialist democracy and legal system of comrades in the overall situation, and comprehensively promoted administration and audit in accordance with the law.

The above evidence, which features statements from government agencies, conclusively establishes that Kaiwind (Kaifeng) is a propaganda website operated by the 610 Office. While the primary source documents have since been taken offline, the archived pages are still available for verification.

Also, note that Kaiwind hosts a mirror site of Facts.org.cn, another anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office, on the subdomain en.kaiwind.com. See the previous section on Facts.org.cn for more information.

Based on this evidence, I propose that Kaiwind (Kaifeng) be added to the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Indeed, Kaiwing and facts.org.cn are the same thing.Thanks for your valuable input.--Ba7manG0tham86 (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and blacklist, surprised we haven’t done this sooner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Vzglyad (newspaper)

Can Vzglyad (newspaper) be considered a reliable source? I would appreciate wiki community assessment of this source. Grandmaster 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• No. It's another Russian State propaganda source, founded by Konstantin Rykov. The article itself states "the work of the site was supervised at monthly intervals by Rykov and then deputy head of the internal policy department of the Russian President" That's a big no. --Jayron32 17:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  My own research also suggests that it is problematic: [49] Grandmaster 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's referenced an awful lot here. Might be a candidate for deprecation. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Last time I checked, they certainly had pro-government and nationalist bias. The ru wiki article says it's controlled by an NGO which is financed by various state-owned companies. I'm not aware of specific issues but generally I would not use such a source. Can you provide some context for your request? Is it related to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war by any chance? Alaexis_¿question? 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it was used in that article too to make some claims about living persons. Such claims require strong sourcing, and I would like to know how reliable this source is, considering that Russia is directly involved in the developments in the region and has its own stakes in the game. Grandmaster 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Since 2013, Vzglyad was owned by the organisation headed by the former deputy head of the internal policy department of the Presidential Administration of Russia (Dmitry Badovsky).
  Former editor in chief of Vzglyad Alexander Shmelev said that the newspaper was the "forefront of the [authorities] campaign" during 2007-2008 elections: "the toughest propaganda materials passed through us, as a result of which the very word Vzglyad has become a household name in blogs and social networks." The Atlantic, Andrei Soldatov,, Meduza and The Guardian call Vzglyad "pro-Kremlin". Transitions Online call it "pro-United Russia Party". Pulitzer Prize laureate investigative journalist Olesya Shmagun, who worked in Vzglyad, called it an example of "Surkov's propaganda". She said: "I was invited there by my former editor, he convinced me that I should not believe the reviews on the Internet. But it quickly became clear that all the stereotypes about Vzglyad turned out to be true." According to the newspaper Realnoe Vremya, Vzglyad is known for its closeness to the authorities. On August 17, 2017, Vzglyad came under the control of another organisation, associated with the presidential administration headed by Anton Vaino. Vzglyad is unofficially funded by the Russian government to promote the Russian interests. Vzglyad pushes anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and spreads COVID-19 misinformation. Omits important information: [50] and pushes anti-EU propaganda: [51]. Eurotopics says, that Vzglyad has a pro-governmental political orientation: "The website ... is published by a sociology institute with close ties to the Kremlin."--Renat 20:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This is a propaganda outlet by Russian state. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable, this is a state propaganda outlet.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, they do not appear to have a reputation for fact checking nor do they appear to be independent. In fact we have WP:RS clearly calling what they publish disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just because a source is pro-government doesn't necessarily mean it is unreliable. Almost every newspaper has some kind of bias. Is there any evidence of Vzglyad having a history of publishing false or fabricated information? --Steverci (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Xinhua

Discussed perenially here, there is currently contention on using a Xinhua piece on the article for Id Kah Mosque to describe a claim about a plaque in the mosque. The article itself reports on a twitter video from the US Chinese Embassy on the statements of the imam of the mosque and specifically on the point of contention of the removal of a plaque in the mosque. While some are stating that Xinhua cannot be used due to potential bias (this is a situation where the Chinese government is a stakeholder), considering that it's being used to report on the opinions of the Chinese embassy and a blatantly real video of the mosque and imam, I don't see how the usage of the source ought to be contentious, especially with in-line attribution. As it currently stands, the plaque section is heavily biased towards a western narrative by only including testimony given by radio free asia that directly contradicts the chinese embassy video and the Xinhua reporting. I feel as if both statements should be included with in-line attribution or none of them ought to be, but I'd like to know what others have to say about the reliability of Xinhua in this situation (directly reporting on a video posted by the Chinese Embassy). Deku link (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and Undue. Per WP:RSP, For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. Simply put, this is one of those situations; the Chinese government is clearly a stakeholder in this dispute in its relation to the suppression of Muslims in Xinjiang. There is a source listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP that report differently from Xinhua, namely Radio Free Asia (RSP entry). None of the sources contest that the plaque was moved (and it's more than just RFA that frame this in the context of the suppression of Uyghurs). The question on if a video produced by and for the Chinese government's use in public relations is unreliable for facts doesn't seem to be a question, but this is exactly the sort of video that Xinhua is reporting on. CGTN's (RSP entry) forced confessions are also "blatantly real" videos (inasmuch as they are verifiably videos that were taken), but that doesn't make them reliable for facts or due for inclusion in articles. We have a real and present motivation here for Xinhua to be used as a form of propaganda and, owing to the RSP entry, I don't see any reason for this to be considered reliable in this context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

We also have a real and present motivation here for Radio Free Asia to be used as a form of propaganda. There is no reason in my mind that Xinhua cannot be used to report on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy considering that this is a self-reflective usage of the source, and the video clearly shows the plaque is still intact, so given that no western source has reported on the video in any capacity, I don't see how Xinhua's reporting in this specific situation is unreliable. Deku link (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t reporting on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy, its reporting on a statement from a BLP who is not a part of the Chinese government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it not a statement of fact that the Chinese Embassy has claimed that the plaque was relocated during renovation with a video of testimony from the Imam of the Mosque? That should be absolutely self-evident, and the overemphasis placed on sources such as Radio Free Asia over the clear existence of this video shows a heavy bias towards Western sources. Continual biblethumping over the general reliability does not change the individual reliability of this article's reporting on what has been put forth by the embassy. Deku link (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The game of telephone you’re talking about ends with a living person. All of the statements that have been added to the page so far fall under BLP, if you think that you can craft a statement which does not fall under those restrictions you are more than welcome to try. I’ve always been saying that this specific article's reporting is unreliable in this specific context, if you’re just realizing that now I don’t know how to help you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you read the Radio Free Asia statement at WP:RSP, you will find that it says that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. I do not see a reason why it is different in this case. Community consensus exists on this; Xinhua is fundamentally controlled by the Chinese government, while Radio Free Asia does not experience government co-option that interferes with its reliability. Arguing that they should be treated as equals in terms of credibility does not align with community consensus established through recent RfCs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside my personal opinions that the RS discussion on RFA came to a woefully inaccurate conclusion (ignoring, among other things, RFA's tendency to grossly inflate covid statistics and fake testimonies for geopolitical reasons), this is a case by case analysis of the sourcing. RFA's claim is clearly inaccurate and inflammatory in nature, and yet we include it with in-line attribution based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Meanwhile, Xinhua's reporting on the Chinese Embassy and the Imam is evidently accurate (the plaque itself is shown on video), yet is rejected based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Deku link (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC on Radio Free Asia acknowledged that for geopolitically sensitive subjects, in-text attribution of RFA's claims is appropriate. There is an acknowledgment that in some sensitive subject areas, RFA is a biased source with a somewhat checkered record. As I pointed out in the RfC, RFA has pushed disinformation over the last year about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting completely wild figures that are orders of magnitude higher than scientific estimates. RFA recently suggested that 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province. That's over 30 times the scientific estimates, which are typically around 4500. An excess mortality study finds about 4600 excess pneumonia deaths in Hubei province during the outbreak. A study in Nature estimates a CoVID-19 death rate of 36 per 100,000 inhabitants in Wuhan, which translates to approximately 4000 deaths in total in the city. These studies (and a host of others on seroprevalence: [52] [53] [54]) all paint a consistent picture of the overall level of mortality in Wuhan and Hubei province, in the range of 4500 deaths. The figures that RFA has been pushing, as high as 150,000, are just wild conspiracy theorizing. This is the sort of reporting that led to the RfC result that in-text attribution is appropriate for RFA in geopolitically sensitive subject areas. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS which also calls it "wild conspiracy theorizing" or is that your personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You don’t need an RS that directly calls a source unreliable to come to that conclusion in consensus. Cross referencing data from reliable sources clearly shows RFA inflating COVID deaths. Deku link (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's kind of ridiculous to ask for a source that confirms that 150,000 is way higher than 4,500. RFA's "reporting" on the number of CoVID-19 deaths in China is so out of whack with the scientific consensus that there's no way to describe it other than as "disinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As I noted on Talk:Uyghur genocide, Bloomberg/Time, The Washington Post (1 2), The Financial Times, and France 24 have also reported on the urns story as casting doubt upon the true death tolls. In fact, WaPo gave a pretty damn similar estimate to that of RFA. Unless you believe that the The Washington Post is engaging in disinformation here, I don't think that there's much of a leg to stand on in terms of arguing against RFA's general reliability. And, as you might note, the RfC found consensus in favor RFA's general reliability; it did not note any sort of difference in quality of reporting or systemic inaccuracy that would support the conclusions that you are attempting to draw. In fact, it said quite the opposite, noting that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. If you're looking to the RfC's closure for a reason to call RFA unreliable, the reasoning ain't there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Last spring, a number of Western media sources did indeed repeat Radio Free Asia's original, wild speculation about 40,000+ CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. That was not a shining moment in journalism history. Just recently, Radio Free Asia has pushed an even crazier estimate - 150,000 deaths. To my knowledge, none of those outlets have repeated this new claim that RFA is pushing. And this time around, there are multiple high-quality scientific studies of CoVID-19 mortality and serorprevalence available, which make it clear that 150,000 deaths is orders of magnitude too high. RFA is engaged in outright CoVID-19 disinformation here, and I don't know why you'd defend it. Finally, you left out a very important part of the RfC on Radio Free Asia - that in geopolitically sensitive areas, in-text attribution may be appropriate. That's an admission that there are problems in these areas, and RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation is a good illustration of that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to WP:RS or a community consensus which say that RFA publishes disinformation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you stop badgering genuine concerns on reliability based on simple comparison of reported statistics with your insistent misunderstanding of when RS applies? Deku link (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking for a source or community consensus which supports an extraordinary claim is not badgering, however repeatedly responding to questions which where not posed to you in an aggressive manner could be interpreted as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The only extraordinary claim here is RFA's suggestion that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. What I've laid out is the fact that multiple scientific studies have found death tolls around 4,500. It's a fact that RFA is pushing a vastly inflated number. If a Chinese government media outlet were to push a death CoVID-19 death toll for the US that was inflated by a factor of 30 relative to scientific studies, I have no doubt that you would consider that disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please AGF. As in this case I would require a WP:RS to have made a clear statement about that source publishing disinformation (remember that unlike misinformation disinformation requires intent). I take it you don’t have either a community consensus or reliable source to point to which makes such a statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you really need a reliable source to tell you that an outlet created under congressional mandate funded by the USFG whose expressed intent is clearly propaganda oriented in nature grossly inflated Covid deaths not just as a harmless mistake? Dogmatically interpreting wiki policy doesn’t change any of this. Deku link (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RFA's crazy claims about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan/Hubei province are either:

1. Deliberate disinformation
2. Gross negligence and failure to do any basic fact-checking
3. Willful disregard for the truth

Take your pick. None of the options bode well for RFA's reliability though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Its not up to me or you to “pick," we only use whats been published by WP:RS. What do reliable sources say about this issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We do NOT need an RS to blatantly say a source is unreliable for the sake of reliability discussions. This is an insanely dogmatic interpretation of WP:RS and is becoming absolutely ridiculous. We have sttistics from RS that directly contradict those of RFA and Thucydides411 has demonstrated this to you several times, yet you continue to deny it. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on reliability for RFA, the consensus is that they’re reliable. The extraordinary claim against consensus that they publish disinformation does actually require a source. If it "directly contradict” then a WP:RS will have noted that, if not then its not an issue for us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "extraordinary claim against consensus" and even in the reliability discussion their inflation of COVID deaths was discussed. This is not in contention, and the fact they were considered reliable despite this being acknowledged is (in my opinion) in great error. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple scientific studies in reputable journals (including Nature), which I've cited above, all paint a consistent picture - that approximately 4,500 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. In contrast, Radio Free Asia is pushing the claim that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. I don't think I need a reliable source to tell me that 150,000 is more than 30 times higher than 4,500. It's obvious that RFA is engaged in disinformation here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Your insinuation that the imam Memet Jume's interviews may be some sort of "forced confession" is belied by some basic background information on the subject. For those that are unaware of the background, Memet Jume's father, Juma Tahir, the previous imam of the Id Kah mosque, was viewed as being generally pro-government and was vocally opposed to what he saw as separatism and religious extremism. He was assassinated in 2014, very likely because he was viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist. His son, Memet Jume, is the current imam of the Id Kah mosque, and is the person whose interviews we are discussing here. There is nothing at all to suggest that Memet Jume is being forced to "confess" anything here, and his statements in the interviews are, in fact, generally in line with the views he and his father have expressed for decades.

Fundamentally, I don't think we should present this story in a one-sided manner. Radio Free Asia claimed that a plaque with religious text had been removed from the mosque. The imam of the mosque gave at least two video interviews in which he showed, on video, that the plaque had been moved to a different part of the mosque. We should not present RFA's claims (which now appear to have been perhaps exaggerated) in isolation, but leave out opposing claims by a high-profile individual involved in the story. It is fine to give in-text attribution to every statement: we can write, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state media organization, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ...". Readers can make of that what they will, but we shouldn't hide it from them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and Undue as per Mikehawk and Horse's Eye above. Worth notinng that the imam is also a state official (imams are state-appointed and this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government), which might mean that state media is a reliable source, but only if we express clearly that he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What is unreliable here? The imam clearly gave the interview (it's on video). The claims he's making are not in any way extraordinary. In fact, the claim by Radio Free Asia that he replies to appears to be wrong or exaggerated (as the video shows, the plaque is still on display at the mosque).

this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government. I'd be careful with statements like that about a living person. I'd also point out that just because the imam is generally viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist, that's no reason to censor his statements. If we're going to start systematically censoring opinions of people in China who are viewed as generally supportive of the government, we're going to have quite a task on our hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. This is a rather simplistic view of the Muslim community in Xinjiang. Leaving aside the fact that there are also non-Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the Uyghur Muslim community itself is divided. As a Reuters article about the assassination of Juma Tahir (the father of the imam interviewed by Xinhua) points out, there is significant conflict between supporters and opponents of the East Turkestan separatist movement, and among followers of what are seen as more extremist and more moderate religious movements. The imam interviewed by Xinhua, and his late father Juma Tahir, have opposed the separatist movement and what they see as extremist religious movements. To simplify this all down and say that the imam doesn't speak for anyone in the Muslim community, and then to say that we should therefore exclude his views from an article about the mosque he runs, just strikes me as incredibly simplistic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I simply mean that as an appointee of the government and government official he is by definition a spokesperson of the government. This means that on the face of it, as Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials, Xinhua can be used - but our readers will not necessarily understand that the imam is an official of the government without us making that clear, so it's not clear-cut. If we don't consider him a government official, then he counts as BLP: Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of... biographies of living people. But I think both these considerations are overshadowed by the fact that the Chinese government is a stakeholder in a dispute: For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you raise BLP concerns in one breath, but in another breath refer to the imam as a mouthpiece of the government, an extremely insulting characterization. Whether you think he's being taken advantage of by state media, or whether you think he's some sort of government mouthpiece, the imam is a central figure in this story, and we shouldn't censor what he says about it.

When it comes to geopolitically-charged issues like China, Radio Free Asia has a checkered record and should only be used with caution and in-text attribution (see RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation, which I documented above). Yet we include their claim about the Id Kah mosque. We can't then simply omit a central figure's response to those claims. If we follow this sort of systematic policy of including US government media claims about geopolitically-charged issues in China, but censoring Chinese responses to those claims, we will end up with extremely biased articles. I think our readers are smart enough to see a statement such as, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state broadcaster, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ..." and form their own intelligent opinions. But systematically concealing one set of views from them is not the way Wikipedia should go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be inherently self contradictory. The imam is a state official and Xinhua is state media and therefore it is reliable for reporting the opinions of the state and its officials, yet it is undue for the purpose of reporting the state’s opinion in this article? Deku link (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try again if this is difficult to understand. EITHER the imam is a government mouthpiece (for which Xinhua could potentially be a reliable source, but we'd need to be clear in the article that the imam is a government official) OR it's a BLP issue (so we should steer clear of Xinhua) - either way it's a bad source. If you are arguing he's central to the story and his words as reliably quoted by Xinhua are due, then the article needs to give a clear explanation of his government links. If you're arguing he's not a government mouthpiece, then we have to avoid the source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing you have BLP concerns here when you repeatedly refer to the living person in question by the insulting epithet, government mouthpiece. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• While Xinhua should not be used for any Xinjiang-related facts, I think it's reliable for the position of Chinese government itself. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Mikehawk and others. PRC has a general media freedom issue and Xinhua can be considered a noticeable example of that. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not about the reliability of Xinhua as a perennial source, this is about the reliability of Xinhua in the case of reporting on the PRC’s own opinions as given through an embassy. Deku link (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Id Kah Mosque is a real mosque in Xinjiang and China, not just a plaything for propagandists using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Yes, you need to cite Xinhua and the Chinese imam of the Id Kah mosque at the article Id Kah Mosque.

Right now [55] we cite a US government-funded newsource [56] and "the U.S. Department of State’s platform for communicating American foreign policy worldwide" [57] to reproduce the allegation that the Mosque has been transformed into just a tourist attraction.

However, the imam of the actual mosque itself, Memet Jume, disputes this in multiple Chinese media sources [58][59][60]. Jume's father had earlier been the imam of the mosque, prior to his assassination [61].

The fact that Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back are actively trying to push this information from a US-government funded news source into China-related Wikipedia topics, while simultaneously removing all Chinese news sources and Chinese responses from these articles, shows that they don't have the objectivity to edit these articles and are engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing: "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole." -Darouet (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t make this personal, this may come as a shock to you but CGTN and China Daily are both deprecated. If WP:RS cover the Imam’s statement of course we can include it, but if no WP:RS cover the statement then there is simply no way to use it on wikipedia. I would also note that per WP:BLP you cant use those sources to make claims about living people, even on a noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: China Daily is not deprecated; you may be thinking of The Global Times.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, I misremembered the consensus (admittedly its an odd one which is extremely close to deprecation) "In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard not to “make things personal” when both users mentioned have actively participated in several China related articles for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective (this entire reliability conflict started when @Mikehawk10 decided to remove the cited Xinhua content from the article simply because it was mentioned on another talk page as being in conflict with an article he created, and proceeded to also add extraordinary claims to it mentioned in few sources, not to mention when RFA was also mentioned on the talk page of the same article he immediately went and altered the lede of its article contrary to the ongoing talk page consensus). Furthermore, you continue to make fallacious use of wiki policy (such as calling into question the competence of and borderline hounding other users over the American usage of “lede” and repeatedly insisting that you somehow need an RS for every claim made in talk page discussions) and generally berate other users with a thick degree of sarcasm. When someone enters the conversation and rightly observes that there may be a significant bias given your preference towards western sources and quick removal of Chinese sources (even those not deprecated), they're not the ones "making it personal." Many people involved in conversations with you across multiple talk pages have stressed how hard you make it to assume good faith. Deku link (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The notion that I go around and edit for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective throughout my editing on China-related articles is simply false; my goal in editing these articles is to improve them by adding appropriate sources and by removing content that is dubiously sourced and/or WP:UNDUE. I am more than happy to incorporate the Chinese perspective into my editing, when the perspective can be reliably sourced and would constitute due weight. In the case for this particular article, the question is regarding whether to include information from a Tweet that has been covered by Xinhua. WP:RSPTWITTER states that Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Xinhua is not a reliable source with regards to topics in which the Chinese government is a stakeholder, and thus the tweet isn't covered by a reliable source simply because Xinhua has covered it, so I think I am reasonable in arguing that the tweet constitutes undue weight.

If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, feel free to take it to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI), but please do not cast aspersions on this page or attack my motives by claiming that there is a malicious "sole purpose" behind my edits (and don't attack another editor by attacking their motives here either; that isn't what this board is for). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Please do not cast aspersions here. Do you believe that my addition of information from WP:GREL sources on relevant topics is "skewed" in light of previous reliability discussions on this board? If you believe that there are behavioral issues, the place to discuss them would be the appropriate noticeboard (either WP:AN or WP:ANI)—not here on the reliable sources noticeboard. If not, I would ask you to take back the part of your statement that is a direct attack against my character as an editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable/propaganda for any claims related to Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, such as the claim under discussion. This is according to consensus in previous discussion linked at the top [62]. Is it reliable in general? Of course not, although it probably might be used for noncontroversial non-political info. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it is unreliable for reporting on a video that as clear as day was posted by the Chinese embassy and clearly shows the imam giving testimony? Deku link (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable in context. This is clearly the sort of thing there is a consensus against using Xinhua for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unreliable"? There's a video of the interview. There's not even a shadow of a doubt that the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said. So what specific factual claim are you saying is unreliable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Was the video of the interview published by a reliable source? If not its literally useless for our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a very dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy if you believe that this is true. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can point me to something that says we can use videos from unreliable sources I’m more than willing to expand my "dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a perennial source consensus (which is a general guideline) as the end all be all gospel for including information is already dogmatic. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back, you are WP:BLUDGEONING. Besides being against Wikipedia policy seeing you repeat the same points over and over is tedious and boring. I am asking you nicely to drop the WP:STICK. If you continue this behavior I will seek a topic ban. Note that I am not saying that you are wrong or that you are right. I am saying that you made your point. Give someone else a chance.

User:Deku link, you are getting close to bludgeoning. You don't have to respond to everything Horse Eye's Back posts. Give someone else a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my behavior. I've gotten quite heated on this topic and similar ones and might need to take a break. Deku link (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I am but I will respect your opinion. I will however note that per policy we are instructed to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the twitter video with attribution as a primary source as per WP:PRIMARYCARE. A mosque would be most analogous to the business example on the page, which states primary sources are acceptable for "simple, objective descriptions." Whether a plaque is in place or not is both simple and objective (and controversial, but that is unmentioned). WP:ABOUTSELF similarly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." We should be careful when using primary sources, especially a clearly biased one like this, but in this situation they are allowed with attribution. In such a controversial example, the best thing to do would be to report what the primary source has to say on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding Geo TV (geo.tv)

The largest and most well-known Pakistani media outlet, and one that I've used frequently as a source, particularly when writing about Turkish TV. I would say it is reliable in its entertainment info. It offers occasional political commentary, although that is usually from field experts and should probably be considered in the same light as The Guardian. IronManCap (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close This isn't how a RfC is started, and there's no need to have one unless there are unresolved or repeated disputes. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Then better just have this as a regular discussion (without the RfC bit, since the RfC template was not even added anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, newbies offen get that wrong despite the clear instructions at WP:RfC. Best to just quietly convert the pseudo-RfC to a normal discussion. Maybe we could create a user talk page template that starts with "Hi! I noticed that you labeled a discussion as and RfC without reading the instructions at [[W{:RFC]]. I have converted it to a regular discussion (optional: ...and moved it to the article talk page at X)." --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting back to discussing geo.tv...

We have an article on Geo TV with a URL of https://harpalgeo.tv/ but I don't think that is the right Wikipedia article. The correct article appears to be at Geo News. Are they the same? Should the articles be merged?

Also, whenever I deal with a non-English source that has an English version, I always ask whether someone who speaks both languages could compare the two versions. Some sources just do a straight translation. A lot of them do a straight translation but only on selected articles. Sometimes you get wildly different content and editorial standards. Could someone who speaks both languages please tell me which ois true for geo.tv?

Despite the name, [ https://www.geo.tv/about-us ] is a contact-us page. The actual about-us page is at [ https://www.geo.tv/corporate-profile ].

[ https://www.geo.tv/privacy-policy-and-tos ] is interesting. That page led me to Jang Media Group, Daily Jang, and The News International. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Amazon as a source

There's been a recent debate on a number of articles on biographical books as to the reliability of Amazon.com as a source of information for publication dates and other information:

• Madonna: An Intimate Biography
• Madonna: Like an Icon
• Rekha: The Untold Story
• Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar
• Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy

A user started removing these sources, calling them spam, which sparked a sort of edit war. I personally see no problem using it per WP:AMAZON, but it would be good to settle it specifically here in relation to these particular articles. Please weigh in on this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: This what you means right? OK, I get it. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is how Amazon.com links have been used in the last four of the articles listed above:

• In Sridevi: The Eternal Screen Goddess, the sentence

  The book was published by Random House on 16 December in the hardcover format.[5] Its Amazon Kindle and audiobook edition were released on 20 December and 12 February 2021, respectively;[6] the latter was publisher by Random House Audio and narrated by Shaayan Bhattacharya.[7]

  has three separate reference links to sales pages at amazon.com.
• In Rekha: The Untold Story, the publication of the two Kindle editions (Hindi and English)in the Publication history table have separate reference links to sales pages at amazon.com.
• In Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy, the sentence

  Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy was published on 13 March 2018 in a hardcover format by Juggernaut Books, marking Usman's second collaboration with the publishing company following Rekha: The Untold Story in 2016.[5]

  and the sentence

  A second hardcover printing was released on 31 March,[8] and its paperback and Amazon Kindle editions followed on 20 September 2019 and 1 June 2020, respectively.[9][10]

  together have four diffrerent reference links to sales pages at amazon.com; these are used in the "Publication history" table as well.
• In Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar, the sentences

  Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar was released by Penguin Books on 5 December 2014 on Amazon Kindle.[6]

  and

  The book was published in a paperback edition on 13 December 2014 in India.[9]

  each has a reference link to sales pages at amazon.com; these are used in the "Publication history" table as well.

The point I have made in the discussions about the matter is that the information that is verifiable through amazon.com is also verifiable through the ISBN templates. I have not looked at the Madonna book articles, but if direct links to Amazon is used to verify basic bibliographic information, that would almost certainly not be appropriate there either. --10:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I tend to accept your stand that the ISBN could be taken to support information re publication dates. So it might be a good idea to remove these souces across the board. That being said, since you are an involved party, let's see what others say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: You want me to use the template {{Cite book}} to replace the Amazon citations, didn't you? I actually don't know what the ISBN templates you mean here... --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, "ISBN template" was not a very exact description. What I meant was that having a link to Special:BookSources for the ISBN of the book is enough, because a page such as Special:BookSources/978-81-93284-18-6 (which is the ISBN BookSources page for Rekha: The Untold Story) gives the reader the option of checking the information about the book at Google Books or in a library catalogue – or, indeed, in Amazon. In my opinion, if you want to add a reference to support a statement about a particular edition, {{cite book}} including the "isbn" parameter is very useful. Other contributors might have other suggestions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Before I continue, please take a look at Rekha: The Untold Story first. Am I correct? --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

New York Post

In October last year, New York Post reporters refused to write a story about "Hunter Biden's laptop" that even Fox rejected,[63] but the Post put it on the front page anyway.

Last weekend another politically motivated fabrication was published on the front page:

Under the tabloid-ready headline “KAM ON IN,” The Post, which is controlled by the conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch, claimed that copies of a children’s book written by Vice President Kamala Harris were provided at taxpayer expense in a “welcome kit” for unaccompanied migrant children at a shelter in Long Beach, Calif.
[...]
But the claims were untrue. And on Tuesday, the Post reporter who wrote the original article said she had resigned from the paper because of “an incorrect story I was ordered to write,” describing the episode as “my breaking point.”

— https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/business/media/new-york-post-kamala-harris.html

This is not a journalistic error. In both cases the paper ordered the writing and front page placement of false stories its own staff identified as dubious. The Post is currently marked "generally unreliable". I think it should probably be deprecated and potentially even blacklisted. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it's usually been claimed that correcting an error is generally a positive sign. I see that the article no longer claims that Harris' books are distributed to migrants [64]. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is usually true yes. However that is as a result of publishing in good faith and later being corrected. Not as the journalist here claims, where from the outset it was known it was not true. Thats the key difference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, according to this journalist. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, who, you know, was forced to write the article, and then resigned in disgust. So that's two egregious fabrications on the front page. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d give it a minute to see if we get confirmation of the reporter’s story from more than the NYT, those are certainly shocking allegations and *if true* would put NYP solidly into deprecate territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the Washington Post and CNN have detailed reports that agree with the NY Times report, and also say that the NY Post correction did not correct all of the falsehoods in the original report (in fact, repeating the part that the book in the photo was given to an immigrant child). NightHeron (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we have a major issue here then. On a side note don’t we need to open an RfC to deprecate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post acknowledged the error, posted a different story, and got the resignation of the reporter. The reporter responsible for the falsehood is now making a claim that some Wikipedia editors seem to think is worth considering without seeing whether there's any corroboration, but the verifiable facts point to: the New York Post did what we expect from a reliable source. In any case, if somebody had rushed to put it in Wikipedia, it could have been corrected on the appropriate page instead of going to WP:RSN without saying what Wikipedia page was affected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, no they did not. They partially corrected the story after they were caught out, but it still contains substantial inaccuracies, and has not been retracted despite having been made up from whole cloth by them. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the Hunter Biden laptop story. Regarding the Harris book, the paper updated the story to include the correct details, which other organizations do all the time. Again this is common and happens all the time, and is expected of reliable sources when they make a mistake. In fact, the USA Today just recently edited a Stacey Abrams op-ed changing the tone of her support for boycotts in Georgia once a particularly impactful one was announced. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"There's nothing false about the Hunter Biden laptop story". Oh dear, reality must be difficult sometimes (i.e. no-one knows what the truth actually is currently, so saying it's true or false is ... simply your opinion). Anyway, it appears that the paper told her to write a false story. If that is the case, then yes we must Deprecate. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

no-one knows what the truth actually is currently, so saying it's true or false is ... simply your opinion The funny this is that I've been trying to argue this for a few weeks now at the FAQ section for the laptop. According to CNN, the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's. What do you think is false or wrong with the Post story? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it would be greatly quicker to list all the things which have been proven true about it: there was a laptop. Everything else is somewhere on the scale from doubtful to known Russian disinformation. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "known" Russian disinformation about the Biden laptop story. Some suspect it, but there's no proof yet. Maybe we'll find out soon after this FBI raid at Giuliani's place? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, ah, so you haven't been keeping up with the intelligence declassifications. Since 2020. OK, then. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had an actual site guideline for when a generally unreliable source should become deprecated. For example, my understanding is we deprecate sources to prevent sloppy (or outright deceptive) reporting reaching and misinforming readers. The source is already considered generally unreliable, and at minimum that appears to be the correct classification based on this incident as well. To bump that up to deprecated surely there should be evidence that the status quo is proving insufficient. So: did someone actually try to push that New York Post story into an article, and did it successfully gain consensus to be pushed into an article? Does the NYP have these issues outside of American politics? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Separately, Fox News seems to be mentioned in the NYTimes report Guy links for their false reporting, apparently they repeated a report from the Daily Mail (lol).[65][66][67] Fox is currently at no consensus. Does this event constitute reason to up it to generally unreliable for politics? Again, a lack of site guidelines on generally unreliable sources is seemingly resulting in inconsistent outcomes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be good to have a little more general guidance about the difference between pink, red, and gray at WP:RSP. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Fox's reaction to the Jan 6 insurrection was to fire Chris Stirewalt, who correctly called Alabama for Biden, and to promote bot Maria Bartiromo (a proponent of the Big Lie) and give more airtime to Tucker Carlson (Big Lie proponent now promoting white supremacist talking points to the delight of Stormfront, VDARE, The Daily Stormer and David Duke).

For the avoidance of doubt: fuck yeah. Fox is unreliable for politics. Entirely unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Arizona, not Alabama. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Status quo for this source seems OK, this incident would only reinforce what we already know and what WP:RSPSOURCES already says about NYP. --Chillabit (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• This journalistic malfeasance does not make The Post more reliable. At any rate, the new head of The New York Post is from [ WP:THESUN!!! ], so we probably should at least update with that info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is indicative of a sick process within the NY Post. In no way does it reflect well upon them. I can sympathize with the inclination to push them even further into the red at WP:RSP, though I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make in practice. Do we have a problem with people trying to push their stories here that the current rating is inadequate to handle? (I'm not asking rhetorically; in my experience, the status quo seems to have been adequate, but I don't see everything.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search says that the New York Post is being used on 12,000 pages, which seems like an awful lot for a source whose RSP rating is generally unreliable. Furthermore, at a glance a lot of the usage seems to be for politics, especially New York City politics, which is the usage that the current RSP rating specifically warns against. It might make sense to depreciate it for politics specifically, although I would be more inclined to depreciate entirely - my assumption would be that it's not that the Post publishes more false stories about politics, just that those tend to get caught more often because they are more alarming. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to change from the status quo. If we have contentious information that is only corroborate to the Post, it should be removed as potentially wrong; but the Post otherwise usually is corroborating contentious information with other sources, but that means we should simply replace the Post with other sources, it should be. When the material is not contentious (eg around entertainment news) it seems far less in any type of hot water. Basically if the store seems to be front page clickbait, we should clearly avoid the Post and use other sources. --Masem (t) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Entertainment? Good for celebrity gossip should mean, wrap fish with it and throw it away. At any rate, do they really "corroborate", would that not require real journalism work? As opposed to say, notice a donated book on a bed in a Reuters picture, and write 500 words of innuendo and falsehoods about someone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not celebrity gossip (though they do engage in that too and that should be swept away broadly that we simply don't do celebrity gossip). I mean, they will talk to producers/directors/actors to gain insight on a production if it happens in NYC, which is useful information for a show or film. We're probably talking different departments here at play, their "news" department ordered to be as sensational as possible while an "arts" department, far under the fold, is under far less pressure to draw readers so can actually be journalistic. --Masem (t) 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would at least deprecate this source for politics related content. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Per what I said above I'd lean towards depreciation. This seems like a pretty clear-cut pattern of intentionally publishing false or misleading stories, which is the baseline for depreciation; more alarmingly, it looks very much like the current RSP rating isn't doing its job, since the Post is currently cited 12,000 times, many of them for politics or even New York City politics, which is the precise topic area where its current RSP entry specifically says it should not be used. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate for political topics specifically I think this and the many other incidents in the past have shown that the NYP can't be trusted for accurately reporting on political topics and, in fact, can be known for fabricating political stories that they then front-line. For that reason, I think any usage of the NYP for political articles and topics should be deprecated. For anything non-political, I think they are still trustworthy until/unless we obtain further evidence in the future that this corruption has spread to other parts of their news departments. Silverseren^C 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would oppose deprecation and support the status quo, seeing as the NY Post does post op-eds and opinion pieces from notable individuals in U.S. politics, including sitting senator March Rubio and the mayor of New York City, The Speaker of NYC's Council, among others. A blanket deprecation would catch these opinion pieces as well, which may very well influence the ability of the project to provide balance on these sorts of issues, which might affect our ability to cover relevant political reactions (especially in New York City local politics), and it might help us to retain the source as generally usable for the quotes of these authors as it pertains to issues of public controversy. WP:GUNREL maintains that it is generally unreliable for facts, which appears very much to be the case, but deprecation might be a bridge too far here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see that 6 discussions about the reliability of NYP have already taken place. Now I've seen movie reviews or film festival coverage published by NYP deleted from film articles based on WP:RSP. Whatever results from this particular discussion, a distinction needs to be made between using NYP for news stories and fact checking -- and an article such as a film review. We should not be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the last few comments, I'd now say that I support deprecation. As Aquillion says, the current RSP rating isn't doing its job. I don't see a reason to separate out politics from other subjects; fundamentally, if they're willing to pull shenanigans on one topic, I don't see why we should respect them on any other. Tabloids will tabloid. Nor should we presume that they take any particular care in whose opinion pieces they run. Opinions are cheap, and for our purposes, they are not noteworthy unless reliable sources have taken note of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: The laptop story is referred to above as a politically motivated fabrication, but my understanding was that the laptop story had been substantially verified now. At least, the central element of the story that many people originally called into question - the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden - is now assumed by many (including the law enforcement agencies that have possession of the laptop) to be true. According to a recent CNN article,

Hunter Biden told CBS News in an interview clip released on Friday that he has 'no idea whether or not' the laptop belongs to him, but acknowledged that it was 'certainly' a possibility, before raising several other theories.

A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop.

I would genuinely be interested in hearing if there was some other aspect of the story that turned out to be false, but right now, I don't understand why this story is being characterized as a fabrication above.

Beyond the question of the laptop story, deprecation is a drastic step, and should only be taken for very few sources. I think there are problems with the NY Post (it's a tabloid, with the typical sensationalism that one finds in that medium), and editors should certainly be aware of its political leanings, but I don't think we should go as far as deprecating it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Geeksforgeeks.org

• geeksforgeeks.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I noticed this added by an account which was primarily a spam account. They did add one or two legit links in the mix, and I can't tell if this is one of them. When I do a source search I see we have 51 articles that use it. It seems like it's primarily intended to sell its services, but figured I'd check here in case it's better than it seems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I searched for http://geeksforgeeks.com/ and it says the domain is for sale. —El Millo (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: oops. fixed. .org — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Their About page shows no sign of editorial oversight. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Billions of Users, Millions of Articles Published"? Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

I don't know who is violating who's copyright, but do a google search on "Like Binary Search, Jump Search is a searching algorithm for sorted arrays. The basic idea is to check fewer elements" (with the quotes). You will get similar results on just about any phrase you pick randomly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Beebom.com

As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Beebom.com, I found this website while searching for ways to improve tower defense articles. Ferret said that there is no editorial staff there and merely just "staff".

I can't find a staff listing or editorial policy. A great deal of the content on the front page right now has no Author byline, simply "Staff". It's not a video game focused site, so WP:RSN may serve you better.

So can we safely say that Beebom.com is unreliable? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I looks borderline to me, they seem to be decently old and say many of the right things and they have an active hiring section with a posting for an "Assistant Editor/Editor” so they do seem to have some sort of editorial process but I can’t find a listing of editors and I’ve never heard about them before. It might be a group blog but we really need more information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence

Before I begin: this RFC is not about the scientific evidence for or against the ideas encompassed by this topic. It is about whether the consequences of a previous RFC decision are compatible with Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

During the 2010 race and intelligence mediation, a consensus was reached that research about race and intelligence is not "fringe" as defined at WP:FRINGE. Last year, this outcome was superseded by a new consensus that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory. The hereditarian hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is a non-zero genetic contribution to variation in average IQ scores between racial or ethnic groups, as opposed to these differences being caused 100% by environmental factors. The past year has shown what the original RFC's decision means in practical terms for the content of articles, and this decision needs to be reexamined in light of whether its results are compatible with sourcing policies, particularly WP:RS and WP:V.

Issue 1: Source removal/exclusion

The decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has required most books and papers that give credence to this hypothesis to be removed or excluded from Wikipedia articles, amounting to about 45 sources. In this RFC I'm using the term "excluded" for cases where someone tried or proposed to add a source to an article, and was prevented from doing so. It should be emphasized that classifying the hereditarian viewpoint as a fringe theory has rendered these sources are inadmissible per WP:PROFRINGE, that is, "The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year."

The following are sources that last year's decision has required to be removed or excluded from articles. This list leaves out some removals of low-quality or outdated sources, as those removals can be justified independently of the RFC. Many diffs appear in this list more than once, as most of these edits removed more than one source at a time.

Sources removed or excluded from articles based on the previous RFC decision (approximately 45 sources)

Papers published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences by Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010), [68] Rushton (2012), [69] Becker and Rindermann (2016), [70] Woodley et al. (2016), [71] and Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2017). [72] The last source is about the Flynn effect and does not mention race, but it was removed because of its similarity to other papers that support the hereditarian view. Most (but not all) of the material cited to the review by Hunt and Carlson (2007) published in Perspectives on Psychological Science. [73] [74] [75] [76] Other papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science by Gottfredson (2007) [77] and Pietschnig and Voracek (2015). [78] The Pietschnig and Voracek paper is another paper that does not discuss race, but was removed because of its indirect association with hereditarian research. Papers published in the journal Intelligence by te Nijenhuis and van der Flier (2013), [79] [80] Murray (2006), [81] Murray (2007), [82] Rindermann and Thompson (2013), [83] Gottfredson (1997), [84] Lubke et al. (2003), [85] Kanazawa (2008), [86] Teasdale and Owen (2008), [87] and Christainsen (2013). [88] A paper published in PLOS One by Rindermann and Pichelmann (2015). [89] A paper published in Psychological Assessment by Campbell (1996). [90] A paper published in Frontiers in Psychology by Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2016). [91] A paper published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience by Wicherts at al. (2012). [92] A paper published in Psychological Review by Dickens and Flynn (2001). [93] A year later, a citation to this source was added in a different part of the article, [94] but the originally removed material from this source has never been restored. A paper published in Nature Neuroscience by Posthuma et al. (2002). [95] A clear reason was not given for removing this source, but its removal appears to be a follow-up to this removal of material cited to Hunt and Wicherts, as the Nature Neuroscience paper is about the same topic as the paragraph that was removed in the earlier edit. A paper published in Scientific Reports by Kang et al. (2020). [96] This source is about ethnic group differences in brain structure and how they relate to differences in visual processing, so the attempt to add this source did not correctly summarize its findings. However, this is one of the newest and highest quality sources to be prohibited by last year’s RFC, having been published last December in a Nature journal. A paper published in Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki by Ko (2016). [97] A paper published in Human Genetics by Shi et al. (2017). [98] A paper published in International Journal of Neuroscience by Rushton and Ankney (2009). [99] A paper published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience by Cairo (2011). [100] James Flynn's book Are We Getting Smarter? (Cambridge University Press, 2012). [101] Flynn was not a hereditarian; this source was removed as part of an edit that blanked five paragraphs of text, eliminating the discussion of a concept by both hereditarians and their opponents. Most (but not all) of the material cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2010). [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] The removal in the second diff is especially significant, because this eliminated the article's only explanation of how race's status as a social construct does not make it impossible for racial IQ gaps to have a partially genetic component (because despite being socially constructed, racial categories also correlate with genetic variation). The chapter by Niu and Brass on international variation in IQ scores in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, edited by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, 2011). [109] All material that had been cited to Heiner Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 2018). [110] [111] The Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence article has been deleted entirely, so it is not possible to provide diffs of the removals from that article. But prior to its deletion the most important prohibited source was Cochran, Hardy and Harpending (2006) published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, along with the various secondary sources that gave credence to this paper, including The New York Times and The Economist. It was explained in this discussion that the result of last year's RFC specifically prohibits citing sources that support this paper's hypothesis. The following is an incomplete list of other sources related to the JBS paper's hypothesis that have been removed or excluded, based on diffs that can be collected from non-deleted articles and talk pages: A paper published in Mens Sana Monographs by Gilman (2008). [112] [113] A paper published in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences by Dunkel et al. (2019). [114] A paper published in Human Nature by Cofnas (2018). [115]  A 2010 article in the New York Times by David Brooks. [116] [117] This is a separate article from the (also excluded) 2006 New York Times article about the JBS paper. An 2007 article in Commentary magazine by Charles Murray. [118] [119] A 2006 article in The New Republic by Steven Pinker. [120] Cochran and Harpending's book The 10,000 Year Explosion (Basic Books, 2009). [121] Jon Entine's book Abram's Children (Hachette Digital, 2007). [122] In this discussion it was mentioned that the prohibited sources also include In the Know by Russell Warne (Cambridge University Press, 2020), and the chapter about international IQ differences in The Nature of Human Intelligence edited by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, 2018). In this edit summary and this one, it was stated by that writings by Charles Murray are no longer considered a reliable source about any topic, and it was stated here that all work by Heiner Rindermann is now "seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence". The Google scholar profiles of Charles Murray and Heiner Rindermann list several hundred works with mostly mainstream publishers, so these judgments potentially apply to hundreds of sources that would otherwise satisfy WP:RS. There is a tension between these decisions and an existing decision made last year at the reliable sources noticeboard, which found books published by Cambridge University Press to be reliable sources with respect to the R&I topic, and specifically mentioned Hunt and Rindermann as appropriate experts in this area.

These ~45 sources are not a complete list of the sources prohibited by last year's RFC, because this list does not include source removals for which no diffs can be provided, due to the removals having occurred on an article that was subsequently deleted (Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence). I also have not attempted to list every publication by Murray and Rindermann affected by the judgment that all of these authors' works are unreliable sources, or any other sources sympathetic to the hereditarian view—and presumably prohibited for that reason—beyond those that have been directly removed or blocked from inclusion.

As explained in this edit summary, the authority to remove and exclude all these sources is based on the various sources that were presented during last year's RFC to support its eventual decision. The sources that the outcome of the RFC was based on were listed here. The following is a complete list of the sources the RFC outcome is based on that discuss race and intelligence. (Note this qualifier: this list does not include two sources that were misleadingly presented as supporting the RFC outcome but that argued only against racial discrimination or racial essentialism, without mentioning intelligence or IQ.)

Sources that the previous RFC decision was based on (8 sources)

Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini (Beacon Press, 2019). The Trouble with Twin Studies by Jay Joseph (Routledge, 2015). The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (W. W. Norton & Co., 1981, republished 1996). The Science and Politics of I.Q. by Leon J. Kamin (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1974). A paper published in American Psychologist by Smedley and Smedley (2005). A 1994 statement published by the American Anthropological Association. A second, 1998 statement from the American Anthropological Association. The 1998 statement itself does not mention intelligence or IQ, but the AAA's background information about this statement says that it was a follow-up to their 1994 statement (the previous item on this list), which does discuss the topic. The sixth edition of Psychology: Themes and Variations by Wayne Weiten (Wadsworth, 2004). I have examined later editions of this book, and in every subsequent edition published from 2007 to the present, the wording that was quoted in last year's RFC has been modified to make it less strong. In the RFC this source was quoted as saying, "However, heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses", but later editions instead say, "Critics argue that heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses". The current (2017) edition of this book presents the views of both hereditarians and their critics, without arguing for one side over the other.

Issue 2: WP:Verifiability concerns

The outcome of last year's RFC is generally understood to require the inclusion of content that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources it cites. The disputed sentence (which is present in multiple Wikipedia articles) states: "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." The most-discussed source for this sentence is Earl B. Hunt's widely used 2010 textbook Human Intelligence. The most relevant passage from this source (on pages 434–435) is as follows:

Rushton and Jensen, and in other writings (to be discussed in the next section) Lynn make a few more points, but these are their major ones. In general, I find their arguments not so much wrong as vastly overstated. But overstatement does not mean that there is no point to them. Rushton and Jensen present two conclusions:

1. They argue that the hypothesis that Black-White (and by extension, Asian and Hispanic) differences in intelligence are entirely due to environment, the hypothesis they refer to as the 100% environmental hypothesis, cannot be maintained.
2. They propose an alternative "default hypothesis" that the Black-White difference is 80% due to genetic differences. They base this conclusion on the observation that within Whites intelligence test scores have a heritability coefficient of .8.

Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences. The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one.

This part of Hunt's textbook is available at Google books. I strongly encourage everyone voting in this RFC to examine the full context of the excerpt quoted above, including Hunt's preceding summary of the hereditarian arguments he is reviewing here, and evaluate for themselves whether "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component" is an accurate summary of this book's position.

This issue was recently discussed at the No Original Research noticeboard. The consensus in that discussion, as I understand it, is that the disputed sentence is required by the outcome of last year's RFC regardless of whether it is supported by its sources or not. Some recent examples this argument being used to shut down WP:Verifiability based objections to the material can be found here, here, and here.

Summary

The question that needs to be answered is: Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented? During last year's RFC, many of the voters may not have been aware that these outcomes are what it means in practical terms to classify the hereditarian view as a fringe theory, hence the need to re-examine this question with a clearer understanding of how it is a decision about sourcing. 

• Option 1: The hereditarian hypothesis is mainstream.
• Option 2: The hereditarian hypothesis is controversial but not fringe, as is it was classified from 2010 until a year ago. WP:WEIGHT describes this type of theory as a "significant minority" view.
• Option 3: The hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory (i.e. how it has been classified for the past year).

I'm deliberately not notifying the dispute's major parties (on either side) of this RFC, because as much as possible I would like the outcome to be decided by uninvolved editors, instead of rehashing the same arguments between the same editors that have occurred on the article's talk page. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Votes

• Option 2: controversial but not fringe.

The race and intelligence article is under a sourcing restriction that allows only "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers", and prohibits misrepresentation of sources. Of the eight sources that the "fringe" classification is based on, there are only three that satisfy this requirement and were published in the past twenty years: the Joseph, Smedley & Smedley, and Weiten sources. As noted in the second collapsed section above, in the case of Weiten's book the previous RFC quoted an outdated (2004) edition of this book, and every subsequent edition of Weiten’s book does not support the argument that was cited to it. The sourcing restriction technically only applies to the article itself, not to talk pages and RFCs, but it is going against the spirit of the restriction to use these sources as a basis for removing or excluding material published in eighteen peer-reviewed journals (Personality and Individual Differences, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Intelligence, PLOS One, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Nature Neuroscience, Scientific Reports, Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki, Human Genetics, International Journal of Neuroscience, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Journal of Biosocial Science, Mens Sana Monographs, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Human Nature), as well as from six books published by Cambridge University Press (Hunt 2010, Sternberg 2011, Flynn 2012, Rindermann 2018, Sternberg 2018, and Warne 2020).

Sources presented in more recent discussions to justify the removals have mostly followed a similar pattern: older sources, newspaper opinion articles and blog posts, and passing mentions of one or two sentences in sources that are mostly about something else (such as a single sentence in this 2017 editorial). This is roughly equivalent to classifying a physics theory as "fringe" based primarily on decades-old sources, blog posts, and books and articles from popular publishers, and then using that decision as a basis for removing all support for the theory that had been cited to recent physics journal papers and textbooks. I think that the standard of sourcing applied to other Wikipedia articles about science topics, which are based primarily on the most up-to-date and high-quality sources by professionals in the relevant fields, should be applied to the R&I topic as well.

With respect to the WP:Verifiability issue, I agree with the summaries given by by Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph and Stonkaments that the contested sentence misrepresents the sources it cites, and that the argument made by Hunt's textbook in particular (quoted above) is very close to the opposite of what Wikipedia is citing this source to say. I also think the editors who are preventing this sentence from being changed have tacitly acknowledged that the wording "there is no evidence for a genetic component" does not represent this book's actual position, because when the same editors removed most of the material cited to this book, they justified some of those removals on the grounds that Hunt’s book is in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint.

Past discussions have repeatedly concluded that this sentence cannot be changed or removed as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, so if this sentence in fact violates the verifiability policy, these violations cannot be corrected unless the outcome of last year’s RFC is overturned. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Per Ferahgo the Assassin. I hadn't previously been aware of the comment in which NightHeron argued (with the support of many other editors) that the material from Hunt's book had to be removed because this book was a pro-hereditarian source. That comment is quite damning, in light of the subsequent arguments that "there is no evidence for a genetic component" is an accurate summary of this book's position. Removing citations to a book on the grounds that it is a pro-hereditarian source, and subsequently claiming the same book supports the statement that there is no evidence for the hereditarian viewpoint, is an example of trying to have your cake and eat it.

Over the past year, whenever I or other editors have complained that this sentence is not supported by its sources, one common aspect of the response has been to add more sources, which usually are also misrepresented. My comment here explained how the sentence is not supported by any of its original four sources (Hunt, Mackintosh, Nisbett and Kaplan), and I pointed out here that one of the more recently added source does not use the phrase "no evidence" or any similar phrase. (It also is a paper that was published 51 years ago.) The statement now cites nine sources, the most recently added being a Vox blog post which fails the article's sourcing restriction.

If this approach continues at its current pace, eventually no Wikipedia editor will have time to sift through every one of the sources that have been added for this sentence, and point out how each one is either misrepresented, unreliable, or far too be old to indicate anything about the present consensus (or some combination of the three). The editors defending this material will be able to simply say, "your objections aren't valid unless you can explain how all twenty of the sources are misrepresented or unreliable." This brute-force approach should not be an acceptable way to win a sourcing dispute.

I may add more to this comment later. There is something I know about last year's RFC and its results that seems like it ought to be mentioned here, and I need to decide whether I should mention it or not. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Please use this section for all threaded discussion and/or comments on the !votes. Also, please remember that this RFC is not about our personal opinions on the scientific merits of the hereditarian hypothesis - it is about whether the consequences of classifying this hypothesis as a fringe theory are compatible with WP:RS and WP:V.

---

There is a recently published paper that addresses the quality of some of these sources: "Cognitive Creationism compared to Young-Earth creationism".

This paper does not take a position on the cause of group differences in average IQ scores, except to say there is no consensus about their cause, but it brings up several of the sources that the "fringe" classification was based on. It mentions the Saini, Kamin, and Gould books, as well as the Sussman and Gillborn sources that were cited later in the discussion [123] to discredit one particular hereditarian author. It points out that these sources all reject basic concepts in the fields of differential psychology and behavioral genetics; they argue that major figures of the fields such as Robert Plomin and Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. are racists even though none of their writings discuss race (in some cases going so far as to compare these researchers to Josef Mengele); and some of them argue that the scientific method itself cannot be trusted.

This recent paper discusses the overall pattern of the arguments made by these types of books, but many of the same issues have been previously pointed by authors such as Bernard Davis, [124] Eric Turkheimer, [125] and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate (which discusses the Gould and Kamin sources, along with another one of Kamin's books). Turkheimer's review of the Jay Joseph book is particularly significant, because Turkheimer is quite opposed to race research, so one might have expected him to approve of these books; the harshness of his criticism is a good demonstration of how far removed these sources are from the psychology and genetics mainstream.

It remains to be discussed whether the older sources—including the Kamin and Gould sources, as well as contemporaneous writings by hereditarians such as Richard Herrnstein, Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen—should be considered reliable sources for more than just historical perspectives. Whatever is eventually decided about that question, it is important that any standards of recency be applied consistently to all sources across the board. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in half a mind to close this thread outright. This is a blatant attempt to relitigate a well attended RfC from March last year Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence that found the hereditarian position to be fringe. What does opening this thread accomplish? Hans Eysenck is not a credible authority on anything, given the recent retractions. User:Hemiauchenia 22:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Eysenck isn't one of the sources whose removal is at issue here; I only mentioned him as an example of my point about applying a consistent standard about whether sources from the 1970s and 1980s should still be considered reliable.

If you'd been following the history of the articles over the past year, you might understand why this RFC is necessary. Classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has resulted in some sourcing problems that couldn't have been anticipated a year ago. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sure more forum shopping after you've already gotten a definitive answer, had that answer confirmed by the community, and then had objections to that answer rejected, will finally accomplish your goal of making Wikipedia make statements that are directly and explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)