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

PinkNews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Would the following be usable as sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. works for me, and would also agree with "may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, per Guy Macon. That said, to some extent, "is this persoon homophobic/transphobic" is always going to be subjective (with the obvious caveat that in spectrums, there's going to be cases 99% of reasonable people will agree are examples). Generally speaking, "Pink News stated that X's statement on transgender people was transphobic" is always going to be more encyclopedic than "X is transphobic." We can state things in Wikipeda's voice sometimes - Anita Bryant was very openly an anti-gay rights activist. But we have levels we can go through, and one single, newspaper source saying it is NOT going to reach "in Wikipedia's voice" level, whether it's Pink News or The Times; newspapers aren't scholarly works. it'd be a WP:RSOPINION situation. While it might be worth reminding people of that, it's not really any different than not quoting The Telegraph's opinion of Labour in Wikipedia's voice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a news site, it's an extremely partisan and often hysterical and inflammatory commentary site with a lengthy track record of being forced to apologise for defamatory falsehoods eg https://www.thegayuk.com/pink-news-apologies-to-mp-and-makes-a-donation-to-charity-as-compensation/
  • That demonstrates they do correct mistakes. Any evidence of this lengthy record though? Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think they would fabricate quotes, and we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. And they're not going to blatantly lie about something non-controversial and easily fact-checked. But they do not appear to be encyclopedically reliable for assements of people's sexuality-related views, and similar matters. They're like any other opinion-laden web-zine. Probably entirely reliable for interview material, but a weak source at best for other things, and a poor source for matters in which they are rantily, socio-politically involved. I'm not opposed to other formulations proposed above, as long they resolve to about the same level of caution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• oppose. A "news" site that does not unconditionally commit to unbiased reporting should only be used in a most restricted way. "Fabrication" of quotes is too narrow a focus. Even without fabrication, the framing and selection (!) of quotes can introduce massive biases. If my editorial policy does not strictly guards against that, one is not sufficiently reliable. It is an activist news site meant to convey a POV. --Trinitrix (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC?

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

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

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

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

RfC: PinkNews

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

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

Further questions:

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

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

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

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

Responses (PinkNews)

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4 It clearly takes an ideological stance on transgender issues. Accusations of transphobia abound, rarely are such accusations justified. The editorial position that "transwomen are women" is not based on any scientific fact, merely a belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:D008:1300:A10B:51F7:F6DB:FC61 (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A00:23C5:D008:1300:A10B:51F7:F6DB:FC61 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • It would be helpful if you supported your beliefs with factually-based evidence. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: You mention speculation. Is ANY newspaper reliable for speculation? I'd be inclined to say that's a common flaw of all newspapers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Most newspapers are not in the habit of speculating about someone's sexual orientation without evidence. (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: Is there any real evidence of a pattern of them doing that? I'm pretty sure that you can find some horrible examples for any long-running newspaper. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
        • One example is enough. PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual. [1] There is zero evidence to support that claim. Her Diary is similar to that of many other teenage girls in the area of sexuality. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
          • The article you linked doesn't even contain the word "bisexual" in its prose, let alone say that Anne was bisexual. What it does do is quote passages of Anne's diary where she describes her attraction to female bodies, and it says that she displayed same-sex attraction. It also says, Anne never defined her sexuality, and it may not have been the most important fact about her. She was a teenage refugee, after all. In fact, it's plenty of other sources that actually describe her as bisexual. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Please don't hide behind "in its prose". The author chose to show a twitter message saying "Fun fact: She's also bisexual. She outlined her attraction to another girl in the diary but NO ONE TEACHES THAT" and then -- in the prose -- spoke approvingly of the person who created the twitter message. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[2] Every scholar who has addressed the issue has concluded that what Anne Frank wrote was typical of a teenage girl with little or no real-world experience. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 1 on statements of fact. Attribute. Looking at the discussions of its supposed bad journalism, they all seem to be cases where it turns out it corrected itself in the manner expected of a WP:NEWSORG - this discussion has improved my opinion of PinkNews - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (almost 1), generally reliable on LGB (sexual orientation) topics PinkNews it acts like a reliable WP:NEWSORG it exercises editorial oversight and owns up to its mistakes, and corrects them on record. As per Guy Macon....use inline citations for controversial statements and any claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia should be supported by direct quotes. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, with the normal restrictions on newpapers as a whole. I don't see how Guy Macon's restrictions (or anyone else's suggestions) wouldn't be true of any other news organization. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You already voted. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • • @Crossroads: I commented up above, but I certainly didn't vote here, or choose an option. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Hm, I imagine some of the confusion is because there was already one !vote going on and then this RfC was started, but Ctrl+F "22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)" for where you did comment in support of option 1 in this RfC section (and not just the earlier "Proposal" section) yesterday. -sche (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. A news organisation actively and openly posting corrections is preferable to one that doesn't. No news organisation, including sources almost universally viewed as reliable (such as the BBC, Reuters and the FT) often issue corrections – the fact that they need to do so does not make them any less reliable. I strongly support adding Guy Macon's qualifier ("requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes") to the text box. Domeditrix (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree about adding Guy Macon's qualifier. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. As has been demonstrated above: the publication has shown editorial discretion when it has made errors. They publish their editorial policy, including a commitment to correcting errors and offering subjects "an unreserved right of reply". I think usual caution about using news sources and sourcing material about living people suffice rather than restricting use of Pink News as a source outright. Ralbegen (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 The people disagreeing with the previous consensus have certainly changed my mind on the issue. It's clear that their fact-checking is almost as good as sources like The New York Times, or The Wall Street Journal. All sources make mistakes at some point. PinkNews is different from the British tabloids in that they actually issue corrections. However, editors should still be cautious when citing them for informaton on things like a person's sexual orientation. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - they have published some bad stories in the past, but have issued corrections, and they provide valuable, accurate coverage in the space where they operate. It isn't difficult to identify and ignore the more sensationalist stories or headlines, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If this is listed in green at WP:RSP, there absolutely will be editors trying to use the "sensationalist stories or headlines" as reliable sources, because it's listed in green as generally reliable. Very many inexperienced editors rely on RSP and misuse of sources should not be made easier by it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Has anyone ever tried to use PinkNews this way as a source on WP? I think this is a strawman argument. All editors are expected to show a certain minimum of literacy, including cultural literacy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Options 3 or 4. I've actually used them as a source before multiple times, but it's unfortunately hard to deny that they are not real media these days, having descended into clickbaity, obviously biased, opinion pieces more than "news". Heck, they don't even pretend to be legitimate media anymore. The last article i saw from them they actually accused someone of being a racist, with no context, merely to sway the readership opinion. It's garbage these days, only marginally more reliable than the Daily Mail. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds interesting. Can you provide a link to the article in question? I ask because we found above that previous claims of journalistic malfeasance on their part didn't check out at all when we looked into them and discovered they'd actually handled them in an exemplary fashion. So if you're going to claim this, it would be useful to see precisely what you mean and verify your claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd hate to promise something and not deliver. We're talking about a specific example someone pointed out to me last year, on a website i no longer read or visit. I contributed to their article a bit in the early days, but this was when i was a regular reader and found their journalism to be worth defending, probably 5+ years ago. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. I think this is a legitimate media outlet, or at least I'm not seeing any substantiated sources to prove otherwise. In general, no I wouldn't personally require attribution in cases of statements of fact. IvoryTower123 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per examples cited in the previous RfCs (last in April). It seems clear to me that they are a quite recent online newspaper with lower standards than established newspapers. I went to their webpage and read this article: UK’s biggest cervical cancer charity shuts down disgustingly transphobic lie that ‘only females get cervical cancer’ which has a quite inflammatory title. It details a controversial issue in an opiniated manner, and the story mostly consists of tweets by random non-notable people. And importantly, when they are the only publication digging stuff like this from Twitter, WP:DUE should be considered. At best, this is clickbaity soft pop news. --Pudeo (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Google[5], pinknews.co.uk has called someone a "homophobe" 2,940 times. For comparison, nytimes.com yields only 468 results (an considering this includes their archives from the 90s). I do think some of these articles are WP:BLP nightmares because the stories are built on tweets but detail such controversial issues. --Pudeo (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Our article on PinkNews says it was launched in 2005. Given that it is an LGBT-focused publication, I think it is to be expected that words like "queer", "homophobe", "non-binary", etc. will occur more frequently there than in the average source, so I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. FWIW, PinkNews' editorial policy states their political stance and acknowledges how it influences their tone when they report on politicians and other entities they find homophobic. To me, that's actually preferable to a source like Fox or Daily Kos that portrays itself as neutral although far from it. And remember that WP:HEADLINEs in all publications are generally not written by journalists and fall short of the reliability standards of their article text. All sources have WP:BIAS; PinkNews is not alone in that (but unlike many, they acknowledge it openly). Armadillopteryx^talk 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 o4 4 Pink News has low standards and is not neutral.Fred (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting, can you support those points with any evidence? Everything so far seems to have been refuted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is evidence for the "low standards" claim. They are openly non-neutral when covering LGBT issues, but we use many non-neutral sources. On the other hand PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[6] and they have a habit of labeling historic figures as LGBT based on tiny shred of evidence. I stand by my previous evaluation: Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC
      • You've posted this claim three times in the past day, and not answered any of the replies noting that your linked source doesn't say such a thing. It quotes a tweet, and then it cites literally the diaries backing up the claim in the headline. Your example doesn't check out at all as bad journalism on their part, it checks out as good journalism - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The author of the article chose what tweets to feature, and the publisher approved their inclusion. The author knew exactly what message was being and I reject your claim that "it doesn't count if it's an image of a tweet". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
          • I have a similar impression as Jenova20. Much of its content is little more than buzzfeed clickbait articles with compilations of Tweets. Articles which amount to a list with photos of celebrities, such as "Celebs you didn't know.."[7] Articles that are 60-70% tweets about a charity clarifying their transgender policy, like "Jo's Cervical Cancer Charity..."[8] Again, another tweet-based story about a celeb getting married, the headline claims "a million"[9] people are upset she's chosen an opposite sex partner, yet never substantiates it -- not even citing one tweet disappointed.Fred (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
            • None of those examples demonstrate they are unreliable as much as they carry stories similar to other tabloids, and screenshots of tweets is somewhat common nowadays. Also WP:Headlines are often not written by the author. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You are absolutely outraged that a tweet quoted in the article uses the word "bisexual" to describe Anne Frank - you consider this sufficient to consign Pink News to the outer darkness. I look at the article text, and I see it discuss her attraction to a girl, and her attraction to a boy. Tell me, Guy: what's a common, reasonably used word to describe someone being attracted to both girls and boys? - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I explained under my post and gave three examples why Pink News is clickbait material. No one has responded yet. In terms of it being improperly sourced, check out this article on removing slurs from the NASPA Scrabble dictionary[10] The source they give [11] has a list, but doesn't contain any of those words or any words I recognize. It looks like placeholder text to me for a website under construction.Fred (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you Armadillopteryx, it was perhaps too late for me to see clearly the scrambled words! Gleeanon409, thank you for responding. I understand that editors may write or modify titles, however the issue that it is misrepresents the article is indicative of poor or "no editorial oversight" WP:Questioned. No? This is in regards to the 'million'[12] example I gave earlier, or articles like that.Fred (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a great deal of difficulty treating this argument charitably. Nobody with any cultural literacy whatsoever would think that PinkNews had carried out a statistical study of "queer hearts" and estimated that "a million" of them had been broken. The headline uses hyperbole, and while some editors evidently have difficulty reading contemporary culture journalism accurately, that doesn't mean hyperbole is "misrepresenting" anything nor does it the editorial insight of the publication into question. Factual accuracy must be evaluated based on factual claims, not figures of speech or tweets included in stories as commentary - which are to my knowledge never used to imply any factual claim beyond "this tweet was sent", unless there is journalistic commentary on the tweet that grounds it as a claim about the real world. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Option 4 PinkNews is at this point far less reliable than sources such as the Daily Mail, which have been deprecated. They veer between obvious clickbait like posting a picture of 3-year-old Prince George and declaring that the photo had turned him into a "gay icon" [13] and rushing into print blatant hatchet jobs on public figures who dare to support anyone they're already bashing, such as this one on Jonathan Ross for saying that JK Rowling was not transphobic - they declare in the opening sentence that "Jonathan Ross announced Sunday evening (June 7) that he has become a representative of the entire LGBT+ community" (he said nothing of the kind, nor do they then quote anywhere he did) [14]. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Re:Prince George, you’re either purposefully misrepresenting what was written or simply failing to comprehend nuance.
  • Re:Jonathan Ross, WP:Headlines are not content, and usually not controlled by the author. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Re: Prince George, the first line of the article is "Prince George has become a gay icon overnight - at least that's what some people - sorry, his subjects - are saying." underneath a photo of the three-year-old prince. So neither misrepresentation nor "nuance".
    • Re: Jonathan Ross, that headlines are not controlled by the article's author would be irrelevant here even if I had mentioned the headline, but I did not - I quoted the first line of the article, which was written by the author. But as I said, even if it had been a headline, those are indeed controlled by the publication, and this RFC isn't about the article's author, it's about the publication, Pink News. So I'm afraid your point is moot on two counts. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, I think you are indeed mishandling the nuance of the Prince George article—either that, or I don't know how familiar you are with pop culture journalism. It's normal for a publication with interest in celebrities/fashion/etc. to write pieces about things they see that they like and to use the vocabulary of their target demographic in the piece. Calling someone an "icon" or a "gay icon" is a common compliment used by (especially the male segment of) the LGBT community—especially in conjunction with an obviously tongue-in-cheek expression like "his subjects". It doesn't literally mean the person in question is an icon, and I assume that's clear to most of the readership, who are familiar with the lexicon.
      • The same issue of misunderstood or misrepresented nuance is applicable to the Jonathan Ross piece. The text you quote is the author's so-called clapback to the Ross Tweet that appears immediately below. The article goes on to focus exactly on the response the Tweet got, plus it provides background information in the form of direct quotes about who said what previously. Not seeing anything problematic here; it's standard (reliable) pop culture fare. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. He was a three-year-old toddler and they published an article based on the tweets of random nobodies saying that a photo of the way he was standing meant he is gay, with an obvious clickbait headline.
        • If a publication is publishing "clapbacks" to those who disagree with its ideology in the form of attributing something they never said at all to them, it seems clear that this is not a case of "nuance" but a case of the publication being unreliable as a source. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Still missing is your understanding that headlines aren’t content. It’s fairly obvious you’re seeing all of this through your own ideologies. A more critical examination bears out in both cases that no unreliable statements were made but that headlines you don’t like were. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
            • • Still missing is your acknowledgement that the first line of the body of an article can not in any way be defined as a headline, and is indeed content, no matter how many times you call it a headline. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
            • And a "gay icon" is not necessarily - or even usually - expected to be (or identify as) gay FFS. Nobody meant he is gay: not the journalist, not the editor, and not the healine-writer. And none of the readership would have thought so, if they had even a tiny bit of cultural literacy. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
            • As far as the Johnathan Ross piece is concerned, the first sentence uses hyperbole.. The body of the piece says, '"For those accusing her of transphobia,” the 59-year-old continued, “please read what she wrote. She clearly is not"' In pretending to define for LBGT+ people how transphobia is to be understood, this cishet was doing the equivalent of mansplaining, which the lede mocks as "announcing that he has become a representative of the entire LGBT+ community". That certain editors lack the literacy skills to understand what a source is saying does not make that source unreliable. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You said, they published an article based on the tweets of random nobodies saying that a photo of the way he was standing meant he is gay. This is entirely a misreading on your part. It appears you aren't familiar with the term "gay icon". To alleviate the apparent confusion, I will clarify: a "gay icon" is someone seen as an icon by gay people. It's not an icon who is gay. And you don't have to take it from me—there's an an entire Wikipedia article about the term. Here's a preview: A gay icon is a public figure who is highly regarded and beloved by the LGBT community. A gay icon can either be a part of the LGBT community or heterosexual. It's okay that you misunderstood this, but it's not PinkNews' fault.
          • Re: the other article: you said that the publication sharing an opinion (and it is obviously an opinion, not a statement of fact, by any reasonable interpretation—and one utilizing hyperbole, as Newimpartial explained) somehow makes it unreliable. If that's the case, I have bad news for you: most of the mainstream media sources currently classified as RS fail that test. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Armadillopteryx I am going to reply only to your comments here and not the personal attacks of the other user. I am indeed familiar with the term "gay icon" and am well aware that it does not mean the subject is gay; you are misreading my statement. Some of the twitter users who were used as the source for the article speculated that the toddler Prince George is gay based upon the way he was standing in the photo. As none of these twitter users are notable or public figures, their random tweets about a 3-year-old child's sexual orientation are hardly the stuff of news, and I maintain that the article is therefore clickbait and nothing more. It's okay that you misunderstood me.
            • I would have to disagree that news articles in most Reliable Sources begin with "hyperbole" stating that the subject has said something he has not. This is poor journalism, at best. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
              • I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with the use of hyperbole, sarcasm and even satire in culture journalism, and that you assume that tweets included in such journalism are meant to provide factual information. Oh, wait; I'm actually not surprised. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
              • Tweets are never acceptable to use as RS on Wikipedia (unless it's an WP:ABOUTSELF matter), and that stands whether or not the Tweet is reprinted in a news article; these rules apply uniformly to all sources—PinkNews, the BBC, The New York Times, etc. I think the editorial discretion we are always required to exercise makes the content of the reproduced Tweets a nonissue.

The only part of the article we can cite is the prose written by the author. And in this case, the prose does not say anything counterfactual or misleading (in the example at hand, it does not suggest the prince is gay—or straight, for that matter). The article even takes care to say things like, There are of course those who say that any discussion of the prince's sexuality is premature, but this isn't about his sexuality. As Madonna, Lady Gaga, the Babadook and yes, even Ariana Grande have shown, you don’t have to be gay or even have a defined sexuality to be an LGBT icon.

FWIW, most publications that cover pop culture are in the habit of quoting or including Tweets in their articles—not necessarily from notable figures, but those Tweets that either generated a lot of discussion or received a lot of likes/retweets, typically because they reflect what the masses are saying. The author often discusses the ideas that drew attention, whether or not they agree with them. The inclusion of Tweets does not at all mean the article is clickbait. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that merely including tweets makes it clickbait and wish you would stop misrepresenting what I have stated; I said that taking random tweets which declare a three-year-old's sexual orientation based upon the way he is standing in a photo, writing an article based upon them, and publishing it with a headline declaring that he's become a "gay icon" for it, does. Your examples of heterosexual pop stars being gay icons are rather nonsensical; the toddler in question had done nothing to earn the title of "gay icon" except supposedly stand in a way which indicated to random people on twitter that he might be gay. And as I already stated, I am well aware that one does not have to be gay to be a gay icon, but in this particular case, a toddler's perceived sexual orientation is the only criteria that supposedly made him one.

Likewise, your statement that the opening line of the Ross article is merely "opinion" is off-base. It is in a news article and is presented as a factual statement about what he had said. It is disingenuous to imply that the reader is simply not sufficiently culturally literate if they don't just "get" that one particular sentence isn't meant to be taken seriously; a reliable source does not count on the reader "just knowing" when a journalist is inserting hyperbolic opinion into a news article, but instead sticks to the facts of what has actually happened. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Lilipo25, I have done my best to address what you stated and have certainly not intentionally paraphrased you incorrectly. If I have done so, I apologize. I don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith about that. Your summary of what the article does, honestly, is a gross misrepresentation, and I have pointed out to you why. I explained why and how Tweets are included in this type of article and also pointed out how the article does not suggest anything at all about the prince's sexual orientation, despite your assertions to the contrary. I included a quote where the publication explicitly pointed out that is not what it was doing. The fact that that direct quote also contains reference to the term "gay icon" does not mean I (who am not the author of the quote) am re-explaining that to you. The main point was the sentence before that anyway. I was merely presenting you with a piece of evidence, so I would like to ask you to please stop misrepresenting what I say.

I think the opening line of the Ross article is a quite unambiguous use of hyperbole that can by no reasonable stretch of the imagination be interpreted as a statement of fact. Obviously you disagree, which is fine; I don't really have anything to add. By the way, I'm not the one who made comments about cultural illiteracy, so if you have grievances about that, you should take it up with the person who said it. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Not exactly a paper of record, but their reliability seems pretty solid, they correct errors, and I don't find any of the supposed evidence to the contrary convincing at all. Parabolist (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Although I have found no evidence of deliberate falsification, in my opinion the reporting is sometimes lazy with details missed and an over-reliance on clickbait titles and emotion. There is little attempt to be impartial which could be fair enough for a publication aiming to support and advocate for the LGBTQ community but in this case makes it prone to partisanship when reporting on complex or controversial issues concerning that community as it very much has its own perspective and position which it considers above question. This has caused inaccurate stories to be written concerning those it sees as opponents even though corrections are made when complaints are made. Much of the reportage seems to be opinion, again fine in itself but not when presented as unbiased fact or it not made clear that it is opinion. I'd say it is reliable for direct quotes concerning sexuality, orientation or identity. Berathiela (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It’s hard to accept this, your 36th edit, absent any actual proof. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • No different than the numerous option 1 voters who presented no proof, nor any good reason to ignore the abundant evidence of crappiness given by the option 2/3/4 voters. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I beg to disagree; I think if anything the option 1 !voters have gone out of their way to show that the option 3/4 !voters, in particular, have based their !votes on demonstrable misinterpretations of the stories they cite, when they even bother to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Option 1 voters have attempted to WP:BLUDGEON everyone else into accepting their POV, but their contrived excuses for the site's unreliability and sensationalism have gone unaccepted. The closer will be well aware of that.
        • Much of the evidence at the April 2020 discussion has gone unaddressed above. From that discussion, nobody here even tried to rebut the Ad Fontes Media matter, their use of digitally altered images, their use of dodgy sources like nayadaur.tv, their claims that Disney villains are queer based on a tweet, or their claim that a Star Trek character is LGBT. Sensational false headlines are a serious issue, and their general obvious sensationalism and clickbait-ism, discussed more recently above, points to a disregard for accuracy, despite the rationalizations being offered here by a few editors. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Not to BLUDGEON, but since you asked, the April discussion doesn't offer any significant reasons for concern that have not already been addressed. The conclusion from Ad Fontes Media was "Hyper-partisan Liberal" bias for the Fox story, based on a Focus on pro-LGBT message even though underlying story is very loosely related to LGBT issues". There is no accusation of any falsehood in the story itself, and we do not muzzle sources based on hyperbolic headlines. PinkNews apologized for the James Charles story - even better than a conventional retraction IMO - and as far as the "Disney villains" and Star Trek pieces are concerned, they were both simply examples of Guy Macon's cultural illiteracy: the second story is sourced journalism and the first discussed the claims made in tweets, rather than using them to document facts about the world. I can't help it if the April RSN discussion was rushed and content poor and reached no evidence- and policy-based conclusion, can I? Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Ad Fontes Media showed it was highly misleading. Same as others have been saying above. I also addressed the James Charles thing previously. If you want to claim without evidence that blatant falsehoods are not what they are, but only appear that way because of "cultural illiteracy", be my guest, but I am free to point out that these are lame excuses. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
              • Ad Fontes Media is itself classified as generally unreliable at RSP, mostly because its methodology is terrible, which I alluded to in my !vote above. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Just want to point out that I addressed the April 2020 discussion point-by-point in my !vote—including the Ad Fontes source. Armadillopteryx^talk 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
            • And I addressed your addressing. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
              • And then today, you claimed that no one ever addressed those things. Armadillopteryx^talk 17:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, no "blatant falsehoods" have been attributed to PinkNews for which they have not issued retractions. There were no falsehoods about Anne Frank, nor Fox News, nor the Disney villains, nor Star Trek: just WP editors who don't know how to read contemporary culture journalism. And, while objecting to the headline and picture of the article, Ad Fontes Media evaluated the Fox story itself as % Inaccurate sentences: 0 out of 28 sentences (0%) inaccurate /% Misleading Sentences: 0 out of 12 sentences (0%) are misleading. That what most of us mean by "highly misleading" journalism, Crossroads: perhaps you could strive to be more accurate in discussing the reliability of sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, no one had addressed the specific points I mentioned. Newimpartial, regarding Ad Fontes Media, how about not quoting the bit about sentences out of context of the other aspects? Title Issues - Misleading about underlying facts...Misleading about content of article...Misleading content is sensationalist/clickbait...Graphics Issues - Misleading regarding content of article...Misleading content is sensationalist/clickbait...Image is a stock photo not related to a particular fact in the article...Element Issues: Inaccurate regarding underlying facts...Inaccurate in relation to facts stated in article. As for Disney villains: In the past few decades, Disney fans have seen Governor Ratcliffe and Professor Ratigan—as well as Scar, Jafar and Hades—being portrayed as queer characters. This is based on tweets and their own analysis. Yeah, yeah, I know you can say that it's just talking about "queer coding" and that someone with "cultural literacy" will know how to correctly interpret it. It's still incredibly sloppy and false and in no way deserves a green at RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For all I know, there may be enough written on queer coding of Disney characters to meet WP:N and have an RS article (at least there wouldn't be BLP issues). If there were, then the PinkNews piece could certainly be used: it is not false, much less false, it is just doing a kind of cultural criticism that disagrees with you, for some reason.

And for Ad Fontes, you have just listed the subheadings of "Title Issues" and "Graphics Issues" - which I fully acknowledged above - and also two "Element Issues" related to the lead quote which I find to be nitpicky and didn't mention. So fine, they have issues with the title, the graphic, and the lead, but find the story 0% inaccurate or misleading in the body. From this you conclude that it was "highly misleading", but that's your spin, isn't it? Their conclusion is that it is "Hyper-partisan, Liberal" because of its "Focus on pro-LGBT message even though underlying story is very loosely related to LGBT issues". That last point may be true, in its way, but the whole point of the story was the LGBT angle so I would call that "niche" rather than "hyper-partisan". Any of our editors should know how to read the story with appropriate caveats - not as to accuracy, but as to emphasis. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Crossroads, several of those points were indeed addressed. Including the Ad Fontes source, by me, which, over the course of the past few hours, you denied, then acknowledged, and have now denied again.

And to address your BLUDGEONING comment, which does not sit well with me: some of us have replied to this discussion a lot, sure—but it's because people keep adding new comments based on either misreading or misrepresenting evidence (or in a couple cases, honest misunderstandings). The point of this discussion is to come to an agreement on an accurate reading of the evidence so we can properly classify the source. To that end, I think it's preferable to address flawed arguments specifically than to make broad, dismissive statements about the whole group of people that hold the opposing position. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must concur with Crossroads on the BLUDGEONING. It has crossed well over the line in heavy-handedly dismissing every valid example of unreliability brought up by Option 3 and 4 voters with patronising and even insulting comments regarding voter's literacy and ability to understand nuance, etc. The Option 1 and 2 voters have been given every opportunity to present their case without those who disagree attacking each and every one to suggest that Pink News simply goes over their heads. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could consider making less trivially false claims - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider that evidence of unreliabilty is neither trivial nor false merely because you don't like it. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, one should be able to differentiate between whats opinion or plain clickbait and whats more objective information. Focuses on a niche and fact checks, I'd probably even say Option 1 if it weren't for the BLP issues it could cause. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on statements of fact; Option 2 use caution or attribute when talking about sensitive matters (such as BLP). Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; I have found PinkNews generally reliable for factual reporting. We're not looking for 100% accuracy 100% of the time on all articles the first time around. They fact check and issue retractions when necessary. --Kbabej (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 4 Pink News is quite capable of misrepresenting those they disagree with (eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASZpmfzOv_8). I don't see how wiki editors can know without checking the bits that are reliable without checking - in which case use the alternative source. Dejvid (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Graham Linehan is an extreme and divisive character, (See his Wikipedia page, or any of these choice articles). Can you support your assertions with evidence of this source being unreliable about Lineham? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, but modulo what I said in the original thread above the RfC part: They're as reliable any other web-zine with professional levels of editorial review when it comes to simple factual reporting, including of what interviewees say about themselves. But they are clearly not a reliable source for subjective assessments of WP:BLP subjects and their sexualities or views about sexuality. They're not only sometimes flat wrong, they are deeply, emotionally, activistically involved in socio-political stances regarding that and related subjects, so at best we could directly quote and attribute to them, in a WP:DUE manner (i.e., in balance with other viewpoints). But, sure, they will not forge bogus quotes, or tell their readers that Trump is an alien, or be so incompetent as to suggest that the capital of Sweden is Paris. So, reliable for non-controversial, actually-factual matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The problem with sexual orientation is that it can be seen both as a matter of fact and a matter of self-identification. I assume wiki policy for any source is to use inline attribution in the absence of clear self-identification. (To me, them saying Anne Frank was "attracted to girls", which is undeniable, rather than "bisexual" like other sources seems like their way of avoiding this issue.) Descriptions like "homophobic" and "transphobic", which PinkNews tends to be more open to, have a similar problem in that they often straddle the line between fact and subjectivity depending on the definition used, so should usually be attributed anyway. Noting both of these things in their entry (e.g. use inline attribution for controversial statements and descriptions of a person's sexuality without a direct quote) definitely seems reasonable but I wouldn't go beyond that or say that that conflicts with saying they're generally reliable. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: as per Crossroads above. --Trinitrix (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems all of their concerns have been refuted or resolved. Did you have any specific new evidence that should be considered? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • they've literally said above they just don't like the editorial line - which is irrelevant at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I do not believe that my concerns were refuted or resolved. A few editors want to claim they were, but that's their claim. What Trinitrix said above was this: A "news" site that does not unconditionally commit to unbiased reporting should only be used in a most restricted way. "Fabrication" of quotes is too narrow a focus. Even without fabrication, the framing and selection (!) of quotes can introduce massive biases. If my editorial policy does not strictly guards against that, one is not sufficiently reliable. It is an activist news site meant to convey a POV. I also want to address reference that has been made above to WP:HEADLINE. The point of that essay (not guideline!) is that headlines should not be used as sources because they are for attracting attention. It is not for giving media outlets a free pass to blatantly make stuff up in their headlines and still be considered reliable. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • First of all, the relevant term in this case is "hyperbole", not "making stuff up". Second, re: A "news" site that does not unconditionally commit to unbiased reporting should only be used in a most restricted way - whether this is policy-compliant depends on what is meant by "reporting" - PinkNews is as reliable in its facts as most of the news outlets cited in WP, and does a better job correcting errors than many. And if "unbiased reporting" is meant to exclude POV, well. The Guardian has an avowed POV, but I don't think people are keen to eliminate it as a source because of the quality of its factual reporting. I think we can leave "making stuff up" to the editors accusing PinkNews of "making stuff up" - AFAICT, they have issued corrections or apologies the only times this has actually occurred. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I went back through the discussion to try and see which of your concerns were not addressed, and I found only one: your comment that PinkNews made claims that Disney villains are queer based on a tweet. I went and looked at the article in question, and I want to point out that it was about queer coding of Disney villains, which it defines as the practice of presenting characters as queer without their sexuality being explicitly stated. That is not the same thing as your description. And in fact, queer coding of Disney villains has been discussed by many sources; it's not something that PinkNews made up, much less "based on a Tweet". Here are some more examples: 1 (in Syfy Wire), 2 in Vice and 3 (in NewNowNext).
        • The other thing you said wasn't addressed (at least three times—here and here and here) was a piece in Ad Fontes Media, which is a known unreliable source at RSP. I pointed out early on in this RfC that its analysis of PinkNews was of very poor quality, which is consistent with Ad Fontes Media's RSP phrasing: There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a self-published source and have questioned its methodology. I am not sure why you keep mentioning this source as one that needs to be addressed beyond what has already been said. It's not an RS, and its methodology is unsound. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I commented above that I know queer coding is different from the character literally being queer/LGBT, but PinkNews' article is sloppy about the distinction and describes the characters as queer as well. Describing non-canon speculation as fact isn't an issue unique to PinkNews, though, to be clear. As for Ad Fontes Media, I checked the discussions linked at RSP (none of them are RfCs), and editors there do say it can still be useful in discussions evaluating sources, which is what this is. You did reject their evaluation of a PinkNews piece for unclear reasons, but I nevertheless find it to be highly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems generally reliable for facts and direct quotes (and has a fact checking/editorial policy). However when writing about an individual or group that it sees as being anti-LGBT in whatever way, it tends to become unnecessarily biased and ideologically driven. Of course every media outlet has biases in some form, but it seems to me that extra care should be taken, especially when using the source for BLPs and discussion of an individual's sexuality. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 (and Option 4 would not be off the mark). I have now and then used PinkNews as a source, but always in context and never when the selected story is a rant about a subject, accusing, incriminating, and attacking it/them about whatever it may be. As I see it, PinkNews may have started as a level-headed LGBT news source long ago, but it has progressively become the British LGBT equivalent of The Sun tabloid. PinkNews is a rag with occasional level-headed content, just like the sane/crazy you find in the Daily Mirror. But because of overtly biased opinions masquerading as news coverage, and the frequent indulgence in histrionics about subjects, groups, and individuals it disagrees with, I have consequently sought and used other sources. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per SMcCandlish and PinkPanda272. The publication assigned historical figures a sexual identity ("queer") in its factual report of historians' findings, which blurs the distinction between the two options. In my opinion, PinkNews is somewhat comparable to The Daily Beast, which also lives between the two. I also support adding Guy Macon's proposed qualifier. KyleJoan^talk 03:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per their editorial policy and history of retraction when needed.Rab V (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PinkNews)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Today on PinkNews: [15] Headline: Bona fide daddy Anderson Cooper mocks Donald Trump with baby talk after he flees challenging press conference Oh, but that's just a headline! Okay, next sentence: Anderson Cooper has channelled his big daddy energy to mock Donald Trump... Whatever would we do without sources like this!? How else would Wikipedia report that Anderson Cooper is a big daddy? /s This is not a serious news source. And the LGBT topic area in no way needs it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think we need scholarly sources for Anderson Cooper's big daddy energy, then I'll clap back NODEADLINE. But seriously, that's covered by NOTNEWS isn't it? We'll come to Anderson Cooper's big daddy energy in time, but we can use PinkNews for stories like this and this. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• • This Anderson Cooper piece is yet another example of an article whose entire text is reliable prose. I would argue that your "next sentence", which is still printed in huge text, is more a continuation of the headline than the beginning of the actual article, which is written in standard-sized text and consists entirely of neutral statements of fact and quotations. The fact that the WP:HEADLINE is the only non-usable part about it is certainly relevant, since that's not a rule unique to this publication. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be an argument about tone as opposed to content? I have seen several other RS comment on attractiveness, especially RS that cover popular media. I don't know why it's an issue here. Rab V (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Off-site canvassing

In case anyone is curious about Newslinger's edit summary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The tweet has been removed @Hemiauchenia:. Do you have an archived copy of it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E: I've managed to find an archive on google cache here For prosperity:

Wiki editors? I’ve been asked to share this. 1/2 TRAs are pushing to get Pink News reinstated as a reliable source on Wikipedia and are meeting no resistance because no feminist editors knew it was happening. this is especially relevant bc they want to use it as a source...

— The Witch Janet Fraser @feministbirther 10:27 PM - 27 Jul 2020

in the JK Rowling article to label her a transphobe. The discussion is here [with a link to the discussion] if any Wikipedia editors among our ranks can add their opposition. 2/2

The main tweet had 226 Retweets and 426 Likes while the second tweet had 42 Retweets and 204 Likes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting for prosperity that Janet Fraser appears to a prominent free birthing advocate, and received significant media coverage after one of her children died during a home freebirth, so she's somewhat of a public figure. [16] [17] Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: YouTube

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

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

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

Responses (YouTube)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot Those are completely reasonable measures, though I would have definitely opposed a blanket ban. --

tronvillain (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Abuse filter and XLinkBot: Youtube is just not a reliable source to be used here. [Voter: ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} Time: 04:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)]
  • It’s not a source at all, it’s a platform for thousands of sources with a range from undeniably reliable to mind boggling bad. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Even WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Youtube is used by many expert sources and blanket measures such as filters and XLkinkBot are indiscriminate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. Absolutely not. Pretty much all of the major news organizations that we list as reliable sources have official YouTube channels where they upload news reports to. Preventing any citing to these reliable sources' channels on Wikipedia would be absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Levivich. I'm struggling to even wrap my head around this. We could do the same thing for all videos I guess? Why just those on Youtube? Hobit (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose You can't really have a blanket ban on something like this. It needs to be delt with on a case by case basis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support While YouTube is a platform, we don't have a way to whitelist specific channels that might be reputable. Almost every use of YouTube as a citation that I've seen was in violation of WP:SPS, so I think the warn filter is not only appropriate but not enough to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. This is no different from using any other sources and links. Of course all participants must respect copyright, exercise good judgement if the link improves the page, etc. But yes, it should not be generally used as an RS to support any statements on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A blanket ban this wide, not accounting for factors as simple as news organizations not listed as "verified" on YouTube is unreasonable. 0qd (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Also, a link to a video on youtube can sometimes be the best primary source to verify something. -- œ^™ 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as there is thoughtful wording for the edit filter, noting that YouTube is platform that hosts diverse content, including unreliable non-expert self-published content (most hosted video on YouTube), reliable self-published material from expert sources, and content from traditional publishers, so the editor needs to assess whether the specific YouTube video that they're linking to is a RS for the specific WP claim that the video is being used to support: is it SPS? if so, does the creator have relevant expertise for the specific WP claim being made? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivitch and anyone else. Sturgeon's law applies to more than just YouTube, no reason to single out YouTube. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. I can't tell you how many time I've seen new users just use Youtube carelessly as a source. This is a recent discussion spawned by such behavior: Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Resolution_talk_post_ANI/EW_result/suggestion_2.VR _talk 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons provided by Levivich. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot I've seen YouTube links used way to much in the wrong ways myself. What minor legitimate uses there are the information can be gotten from better sources. For instance the New York Times own website if it's their video that someone is linking to. Most YouTube videos are also OR and primary sources. People seem to use them as sources indiscriminately though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Warning against using a source published on YouTube is akin to warning against citing a source published on the Internet. No one is actually citing YouTube itself. Just like when I am citing nytimes.com, I am not citing "The Internet", which came into existence a few decades ago. I am citing The New York Times, the newspaper with about 170 years of editorial history. When we cite a source on YouTube, we are citing a reliable publisher (e.g. NBC's Dateline) which just so happens to be using YouTube as its publishing medium. WP:SOURCES has good explanation on how to evaluate a published source. That is sufficient. No further red tape is required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There may be a case for placing restrictions on who can add links to YouTube (a type of general WP "semi-protected", used now for articles that are prone to vandalism). However, I've found links to YouTube very helpful, especially in the "External Links" section of articles, where they direct readers to, for example, authoritative talks by well-known experts in the field. In that sense they are not sources but more like further reading. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Youtube can be quite useful for interviews, vlogs, public domain film footage, and primary sources. I get that new editors misuse Youtube a lot, but this is too much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As has been strongly proven above, although it should have been common knowledge, Youtube is simply a media platform like any other; it can host unreliable or unuseable content, but it can and does host a great deal of useable reliable sources, which makes it an important academic tool for this project. Implementing a blanket warning against its use would serve to discourage and stigmatize its use which is unfair and inappropriate. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are a staggering number of legitimate usages of Youtube. I don't want to comment here on the broader ideological considerations Levivich notes, but the inaccurate warn rate would be so high as make this an absurd idea. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, well, it seems to be staggering low ... XLinkBot has a rule for reverting YouTube references (not for reliability issues, but for the other issues often encountered), which it has not used for over a year. As I said earlier, some numbers from a non-acting filter would have been helpful. (Note that I totally agree that YouTube should not be filtered for reliability). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Levivich, Eggishorn and many others above. YouTube is a platform used by both highly reliable sources and totally unreliable ones. No edit filter can reliable distingui9sh, and this will have a chilling effect on citations of valid sources hosted there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the reliability depends on the person/company publishing the video (e.g. is it a news company's official channel or a reputable educator who cites his sources? or is it just a home video with <100 views?) Félix An (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, YouTube videos can be reliable sometimes. Benjamin (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose many RS videos are now being uploaded to YouTube under official accounts for CNN, ABC News, etc. If there was a script that analyzed the YouTube video at the URL and checked for a "verified" account it could help to alert the user if it wasn't, although YouTube personalities and celebrities can also get "verified" and so that may not matter as much. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, video sometimes can be very verifiable (i.e. interviews). So a filter for the entire site would eliminate verifiable remarks by those interviewees. Note that such veriable remarks may not also exist on news sites, so there may not be an alternative for such videos. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube)

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

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

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

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

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think this is important enough to say: YouTube is not a source, it doesn't produce the content available on it, which comes from all kinds of producers, some reliable, some not. If in principle you can cite a film as a source (which you can), then it is irrelevant whether it is available on YouTube, broadcast on TV, available on DVD or wherever. The validity of a video/film source is surely down to the reliability of the producer. By analogy, you can obviously cite a book, and that book may be available on Amazon, but when you cite a book you're not citing Amazon. Despite the fact that Amazon sells reliable books (and some of them can be partially read online, and some can be downloaded free), this doesn't mean that all books on that cite are reliable since they also sell self-published books written by unqualified crackpots and conspiracy theorists. The same is true of YouTube. If you want to cite a film then surely you fill in the citation template with the producer, publisher etc, and it will be considered on its merits, as would a book. In which case surely if it happens to be available on YouTube then this is a plus, right? Pi (Talk to me!) 23:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube) - reputable material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Wen Wei Po

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

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

Survey (Wen Wei Po)

• 3–4 based on Newslinger and Adamant comments below. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Extremely limited press freedom in China, serious questions raised about the papers credibility, appears to be a mouthpiece for Beijing. Claims have been raised about interference by the CCP in the past and has also been accused of publishing falsehoods. Bacondrum (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 or 4, see explanations given before the survey was created. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 or 3: RSes say that it is state-owned and advocates for the Chinese government, so there are legitimate press freedom / editorial concerns. I haven’t seen RSes say that they publish false or fabricated information though, just a single blog post. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC); updated !vote to remove 2 after seeing some of the examples 00:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Due to lack of press freedom from being owned by the Chinese government. Along with printing false and intentionally negative stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 This article on Wikipedia by Ta Kung Pao (which has merged with Wen Wei Po) fails to understand that several Hong Kong opposition figures were indeed born in British Hong Kong which is why that is reflected in their infoboxes, apparently suggesting that this is a "criminal offence" which is totally bizarre. Both papers are controlled by the Hong Kong Liaison Office, an organ of the PRC government. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: At most it may be served as sources for quoting pro-Beijing voice. Many of their reports are lacking of neturality Universehk (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: Most of their articles contain obvious point of view speaking out for pro-Beijing parties which totally lack neutrality. --SUN8908──Talk 11:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: We are talking about a firm that calls foreign reporters as "foreign commanders" of the protests. All state media from China is unreliable. OceanHok (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Propaganda publication controlled by a PRC government organ. Prefer SCMP over this for China topics. feminist (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4+. Wen Wei Po reports often deliberately misinterprets evidence to advance a pro-CCP, anti-democrat point of view. I'd put them in a category worse than UK Daily Mail. Deryck C. 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discussion moved to below)
• Option 4. Per the above. I'm surprised the nom hasn't started a survey on Ta Kung Pao. Should probably do that too. Flickotown (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Flickotown: Yes please! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Adamant. Cavalryman (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

Discussion (Wen Wei Po)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That could be relevant for articles produced around 1997 (as the book was published then). It might help to find sources that describe the publication after 1997. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

As an FYI I found that it is designated as a "questionable" source on the Chinese Wikipedia zh:Wikipedia:可靠来源/常见有争议来源列表#香港文汇报 WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! I was not aware that Chinese Wikipedia community had their own perennial sources list. It's interesting that they have settled on a five-tier system that is similar to a proposal on the English Wikipedia that did not get adopted, although I don't currently see any sources in the Chinese list that are classified as "very reliable" (level 5). It looks like Hong Kong Wen Wei Po (香港文汇报) is classified as "no consensus, unclear, or other considerations apply". I'm not sure how the Chinese Wikipedia's reliability standards compare to ours. — Newslinger talk 05:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wen Wei Pao and Ta Kung Pao are owned by Ta Kung Wen Wei Media Group, which is belong to Chinese Government, and they have some sort of similarity in content. Therefore I believe that both newspaper shall have same rating.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples of Wen Wei Po fabricating false reports, mainly to defame the pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)

(Moved from Deryck's vote above)

• Wen Wei Po reports often deliberately misinterprets evidence to advance a pro-CCP, anti-democrat point of view. I'd put them in a category worse than UK Daily Mail. Deryck C. 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Deryck Chan: And if people want examples of really biased articles that I'd point to the TKP editorial on Wikipedia. If you know of some other examples of misinterpreted evidence it would be great to post those. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @WhisperToMe:[18]Wen Wei Po accuse pro-democratic having election fraud in 2019 district council election without evidence.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (July 2020) Another example: WenWeiPo accused Nathan Law of advocating Hong Kong independence despite that never having been his policy platform, and alleged that his former political party Demosisto had embezzled HK$5M of donor money without providing any evidence. I can keep going. Deryck C. 16:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Deryck Chan: Please do! Those are definitely examples showing that deprecation is a good idea. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (August 2019) WenWeiPo fabricated lies about the 1989 Baltic Way that are so inflammatory that the government of Latvia summoned the Chinese ambassador in protest. (Commentary by User:Yuyu, who is also a Hong Kong journalist [19])
    • (August 2019) Wen Wei Po fabricated a report that Hong Kong Journalists Association was selling press passes for HK$20 a piece [20]
    • (October 2019) Fabricated report of arson of a pro-Beijing politician's office [21][22] Edit: WWP's article may have been misleading but the outright lie came from a downstream reuser. Bad choice of example on my part. Deryck C. 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (April 2020) Wen Wei Po accused Sha Tin District Council of misappropriating public funds to support "riots" without evidence [23]
    • (July 2020) Wen Wei Po fabricated stories about "Demosisto overseas support groups" and accused Joshua Wong of embezzling Demosisto funds to purchase properties for himself, of course without providing any evidence[24][25] --Deryck C. 16:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! To add to the links, here are the articles from the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian newspapers discussed in the Medium post:

• https://www.postimees.ee/6772004/hiina-valitsuse-ajaleht-monitas-balti-riike-korrumpeerunud-poliitikud-naeruvaarsed-palgad-ja-rahvuste-vahelised-konfliktid (Estonian)
• https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/arzemes/kinas-laikraksts-honkonga-izsmej-baltijas-valstu-neatkaribu.a331452/ (Latvian)
• https://news.err.ee/978249/daily-china-s-state-owned-newspaper-criticizes-baltic-states
• https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/news-in-english/19/1095753/china-newspaper-mocks-baltic-states-for-squalor-and-ridiculous-wages

Also this is the Wen Wei Po article in question that the Baltic governments took objection to: http://paper.wenweipo.com/2019/08/24/WW1908240001.htm (I compared the text with the one in Medium)

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A poor example. Under their header "「香港眾志外援小隊」WhatsApp 群組不存在", The Stand literally cites denials from Wong himself as "evidence" to refute the claims: 黃之鋒說，有人「別出心裁」地以「眾志張飛」的名義散播言論, and our own lede describes The Stand as a "pro-democracy online news website", and the outlet was itself engaged in veritable defamation of CY Leung. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I've partly misinterpreted the Stand News article. WWP might not have been the originator of the "overseas support group" lie. I've struck out the part of my comment. Deryck C. 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The October 2019 blog post on Medium is about a photo from the CNS being misleading and says that the photo was not in the Wen Wei Po article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a valid point; this is probably in the "misleading sensationalism" rather than "outright lie" category.

The August 2019 article regarding the Baltic Way was also an editorial rather than a news report. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not exempt from requirements of factual accuracy when determining the reliability of a publication. Deryck C. 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I generally judge reliability only on a publication's factual reporting and treat its opinion/editorial articles separately (with opinion/editorial being subject to WP:RSOPINION).— MarkH₂₁^talk 03:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PressTV

What is the reliability of PressTV?

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

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

Survey (PressTV)

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

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

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

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

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

buidhe MEMRI does produce original reporting, thats actually the vast majority of what they produce. Just go to their home page [26] and look. MEMRI and PressTV are extremely similar in their unreliability, not so much in most other ways. They are in the same class of source, I consider them both deprecation worthy for publishing disinformation with few upsides to their use. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Press TV report states:

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

While the actual text of the study states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 4, This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 based on the Consensus we reached few years ago: The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [27]--Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4: for Holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. We should also be weary of other similar state propaganda agencies; they should not have a place in Wikipedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Unreliable for areas with demonstrated bias by the Iranian government e.g. fringe views on the Holocaust, but reliable in general non-political matters or for views of the Iranian government and their allies. Examples of their recent articles [28][29][30] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Press TV is a state sponsored media outlet of the Iranian government. In my opinion, it publishes false and fabricated information. It is a highly biased pro-Iranian news outlet. I would advise to avoid using it in almost every possible case; however, there might arise a situation where an editor who specializes in the field of Iranian politics and government affairs will feel that its usage is justified. An example of possible usage would be reporting that the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers met in Moscow in July to discuss the ongoing Iran nuclear deal. However, it is preferred that this foreign minister meeting were reported using a generally reliable source. If Press TV is used, it should be attributed. (as an aside: I cannot support deprecation, option 4, because it is equivalent to a ban) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment and Question Apparently, those who have participated in this RFC, took position based on their political and ideological tendencies and at least 5 of those who have considered it as totally unreliable referred to antisemitic and holocaust denial contents. Even if this allegation is true, is there any policy or guideline which says antisemitic and holocaust denial contents will lead to total unreliability of a source?!--Seyyed(t-c) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Holocaust denial gives an idea of the type of false propaganda outlets like Press TV spreads. I love Iranians and they have an incredible history, but if we introduce the Iranian regime's practices into Wikipedia (ie. using sources like Press TV), we are lending to an agenda that has no problems lying and spreading fake news. I acknowledge that our system in the West is by no means perfect, but here our governments don't openly execute journalists for their ideas. There is a MAJOR difference. Ypatch (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Though it's a state sponsored outlet but has some good coverage of the region. It can be used as reliable source other than of Iranian government stances where it should be attributed to government. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 Blacklisting of that or other similar Iranian official media outlets does not make sense originally, because they cover Iranian domestic news which are absence in non-Iranian media outlets. Benyamin (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, allow with attribution as a source for Iranian state perspectives (status quo) PressTV is a very biased source. However, its perspective is crucial to all Iran-related articles as the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and its level of detail is rarely met in non-Persian-language sources. Consider this PressTV report today. Its level of details about Khamenei's speech yesterday, with a direct video of Khamenei's address for cross-reference and checking by any Persian speaker, is simply not matched by the more generally reliable sources (see corresponding AJ English, Reuters article). For example, from AJ we only know:

Khamenei said, "But the smart Iranian has made the best use of this attack, this animosity and benefited ... by using sanctions as a means to increase national self-reliance."

From PressTV we know:

Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian people are smart and have taken advantage of the enemy’s sanctions, gaining achievements against the enemy’s will.

He went on to say that the US’ secondary sanctions led the Iranian scientists and producers to indigenize what the country could not provide because of Washington’s bans.

He pointed to the production of the advanced homegrown jet fighter Kowsar, the spare parts produced inside the country, the establishment of thousands of knowledge-based companies, the Persian Gulf Star Refinery built by the IRGC, and the major energy projects in southern and Western Iran as examples of the Islamic Republic’s achievements under the sanctions.

“Had they sold us a jet aircraft, we would not have produced the jet trainer Kowsar inside the country,” he said.

“They [enemies] have admitted that Iran managed to manufacture so many defensive products at the time of sanctions.”

Same for another of today's articles, "Iran's largest industrial livestock farm opens near Tehran". I see absolutely no reason that PressTV would fabricate anything about this, and as far as I have found this is the only English-language source that talks about this sheep farm at Fashafoyeh. Deprecating PressTV at large is a disservice.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

4 Propaganda mouthpieces, such as this one, do not provide "coverage". They are not designed to provide facts, they are designed to influence. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 and 3 - this is the state press of the Iranian government. As such, sometimes the reporting will be accurate, sometimes it won't be, but it is a reliable source for the views of the Iranian establishment. Quite obviously, then, it should be used with attribution. Statements that it should be deprecated because it includes propaganda are worthless from our perspective, as all national media include propaganda. Deprecation on this principle would cause us to shut out viewpoints of major governments and peoples who are not politically aligned with the US or UK, doing a disservice to our readers and contravening Wikipedia's status as an international encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 I think if an article relied entirely on Press TV or similar coverage we would need to either find better sources or think about deleting it. However the point has been made above that the Iranian government has views and positions on things that we can use Press TV to verify. If Holocaust denial is the issue that concerns people then perhaps we ought to refuse to give any space to any mention of Iranian government views, since they are the source of Holocaust denial in Iran; the editorial decisions of an individual channel are secondary. Also Press TV makes a habit of interviewing Western politicians from outside the mainstream, and these interviewees sometimes make comments in Press TV interviews that they have not made elsewhere. The verifiability of those comments depends on our being able to source them to the relevant interview. If we just source to what someone else claims the person said in a Press TV interview, we’ll go wrong again. Finally, most national news in most countries is not entirely independent and reliable. All public media in China deny or ignore large-scale punishments and incarceration in Xinjiang. Most Japanese media deny or downplay the Shanghai Massacres. I doubt you would get much from sources close to the Serbian government on the topic of Srebrenica that wasn’t bluster, deflection and conspiracy theory. Does a single Russian news outlet cover the war in the Ukraine honestly? If we start knocking off sources close to unpleasant regimes or sources that share in their country’s blind spots we will be left with ‘the sum of all human knowledge according to the New York Times’ and that’s not really viable. We have to exercise our judgement in using sources, and look for the most reliable ones we can, but we have to work with what’s out there. Even KCNA can tell us what Pyonyang claims/thinks, even if it is pretty much useless for anything else. Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 4 as an infamous disinformation outlet. There is almost no upside to keeping them around, any reporting we could use would still be of their regular low quality. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 4 pure state media --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Buidhe, disinformation service. Cavalryman (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

• Option 3 (or Option 4 as alternative), per Guest2625. Most people in this RFC have cited PressTV's Holocaust denial as the basis for depreciating the source; while I agree that it is a significant red flag, I think PressTV is usable for the Iranian government's viewpoints only (hence it should not be deprecated); the source should be used with in-text attribution (or attributed to the Iranian government) if it is used in any Wikipedia article. For everything else that PressTV reports, I would think that other (much better) sources should be available to cite instead; if PressTV is the sole available source, its probably undue. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PressTV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questioning the legitimacy of this approach: Apparently, the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which runs or supports by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states. First, Russia Today[31], now Press TV and later many Chinese as well as Arab media. So this trend will undermine the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV and it needs a broader consensus. I mean the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A good strategy, so take this:

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

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

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

Be serious please. I tried to show how absurd the editor's argument is. You can discredit The Guardian, France 24, Times of Israel and etc using your own labels. Who cares? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The first link involves a mistaken report for which there was a settlement and an acknowledgment. It is the conduct that makes a source reliable since all sources are wrong from time to time. The second was an acknowledgment that a host said "Scottish spending" when he should have said "Scottish and UK spending in Scotland," which they corrected promptly. Third, petroleum extractor claims reporting on their extracting is wrong, with no evidence it is wrong.???? Fourth, personal blog, who cares. Fifth, politician claims errors, with no evidence there are errors. So???. You compare this to holocaust denial and aggressive antisemetism?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

...and who asked to use PressTV for holocaust denial? Most of the users are puzzled here and even don't care what the discussion is. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millenial

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

• The site was posting United Arab Emirates propaganda from fake journalists. [32]
• Multiple instances of presenting hoaxes as facts. For instance, most recently, the website claimed a murdered protester shot a car five times [33], a hoax and fabrication which later had to be corrected by them [34]
• Site received criticism from Bellingcat [35]
• Site employs controversial bloggers like Andy Ngo ("editor at large") who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information, according to outlets like OregonLive (added BeŻet (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

• They do not issue corrections. In fact, per [36], after they were contacted about posting articles from fake personas, they were one of the ones whose reaction was: deleted their articles without any statement. That's almost a textbook way to be classified as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Despite an evident conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[37]. There is a problem of consistency in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. The examples listed by the OP for why it is not reliable don't strike me as particularly compelling: one of them amounts to an ad hominem fallacy, another was an error that they corrected (errors happen all the time in news reporting — corrections are a positive sign for establishing reliability). I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Bellingcat says they publish disinformation, thats the line we use and they’re over it. I also see no good reason to keep them around, at best they’re a fringe low quality biased source and past consensus has clearly been to hold them as unreliable. Deprecate away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat cites one incident they published fake information, not that they constantly publish it. It also notes that "their article is much more carefully worded than those authored by Paul and Infowars" and "did not botch the basic facts". According to the CBC[38], The Post Millenial has links to the Conservative Party of Canada. You think that's fringe, Horse Eye Jack? Jeesh, from how far the other side of the political spectrum are you looking at this to see that as fringe? --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

RfC: The Post Millennial

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

• Opposed to deprecation. Deprecation should not be for borderline cases, and I think this falls into the “borderline” category. It has a reputation for bias, but also overall accuracy. Is it the most reliable of sources? No. But it is by no means the worst either. I would say we can use it, but with caution. Judge reliability on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation That's quite a non-issue with a source which is used just 9 times in the whole Wikipedia. Yes, they are WP:BIASED so anyone should be careful with due weight and attribution. I find many of the statements by the OP here to be exaggerations. I do recommend reading the pieces by the CBC and Bellingat. Neither article, while critical, is damning. Bellingcat says that they were more careful than other sources which were duped and that they did not "botch the basic facts", although they used the same framing as the fake articles elsewhere. The outlet was founded only in 2017 so it's possible they are improving, or then they will not. Either way this is jumping the gun and it's pointless to RfC a source that isn't even used. --Pudeo (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you'd need to show that they were improving to be convincing - merely stating it's a philosophical possibility without providing any evidence is adding text without substance - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I would flip that... for us to deprecate, you would need to show that it has gained a significantly poor reputation. Deprecation should be reserved for the worst cases, not relatively borderline ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The RSes describing and documenting the site as fabricating information have already been presented, so this has been done, and Pudeo would indeed need to present actual countervailing RS evidence of the site's alleged improvement before it counts as a substantive claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat also calls their editor at large a "prominent individual within the disinformation ecosystem", and though it's a little more ambiguous appears to call them "disinformation". Loki (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - it's already considered generally unreliable, its main line is controversial hot takes on others' stories, it propagates conspiracy theories, it fabricates information - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per evidence above. It is quite clear that better sources will be always available, and given the history of posting hoaxes and fake news, we run into a risk of controversial content appearing in articles which would then require a case by case discussion; and it goes without saying that a strong bias is present, which seems to often get in the way of presenting facts in a neutral and understandable way. BeŻet (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - repeating my comments above, despite a conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[39]. There is some inconsistently in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • mediabiasfactcheck.com is literally just some guy's blog - it is not considered a relevant source for assessing the quality of a source at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per the support !votes above, on the general philosophy of getting out in front of a problem before it can become worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• It should certainly be listed as generally unreliable , and I think nothing would be lost by outright deprecatation , though it may not be time for that quite yet. (There should probably be an RFC using the full "1-4 options" if this RFC specifically about option 4 does not reach consensus, or perhaps this RFC should be reconstituted to use the usual 1-4 options...?) They plagiarized even their "ethics" policy from other newspapers(!) and they've gone beyond merely being WP:BIASED into being inaccurate numerous times, as noted (with refs/links) a previous time the site was discussed on this noticeboard (and above). -sche (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the first time I looked at the website. The site looks horrendous. I would advise all editors to avoid using it. However, there might be some editors out there who know more than me about the site and when it would be appropriate to use. For this reason, I will not deprecate the site (aka ban it). I will have faith when an editor uses this site that they had a good reason and they will attribute the source. Also it might in this case be useful if people who care about reliable source minutiae were informed of its use, so they could look with unbiased eyes whether the sites usage made sense. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. I feel like we discussed this already? Here, at least. They plagiarized their ethics policy, for heaven's sakes: In fact, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. The quote from a journalism professor at the end in particular summarizes them as They claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering. More generally, pretty much all the coverage of them is sharply negative - there's just no indication that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RSN requires. Anyone can start a blog to repost the news with their personal political spin on it, but there's no evidence that they do any sort of actual reporting or fact-checking at all, so I don't see how they're usable as a source - and the plagiarized ethics policy is particularly alarming because it implies that they are trying to appear to be reliable and respectable when they aren't. That's exactly the sort of source we ought to be depreciating. Also see [40], specifically the fact that when contacted about a clear error they did not issue a correction but instead deleted their [article] without any statement. This is not how an WP:RS behaves. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. We have tons of reliable sources saying that they fabricate information. I don't know how anyone could oppose depreciation for a source like that. Loki (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Part of this is on principle I don't think we should reflexively deprecate sources. That is something that should be reserved for only rare cases and cases where otherwise the source might be widely used. That doesn't mean this is a quality source but that doesn't mean we should out right block it. No matter what some say, deprecation ends up being a out right ban on the use of the source. There is another issue here. This is a relatively new site. What if the issues are "growing pains" and we don't see the issues repeat? Well then we are taking a biased but "reliable" site off the table based on past sins rather than current performance. Note that so far these are rather universal arguments rather than specific to The Post Millennial. The concern about a early news source that might be making newbie mistakes is legit. The site is just 3 years old so we really don't have a long history to go on. If things are improving then 5 years from now we are going to prevent people from citing a possibly legitimate site for things they did when they just started. As for the specific issues, I find BeŻet's arguments far from convincing. The guilt by association with Andy Ngo is problematic and is not sufficient to prove the site should be deprecated. It is unfortunate that the news sources was deceived by a false source but a critical question is, did they correct? That the DailyBeast makes a fuss over this isn't surprising. The DB is on the muck raking side and is one of several sources that seems to go for click bait stories that make "the other side" look bad. Consider this line from The DailyBeast article in question, "The Post Millennial, founded by conservative writer Andy Ngo,". Is there any truth to that statement? The evidence offered by the DB is a 2019 story about Ngo leaving Quillette. Since the PM was founded in 2017 how does this work out? If Ngo founded the PM why isn't that mentioned in his BLP? This same source is telling us that PM removed embarrassing stories but they are making their own gross mistakes. CBC says the source blurs the line but that is true for many sources that we don't deprecate. Certainly this site hasn't earned a RS status but I think deprecating at this point is premature. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• • While it's certainly a pretty new source, it's developed enough of a reputation already that other reputable sources are calling it "disinformation". Part of the problem with your logic is that disinformation websites tend to spring up very quickly in order to get as much shit past the fan as possible before people realize they're unreliable. But we're at a point in the cycle where that's firmly happened and so I don't think we should delay deprecation out of some notion of how long it "typically" takes for a news organization to be deprecated. Loki (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree new sites do pop up frequently. But why is it imperative to deprecate this one? Why not just mark it as questionable reliability - seen as too heavily biased to be a RS and leave it at that? Conversely, note that it has been criticized but if that criticism drops off that would indicate the quality is improving. Sadly there seems to be a lot of cases of information sources sniping at each other. It very much seems like the most important thing to CNN is proving Fox is lying to viewers and the opposite for Fox with respect to CNN. Still, so far the actual merit of the claims against the PM, per the opening of this RfC, are not very impressive. This seems like a combination of "we don't like what they want to talk about/their POV" + "we found proofthey lied" sort of stuff. I think it would be better to simply treat it on a case by case basis. The deprecation process seems like it is becoming an unpopularity contest rather than a last resort process. Springee (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (I already expressed my opinion of the proposal, further up): given that this site has been discussed several times and that even the users who oppose deprecation often admit the site is generally unreliable, I would suggest that in the event there is not suport for the proposal which amounts to 'standard option 4' in other RfCs about reliability, the closer(s) of the discussion consider whether there is functionally support for option 3 (adding the site to WP:RSP as generally unreliable), or whether, in the interests of procedural formality, we need a second RfC on that question as soon as this one closes. -sche (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a "generally option 3" would make more sense here. I'm still a bit wary of that option in general since I think we are often more inclined to defer to that list rather than ask if the arguments/evidence in an article actually make sense. I'll take a very old example, Mother Jones Pinto Madness. This is an article that, to the discredit of the Pulitzer board, was a reward recipient. However, when one reviews the evidence and arguments as well as removes any ideological assumptions, the article really missed the mark. However, per our RS rules we would have to treat the outlandish claims in the article as accurate had it not been for later academic study that illustrated the errors in the work.[[41]] If the arguments are sound we shouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss. If the source is really that poor then we won't have to worry about finding disagreements between the assessment of a specific article vs the RSP general assessment. BTW, I can only think of one time the PM was cited in an article. That article didn't survive AfD. Springee (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation. Unusable for facts on the basis of a history of publishing conspiracist claptrap, and unusable for opinion (its primary function) because its editorial policies do not invest the opinions with any weight of significance. We would include opinion pieces from the WSJ because there is a high bar to inclusion, even when the opinions are climate change denialist BS. With The Post Millennial there is no such bar: it's a dark money funded online "magazine", cheap to run and replete with Orwellian claims to be "Your Reaosnable Alternative". Its factual stories are not, as far as a sample I checked goes, the result of its own original reporting, and better sources will likely always exist; news articles seem to be basically spin added on to other people's reporting. Its opinion articles are not RSOPINION. It exists primarily to "flood the zone", and there is no redeeming quality that rescues it. We simply don't need obscurely-funded sources that exist solely to publish hot takes favouring one side or the other. Guy (help!) 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but list as generally unreliable. Note that I am a participant in several of the previous RSN discussions regarding this source. TPM has trash-tier reporting and is sufficiently partisan that its viewpoints often lack representation in reliable sources. However, compared with the short list of successfully deprecated sources, it lacks 1) those sources' history, and 2) the number of outside RS describing those sources as disinformation. Lacking the strength of history and sourcing that led to previous deprecations, I think deprecating TPM would considerably lower the standard required for deprecation too precipitously. This source is bad! But it's not as bad as those, and edge cases may exist where it is useful. Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh no. This source occasionally cites (and attributes) wikipedia for really, really significant details like allegations of abuse of a minor and the definition of conservatism. Jlevi (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation on process grounds Deprecating a source ought to be treated as a very serious affair. It ought to be accompanied by solid research showing widespread problems (not simply a laundry list of anecdotes). The RFC statement itself doesn't even hint at relevant evidence. I recognize that this formal RFC immediately follows a more informal request, but that request started with a very short list of anecdotes (one of which I think is seriously misrepresented). Even if every single one of those anecdotes could be verified, that shouldn't be close to the bar for deprecation of the source. Many sources we rightfully except accept as reliable sources have that many problems every year.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation Thoroughly unreliable with no redeeming features I can think of. Hoaxes and fake news. Volunteer Marek 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation on process grounds: per S Philbrick, who summed it up perfectly. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. The set of circumstances in which this could appropriately cited in an encyclopedia is virtually nil. Being cited even 10 times on Wikipedia is about 10 times too many. Neutrality^talk 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation for publishing blatant copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), also it's hard to think of an appropriate and beneficial use of this source. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - The fact they plagiarized their ethics policy means really shot themselves in the foot. It's 2020! We can compare and check text! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Post Millennial hosts batshit crazy anti-science opinion articles written by political activist John Carpay[42] who founded Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a group trying to change Canada's constitution. The PM plagiarized their own ethics statement.[43] The PM published fake news items from the "Raphael Badani" group of fake accounts and then deleted them.[44] They used an article supposedly written by the fake author "Joseph Labba"[45] who had a computer-generated profile photo with telltale digital flaws.[46] The fake article said that Iraq protests were ceasing due to COVID-19, or perhaps not. On the topic, it quoted Sinan Antoon, seemingly commenting about COVID-19 and protests, but Antoon's words were from November, before the pandemic.[47] I don't think the PM can be trusted with any news. Certainly its opinion section is rife with falsehood. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Criticisms of India's journalistic standards, and particularly its English-language journalistic standards are pretty widespread within Indian discourse, I wouldn't write this off as racism. [48], [49]. There was a pretty big scandal about a decade ago relating to major newspapers engaging in paid news, to the point that we even have an article about it, Paid news in India. The Hindu, at least as of a few years ago, was actually one of the only English language news publications in India to regularly publish corrections, a practice that we generally consider as a bare minimum for reliability, making it one of the more reliable Indian publications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. Pretty much the best newspaper of India. It is the paper I go to when all the others run around like headless chickens, so as to find out what is really happening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• normally reliable if they write the content themselves and not just reissue a press release. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – I just noticed this discussion thanks to this post at WT:INB. I previously mentioned a couple of mirrors. The main issue I tried to highlight was that they were mirrors of vandalised sentences, and the details copy-pasted by them were factually wrong.

The current discussion reminded of yet another instance when The Hindu fell for a WP hoax. To start with, Ror is a caste and Sagwal is one of its clan. There used to be an Indian volleyball player named Balwant Singh (aka Ballu). On 10 March 2008, User:Rorkadian created that player's unsourced BLP with a made-up/unsourced surname and Ror-related details: [50]. You won't find any prior mention of "Balwant Singh Sagwal" (or his Ror connection) in any reliable source. The user subsequently added a couple of sources and the article looked like this. Obviously, neither of the cited sources mentions "Sagwal" or "Ror" anywhere: [51] & [52]. The player died on 14 November 2010, and The Hindu copied the made-up surname twice that year: first time two days after his death [see here (archive link: [53])] and the second time in December 2010 (see here). The only other instance of mirroring of the surname by a reliable source is in this article of Mathrubhumi News, although we are hosting the made-up surname since 2008.

Participants would say that these are just a handful of mirroring instances. But the main point is that The Hindu do copy misinformation now and then from WP, just like other major Indian/Pakistani newspaper. So, in case of discrepancies, we should be wary of this point. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable- my understanding from having previously done research on Indian newspapers is that The Hindu is generally considered the most reliable English-language newspaper and does not engage in paid news. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable except for local: I would not rely on The Hindu for any "outside of India" topic. I've been seeing them come up a lot in the last few weeks in google searches about American topics. After reading an article I wonder why in the world would an India newspaper cover this? It's like they'll publish anything from anywhere/everywhere. It's either churnalism or pay-for-publish, and I would not rely on them except for a local India news story where they have boots on the ground. Any newspapers or publisher that is heavily involved in churnalism or pay-for-publish puts their entire reputation on the chopping block. Normal Op (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: Most of The Hindu's American news that you see in Google searches comes from print syndicates. For example, three of their most recent international news reports are syndicated articles from Reuters ([54],[55],[56]). Nevertheless, being earthlings, wouldn't Indians want to read some non-Indian earthly news?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Indian earthlings probably have access to google and all the American news websites, too, so why rehash everything. (*cough* churnalism *cough*) Humor aside, the articles I had been finding in The Hindu (and of course TOI; but not usually the same articles between those two) are NOT covered in USA newspapers or websites. Just saying. Normal Op (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't because of preconceived notions that you may have? The Hindu is the second largest publications based in India after TOI which is probably why you being exposed to articles by them. Most newspapers anywhere do report on international news and that's a reason for assuming its churnalism? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The news stories are about a particular branch of "activism" that is operating in the USA by organizations who value news coverage and usually get their message broadcast far and wide. When I find that the ONLY newspapers covering their story are in India, I know that the activism's media machine is getting desperate. And yes, seeing their messages only in The Hindu and TOI tells me that The Hindu is taking pay-for-publish just like TOI does, especially when the articles appear like carefully concealed press releases and are written by junior-nobody authors who have only covered bit-piece topics for TH. No, there's no preconceived notions because I never encountered TH or TOI before a few weeks ago, so I doubt this is any routine coverage of USA events. And don't you assume anything about what my observations mean. We are asked here on RSN for our opinion; I gave it. I don't care if you like it or lump it. Normal Op (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you at least care to specify what exactly is this organisation and which articles they are? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No, for multiple reasons, but mostly I'm not going to spend my time doing a research project for you to dig up work I did last week. I research dozens of articles a day! The field is animal rights if you want to research it yourself. Normal Op (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable I'm surprised that there is any doubt about this. The Hindu is India's most reliable newspaper. It has been for many decades. It has the best writing. It is a newspaper quoted by major US and British newspapers (examples: NY Times, The Times, London, Washington Post, and Guardian). Here is also Encyclopaedia Britannica on The Hindu: "The Hindu, English-language daily newspaper published in Chennai (Madras), generally regarded as one of India’s most influential dailies. Established in 1878 as a weekly, The Hindu became a daily in 1889. While India was under British rule, the paper spoke out for independence—but in a moderate vein. After India achieved independence in 1947, The Hindu built a network of foreign bureaus while extending its coverage of India. The Hindu is distinguished for its comprehensive coverage of national and international political news and for its emphasis on accuracy and balanced coverage." Note also: The Times of India in contrast was considered to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in a discussion here in mid-March 2020. I'm on vacation, so this is all I can say for now but request a quick close. This is an unessential thread in my view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

PS As for "plagiarism" mentioned here, we have local or provincial feed, with no byline, about the centennial of the "fifth vice-president of India," most likely written by a cub reporter. That is not a credible counter-example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: It's the cream of the crop.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable Meets WP:NEWSORG and on-par with The Telegraph (also a RS) in terms of reliability. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable; there's certainly instances of churnalism that I've seen, but in general, far more reliable than the average south asian daily. Certainly they take care to qualify what they report when necessary, and often publish corrections. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: One of the best newspapers that can be trusted.--Amrita62 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unrealiable It has totally biased editorial policy and even the Editor N.Ravi and N.Ram has admitted to it.The Hindu editor-in-chief, N Ram's brother, N Ravi says he has turned the newspaper into an apologist for A Raja

Further this N. Ravi, the new editor-in-chief, said that the “news desk was given standing instructions not to take any stories on Narendra Modi on page one. The Hindu has always been anti-Hindutva, but it was always kept out of our news judgement” Ram said “no difference was maintained between news stories and editorial pieces". Ravi also raised other charges and accused Ram for blacking out or downplaying any news that is less than complimentary to the Chinese Communist regime and termed it as “pro-China tilt” .“And contrary to the practice in any mainline newspaper, the editor-inchief indulging in an unceasing self-glorification campaign, publishing his own ribbon cutting pictures and reports of his activities and speeches with a regularity that would put corporate house journals to shame,” he added.27.5.71.199 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Admitted to what? Bias isn't even equivalent to unreliability. And these are N. Ravi's accusations against N. Ram during a family dispute over control of the newspaper, and later accusations against Siddharth Varadarajan after which Ravi was able to wrestle control over it. Since 2015, Ravi himself has resigned and none of the three have any editorial control over the paper. Not that it would effect its reliability, even during the dispute there was no fall in quality. Varadarajan even co-founded a now acclaimed publication (The Wire) after his resignation.

On an unrelated note, one can arguably claim that The Hindu was slightly tilted left during Varadarajan's short one year tenure as editor in chief which is reflected in The Wire currently as well, that still doesn't make either unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. I read Indian media and The Hindu has a higher journalistic quality than the majority of Indian news available on the web. If we treat it as unreliable we will lose out on valuable Indian perspectives. India is the second largest country and has the world's second largest English-speaking population.VR _talk 11:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, almost entirely based on Fowler&fowler's excellent analysis. I do think this is one that really needs to be listed on RSP as it's one a lot of our editors won't be personally familiar with for demographic reasons (i.e. most of us are American, British etc.), and it's one that can be very useful. Perhaps there could be situations in which the source is not reliable but I've not seen convincing evidence of what those situations would be. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment* Hindu editorial policy is censored right since Indian Emergency and lacks an independent Editorial policy.There are severe editorial disputes and the Newspaper does not have independent editorial policy.

 N. Ram said “no difference was maintained between news stories and editorial pieces". Fowler&fowler is wrong The Hindu during Indian Emergency" Hindu’s editor G. Kasturi"" became a part of the establishment. He headed Samachar, the news agency that was formed after the merger of PTI, UNI and Hindustan Samachar. He obeyed the government diktat on how to purvey a particular story or suppress it." He could not withstand government pressure.The Hindu editorial policy was self censored in favour of Emergency.Whereas The Times of India or The Statesman never did it Again during the Bofors scandal G. Kasturi told N.Ram not to publish Bofors articles in The Hindu and changed editorial policy for poltical reasons N.Murali states Hindu's rich tradition of credibility, objectivity,balance and editorial primacy had of late been compromised.

• N. Ravi, the new editor-in-chief, said that the “news desk was given standing instructions not to take any stories on Narendra Modi on page one. The Hindu has always been anti-Hindutva, but it was always kept out of our news judgement.A clear biased editorial policy

 There is clear Chinese Communist regime and termed it as “pro-China tilt” or Pro Sri Lanka tilt and backingAndimuthu Raja [[.60.243.14.89 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu during the Emergency was censored just like pretty much every other paper which absolutely included Times of India. The Statesman was one of the few exceptions and had to suffer intense pressure in the form of arrests of its journalists and disruption to its circulation. Newspapers from the 1970s have become primary sources by now anyways. Other than that, the rest is frankly utter bullshit which you have supported with either a grossly misleading presentation or a full on fictitious reference. For instance, the Bofors scandal in the 1980s was broken by The Hindu to begin with, which is something present in your own India Today reference while the Forbes article makes no mention of Sri Lanka, China or A. Raja. The various quotes are again a rehashing of the various allegations and accusations against each other during the dispute over the company. The Forbes article itself has the following the say about the paper:

Over the decades, The Hindu led the evolution of the country’s print media. It was the first to print in colour, use aircraft to deliver the paper, deploy computers, start facsimile editions and go on Internet. However, it focussed more on objective reporting than advocacy journalism. Its credibility rose so high that its readers began to say that they wouldn’t trust even a government gazette notification if not printed in The Hindu. Its critics said they could hardly see any difference between the two.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• Reliable I'd go so far as to say, one of the most reliable source of domestic news. I am including the hindu's Business Line and Frontline to that list. The fact that it is maligned by those in power, is a testament to it's credibility actually. Investigative journalism and not succumbing to political pressures to publish pro-whosoever puff piece is the reason for most of it's antagonism. - hako9 (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The Australian

Australian media tends to not recieve much coverage on this noticeboard, the only one I can recall being the Quadrant RfC. The Australian is a major national newspaper and has been cited over 8,500 times per theaustralian.com.au  . I wouldn't bring up a national newspaper like this unless I had concerns about its reliability. These two opinion pieces [57] [58] from 2014-2015 describe The Australian as a deeply partisan publication, essentially in lockstep with the Liberal Party of Australia. Is this an accurate depiction? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for most subjects but needs attribution for political stories in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable it's apparently one of the most trusted Australian commercial news sources, just behind Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. They may be partisan, but it's not clear that it's affecting factual accuracy of their reporting. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If it's known for climate change denial, I would say we should avoid it for science related topics. (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Blatantly partisan, but also a real newspaper. Generally reliable, but perhaps do not use for science as noted by Buidhe - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, unlike the other Australian News Corp newspapers such as the Herald Sun or The Daily Telegraph, The Australian has a good reputation for factual accuracy, though it is definitely a highly partisan source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, it is owned by the News Corp Australia and, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, right-center biased. E.g., it claims the 2019-2020 bushfires in Australia have nothing to do with climate change. But generally speaking, the broadsheet newspaper has a reputation for accuracy.Tadyatha (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tadyatha: Obligatory comment that MBFC is just some guy's blog, and shouldn't be used to determine reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Noted. Thanks for pointing that out. My ignorance. Tadyatha (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, its one of the best quality Australian papers. Partisanship/bias is evident but doesnt effect reliability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable Quality centre-right broadsheet ala The Times and Daily Telegraph (UK); the opinion pieces linked are just routine partisan bickering. Did the criteria for being a RS change to "literally nothing but the NYT" at some point? --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. — Newslinger talk 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news more so than many other newspapers. It should also be reliable for computing / tech topics as it has had reporting on that for more than 40 years.—Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable - reputation for fact checking. As Buidhe notes their partisan views does not appear to have affected its factual accuracy. --Find bruce (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - Australia's only national newspaper. Has published for many years. The controversial articles are generally the opinion pieces. Deus et lex (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable generally, but the opinion pieces tend to be slanted more to the right than the left and should be used as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Kerry (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable Although it is a partisan source, it is about as reliable as the Daily Telegraph and The New York Times. They seem to have a good fact-checking process. The opinion pieces should be cited with caution though. This is the case for a lot of reputable news sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, opinion pieces may slant to the right, but no more than opinion pieces in the Guardian Australia and The Age / The Sydney Morning Herald tend towards the left. Cavalryman (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Reliable I loath the Australian, but their news reportage is reliable. Their opinion pieces are where generally the dragons and devils lurk. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Canadaland

canadalandshow.com   is used 54 times as a source. Canadaland is a partly crowdfunded news site and podcast.

• In 2015, Simon Houpt of the The Globe and Mail wrote a long article about the site and said that its editor has a track record of playing fast and loose with facts.
  • This article also cites some other evaluations such as Montreal Gazette blogger Steve Faguy stating that Canadaland has a habit of sensationalizing and editorializing.
• Head of the CBC News Jennifer McGuire wrote an editor's blog about Canadaland. She wrote that Canadaland had deliberately made false assumptions and left out important facts.
• In 2017, Canadaland published a fake obituary of Conrad Black. Christie Blatchford's National Post article detailed the incident: The problem is, it wasn’t a story or a column; it was a pretend obituary, fake news in the current lexicon. She concluded that It was, in short, a cruel and juvenile piece that no newspaper would ever publish, let alone with such relish. It shames the profession.

I'm a bit concerned that this is used as source about politics and other media outlets. Do you reckon that despite these controversies this is now a generally reliable source? --Pudeo (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be concerned too. That concern would lead me to not rely on this source for fact. I'd be cautious using it if at all which might be too generous Littleolive oil (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it either. (t · c) buidhe 09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. — Newslinger talk 19:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and have never heard of Canadaland until today. It certainly doesn't have the track record to be considered as a generally reliable source. PKT(alk) 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to PKT's view, I'd say Canadaland is reasonably well known in Canada as a podcast producer; among media people in Canada its news website is also well known. Canadaland's Thunder Bay podcast was praised by NPR's All Things Considered [59], IndieWire[60], CBC [61], and NOW [62]. At player.fm, Canadaland currently has two podcasts listed in the top 10 English-language Canadian podcasts by popularity [63]. As for its news reporting, my own impression is that Canadaland has high journalistic standards; for example, it publishes corrections/clarifications when any of its reporting is shown to be inaccurate. Opinion is distinguished from news reporting; for example the "obituary" of Conrad Black mentioned above is headlined "For Future Use: An Obituary For Conrad Black" [64] and labelled "OPINION", and makes clear that Conrad Black is not actually dead. The piece may be in poor taste but it is in no way fake news (defined as deliberate disinformation). Canadaland first became well known for its reporting on the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and has broken numerous stories relating to Canadian media [65]. News reporting by Canadaland does meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Some more information indicating Canadaland is considered a reliable source:

• 2018 Toronto Star news article: "... Canadaland, an independent news website known for its coverage of the media." [66]
• 2018 CP news article: "The statement was first published Saturday by the website Canadaland." [67]
• 2020 CP news article: "Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer pointed Monday to a report by Canadaland that red flags were raised in 2018 by auditors..." [68]
• 2020 National Post news article: "... information first revealed by the news site CANADALAND." [69]
• 2017 Toronto Star column: "As Ashley Csanady, host of the political podcast Canadaland Commons, put it on the air this week..." [70]
• 2020 CTV News story: "... shortly after Canadaland, which has reported extensively on WE, first broke the story on Twitter." [71]
• 2020 CBC News story: "The website Canadaland reported on Morneau's familial ties to the WE Charity on Friday morning." [72]
• 2014 Columbia Journalism Review: "... the freelancer who helped break the scandal, Canadaland's Jesse Brown ..." [73]
• 2015 National Post news story: "... in an interview with the media watchdog website Canadaland on Wednesday." [74]
• 2020 National Post news story: "In early 2018 she began a column for Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, but was dropped at some point later the same year, according to CanadaLand." [75]
• 2017 Montreal Gazette arts interview: "This is familiar territory for the podcast [i.e. Canadaland], which has been looking to tell Canada’s unheard stories since 2013, and has since expanded into a mini-media empire of free content primarily funded by voluntary donations with four weekly programs – which form Canada’s most popular podcast network – six full-time employees, a stable of paid freelancers and a news website known for breaking its own stories." [76]

Mathew5000 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Mathew5000's demonstration of UBO, editorial control, and positive comments from other outlets, I'm is at worst a weakly reliable source. I've come across it on a couple occasions myself where it seemed like it might be useful, well-sourced, and balanced for those purposes (though I don't believe I wound up using it). Those cases when I considered using it involved discussion of other local Canadian media outlets. Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a rule, we should almost never be sourcing any content in Wikipedia articles to any podcasts; I can, in theory, imagine that special cases may occasionally exist where we have to use a podcast for reasons unique to a particular situation, but we should be minimizing that as much as possible. Just because a podcast is popular and well-known is not, in and of itself, evidence of whether its content is reliable or not — I'll grant that Canadaland has occasionally scooped the media on real stories, but there are at least as many examples of it messing stories up as there are of it getting stories right. Most of Mathew5000's links certainly offer verification that Canadaland exists — but almost none of them actually speak all that strongly to whether its content is reliable or not, which is not the same thing as existing. I'd be on the side of no, Canadaland should not be accepted as an RS. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bearcat: We aren't talking about information in Wikipedia being sourced to a Canadaland podcast, but rather to a news article on Canadaland's website. That's my understanding, anyway, based on the mention at the top of this thread of canadalandshow.com having been used 54 times as a source (canadalandshow.com  ). Have a look, for example, at how the Canadaland news story "Toronto Star Suspending Internship Programs Indefinitely" is used as a source at Toronto Star#Internship program suspension. The links I posted above, to Canadaland being cited by the National Post and various other Canadian media, do more than verify that Canadaland exists. They show that other Canadian media treat Canadaland with some respect, for example reporting information that was first reported in Canadaland, or specifically describing Canadaland as "an independent news website known for its coverage of the news media" (which connotes that its reporting has a favourable reputation, not just that the website exists). Mathew5000 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are using Daily Hive as a source—which we are, frequently—then Canadaland is at least as reliable. Daily Hive is at least half advertorial-style content and has been critiqued before for at-times shoddy journalism. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• We need to take into account the fact that Canadaland's main focus is media criticism, so when we cite the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and Christie Blatchford in opposition to them, these are all outlets and individuals that have come in for sustained criticism by Canadaland. The fact that they have wide public acceptance does not mean that they are impartial in their assessment of Canadaland. By the same token, if critical mentions in the media are sufficient basis to discount a source, then given that Canadaland's primary purpose is to document the failings, omissions, and biases in these and other media outlets in Canada, one could just as easily argue on the basis of that documentation that the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and certainly Christie Blatchford are themselves not reliable news sources.

I would be curious to know how many of the people who discount Canadaland have actually consumed much of their journalism. I've been following them for years and find them quite reputable. I would venture to suggest that anyone who has 'never heard of Canadaland until today' should perhaps not be weighing in on their reliability. The only solid basis for discounting Canadaland is to cite specific instances of stories which they both got wrong and then refused to correct. We should be extremely wary of basing our judgement on a vague sense that they're problematic, especially when that vague sense might well have been created by Republican PR firms hired by WE. Standingwolf (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary discussions for a potential RFC on CNN and MSNBC

Now that the RFC on Fox News has ended, I think it makes sense to have an RFC (or perhaps two separate RFCs) to see if the same (or similar) limitations should be implemented for CNN and MSNBC (the other US cable news outlets). Before doing so, however, I want to get a rough sense as to whether the community has any appetite for what could be another lengthy RFC so soon after the last one. And, if so, start discussion on how to neutrally word it. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe wait a bit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't see a point of RFCs for the sake of RFCs. Just because they are also cable news networks does not mean there has to be an RFC as well. FWIW, the last RFC on CNN in 2019 was SNOW closed. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because "Should CNN be deprecated or listed as generally unreliable" is blatantly a ridiculous question, I think any RfC on these sources is likely to be more nuanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely thinking of something more nuanced... NOT a deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So something like "CNN (for example) should not be used for coverage on right wing politics" or "MSNBC is treated as generally unreliable on political reporting"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "not generally reliable" is a more likely outcome than "generally unreliable", and would match the current status for Fox. The distinction being that the former suggests that the source may or may not be usable in any given situation, whereas the latter suggests that the source is unusable by default in the absence of a strong argument for exception. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We would also want to discuss the reliability of the opinion shows ... similar to how we discussed Hannity, Carlson, etc in the Fox RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• CNN and MSNBC should definitely be evaluated separately given that they're both high profile sources that would likely draw participation equivalent to the FOX RfC on their own. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Rosguill. CNN and MSNBC are not affiliated, and should be discussed separately. — Newslinger talk 20:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. SQL^{Query me!} 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed as in the current election climate such a discussion will be over-politicised, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the Fox News RFC that just ended, I think we have already crossed that bridge. In fact, I would think that having an RFC on other outlets would help de-politicize that one... it would show that we are holding all outlets up to the same level of scrutiny. Blueboar (talk)

I believe CNN in particular is about as reliable as Fox News at this point. Recently they published a story claiming Kim Jong-Un was dead/in "grave danger" after a botched heart surgery which was later proven incorrect. Same with Chris Cuomo says "it's illegal to look at Wikileaks", the Covington MAGA hat kids, and their constant pushing of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. I don't know enough about MSNBC to comment on its reliability and I would have to do more research. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Except Russian collusion was outlined by Mueller, along with obstruction, Mueller just deferred to Congress and the DOJ on whether a sitting president could be indicted. Cuomo is referring to stolen emails and he is right, it is "illegal to possess these stolen documents" in the same way it is illegal to possess any stolen goods. Every news media ran with the rumours of Kim Jong-Un being dead, because rumours of his death and the story about the heart operation were coming from the same sources and backed up by sources within the US establishment; misinformation was rampant among even sources "in the know". Covington MAGA situation was a mess because of contrary reporting on the ground, and was a royal screw up by all concerned. Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess, let's take one of those WP:CIR failures at random shjall we? The claim that CNN reported falsely over Kim's health is tendentious, and originate from Trump. CNN actually reported, according to a reliable secondary source, that "US monitoring intelligence that North Korean leader is in grave danger after surgery". Guy (help!) 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe do some preliminary due diligence work off this page first so examples that are false positives don’t take up the oxygen. The RfC options can also be workshopped.
  BTW is there an actual problem to be addressed or is this just to have the appearance Fox wasn’t singled out? Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do we have undeniably reliable sources that regularly report on CNN or MSNBC presenting deliberate misinformation? I don't mean mere mistakes, I mean stuff like altering photos or conspicuously omitting relevant information. If not, bringing up an RFC on those networks just because there was one on FNC is false equivalence. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Atlantic: MSNBC's in Trouble for Selectively Editing Romney's Wawa Moment, Politico: MSNBC mischaracterizes Romney remarks, The Slate: No, Mitt Romney Didn’t Fail to Start a “Romney-Ryan” Chant According to the Pew Research Center, MSNBC and Fox News stood out in terms of partisanship from the rest in the 2012 elections. I don't see any point in processing MSNBC and CNN together, though. --Pudeo (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's all from eight years ago, three of these are anecdotal, and none is scholarly. Note that middle-of-the-road partisanship isn't enough to exclude a source, and that's not what was voted on in the case of FN. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seriously? They are not remotely comparable to Fox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is the epitome of false balance. No, this is a very silly proposal - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The unwritten rule on Wikipedia is that right-of-center sources should receive stricter scrutiny than left-of-center sources. For example, contrast our policy at WP:RSP for the Daily Caller with our policy for Venezuelanalysis. The DC maintains an email address for corrections requests[77] and does correct when they are made aware of an error [78]. I am unable to find any mention of corrections at Venezuelanalysis. We don't say it, but the precedent is clear. Tread with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Given the specific way the Fox News RFC closed very narrowly, that the only thing that probably should have, as an "across the board' for all cable news channels, is general caution of using their opinion/talking head shows as RS for facts, just as we would not use their opinion columns on websites for facts. (Fox News' ones are just more "landmind"-ish in terms of claims). Anything else presented as a news story on these channels or via their websites, there's no strong reason at this point, given the close on Fox News, to seek to tackle them now, unless you can present a consistent bias on a specific topic area as with politics or science. Which I'm pretty confident there wasn't for these. --Masem (t) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely unnecessary "but both sides have to be formally considered" gray fallacy. CNN and MSNBC don't appear here every 3 months. Opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces. This applies to all opinion shows in any venue. Fox is special because they are blatantly and outrageously in the tank for whoever the Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump/anything remotely republican/anything remotely anti-liberal featuring known outrageously unreliable sources like James O'Keefe without any shame for doing it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either RfC would result in any change in status but I think Fox being here every few months was more to do with a few editors trying to bludgeon the process rather than any inherent issue with Fox. I strongly suspect if Fox had been just as accurate/inaccurate but was left leaning we would have never had the last RfC. That is also why I think either new RfC would result in nothing. Some editors, myself included would see either of those sources as no worse than Fox. Since I put Fox in the generally reliable bucket I would also put CNN and MSNBC in the same bucket. An editor who put Fox in the unreliable bucket for partisan reasons is less likely to put CNN in an unreliable bucket even if they are shown to be 100% "as bad as" Fox. Net result, the close call that was the Fox RfC is just enough less close to call the thing "generally reliable". Still, the constant "Fox again" issues were more due to a few editors rather than new evidence time after time. Springee (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support separate nuanced RFCs for CNN and MSNBC per BB and others above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with Headbomb, Peacemaker67, and David Gerard: these would be unnecessary indulgences in false balance and the gray fallacy. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with everything that was said on the gratuitousness of the proposal, and submit that a better use of our time would be RfC: Fuck, Marry, Kill: Cooper, Cuomo or Carlson? François Robere (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose I am not seeing a reason not to go ahead with this. Just as mentioned above as two separate RFCs since the two are not affiliated. No source is beyond question. PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see much value in pursuing this. I'm not aware that the reliability of news from these sources is seriously or routinely disputed. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  MrX, Then you aren't paying attention. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I am paying attention Sphilbrick. If you're alluding to something that I should be aware of, by all means, please point it out. - MrX 🖋

• CNN and MSNBC are separate. An RfC on CNN is unnecessary (it's reliable). It may be worth recording the fact that MSNBC should be used only with attribution, I don't know. Guy (help!) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• It stands out to me that almost no examples of (supposed) problems with either source have been offered here (and the few that have been offered have mostly been rebutted as mischaracterizations on the offering editor's part and not problems on the outlet's part, e.g. them reporting like other outlets that some US officials believed Kim Jong Un was ill ≠ them 'falsely reporting that Kim was ill'); it does lead to the impression that RfCs are being proposed only out of a sense that (false) balance is needed. (If RfCs are held, I can't see a reason to conflate them, they're two different sources and each RfC is likely to attract a distinct large body of commenters.) -sche (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support RfC only to see if there is any noteworthy issue with controversial event reporting - while I agree that Fox News seems to have lower standards these days compared to its liberal counterparts, both CNN and MSNBC should probably be assessed for the following separately (I've added my opinion of CNN & MSNBC):

1. Non-political news: will be generally reliable just like Fox News (duh)
2. Political: reliable for non-controversial events, must be examined for controversial stuff, will probably depend on how controversial the event is
3. Talk shows and opinion pieces: only for attribution to the journalists involved (duh)

45.251.33.198 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose RfC, it seems petty. If a challenge to either comes up organically thats fine but otherwise lets leave them alone. As for François Robere’s superior iteration of the question... Carlson, Cooper, Cuomo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT RfC for CNN and the RfC for MSNBC should be separate. CNN is far worse than Fox News Channel, particularly its newscasts. NYTimes - "CNN was forced to apologize after retracting a story on its website that a Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation." Politico, mistakes a sex toy flag for ISIS flag; labels Alabama as Mississippi, NYTimes - "But the biggest damage to CNN has been self-inflicted — never more so than in June, when in a rush to be first, it came running out of the Supreme Court saying that President Obama’s health care law had been overturned. It was a hugely embarrassing error.", list of completely botched stories, Law.com "Libel Lawyer Lin Wood Settles Second Defamation Suit With CNN", 10 worst most embarrassing US media failures - "This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments", The Media's Top Lies, CNN refuses to correct error, CNN gave Class Relotius their "Journalist of the Year" award, then published an article with the headline Claas Relotius writing fake stories 'on a grand scale, and it goes on and on and on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is going to be a very difficult RfC if this is an example of what we'll see. O3000 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose CNN RfC, open to MSNBC, although I've not seen any problems. This discussion seems pointy to me. Fox appears here often for good reason. CNN and MSNBC not so. As Horse Eye Jack said, if these sources come here organically, that’s fine. Otherwise, it is tit-for-tat. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Open to re-assessing these sources in response to specific concerns (as the Fox re-appraisal was prompted by their use of misleading digital image manipulation in their coverage of the Seattle protests). But as an exercise in reflexive false equivalence—which is clearly the framing behind this proposal—I'mma say no. We already do way too much of that. Also, note that policy and good practice already prohibit the use of opinion shows/columns as sources of fact, so we don't need an RfC to establish that for CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or any other outlet. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but I think that came out after, not before the latest round of deprecate Fox discussions. Springee (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lord, no. We just shot down one attempt to deprecate a noticeable percentage of perfectly fine sources used on the Wikipedia, now we want to do another one? People, your politics are showing, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think the intention was the opposite. If these were shown to be widely accepted as RSs then people won't try and act like perfectly fine sources are questionable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't know why we're having this discussion but RfCs are an integral part of the consensus building process which happens to be policy. Any editor who doesn't want to participate in an RfC is not obligated to do so, but we will have an RfC to rate CNN's reliability in the same manner we did Fox News and other entire sources that came before and that will follow. No source is immune from the rating system which began with the inception of WP:RS/Perennial. Also see WP:CONLEVEL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• OK... Thank you everyone for the input. I see that we have mixed feelings about even holding an RFC... but ENOUGH people want one that I think I will move forward on it. I need to think about wording now. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Note... and I will do two separate RFCs, so we can focus our attention on each outlet individually. Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There's actually pretty strong sentiment, arguably even a consensus, against opening RfC's on CNN and MSNBC right now. That's evident in the discussion above. Of course, you can choose to open them anyway, but I would strongly suggest that in your RfC statement you link this discussion, as participants should be aware that a majority of respondents here felt that the RfC's were unnecessary or a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I have to ask: if you were going to go ahead and open RfC's no matter what, why did you bother starting this thread? You asked if there was support for these RfC's; the answer was a pretty resounding no; and then you're like, well, here come the RfC's. Of course you're within your rights to open them, but I don't understand the value of this piece of theater. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera might have published a false claim

I think it's appropriate to point out that Al Jazeera has published a claim which may be unambiguously false. In a recent report on India's military, it stated:

"First batch of five jets arrive at Indian Air Force base as world's biggest arms importer modernises its military... India has become the world's biggest arms importer as it modernises its military." (emphasis mine)

India is not the biggest importer of arms; it's the second biggest.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty rote error, and not really a huge deal? "False claim" seems like a pretty weird way to frame this. Parabolist (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it even an error? One report is from March and measures over 5 years. The other doesn't mention its source or methodology. Does this use the same data? Does it use the same approach of reviewing a fixed period? Does the announcement on July 2nd that "approved the purchase of 21 Russian MiG-29 and 12 Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter aircraft costing $2.43bn to replace obsolete Soviet-era weapons." Stack on top of their existing spend? Does the 5 year window mean that some Saudi arms deals are now out of the period of review? Koncorde (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Something cannot be "may be unambiguously false", [[79]], no not unambiguously false.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure this is false. India was 2nd largest over a five year period ([80] or [81]). Al Jazeera is saying that "India has become the world's biggest arms importer as it modernises its military", with the recent buys. It might be correct for 2020, it depends how and what you measure.--Hippeus (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• As others have said, comparative statements like these require more than just an editor saying "wait, this contradicts that", since there's usually multiple ways to measure something (and in this case the question is over what timeframe; India is #1 if you measure from 2010 to 2019, but Saudia Arabia is ahead if you look at just a five year period, mostly due to a spike following the Arab Spring.) Beyond that, we don't expect WP:RSes to be perfect, only to be generally reliable; they should issue retractions when an error is caught or pointed out, but I can't find anything to indicate that anyone but you has noticed this (if it is even an error in the first place and not just the comparisons being apples and oranges, as others have pointed out.) The fact that nobody else pointed it out suggests that even if it is a mistake, it is inconsequential. --Aquillion (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And there is always "it was true at some point" [[82]], this is the kind of "factoid" that really is all very undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved: I agree with the opinion that the error isn't very big. I thank you all for the comments.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure this is correct, I count 1 "its minor" and 3 it might not even be false.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind how we use news sources. Their value is in reporting news. In this case, the Al Jazeera article was reporting an import by India while The Week's article was reporting the findings of a research institute that ranked arms importers. Neither source would be unacceptable for a claim that India was the world's largest arms importer, although the second source would be a reliable source for the institute's rankings. TFD (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - need an RfC for this source - Al Jazeera needs to be downgraded - The Jerusalem Post - "Al Jazeera violates US law by not disclosing ties with Qatari royalty", Gore had to sue them, Politico headline: "Lawmakers push for Al Jazeera to register as foreign agent", Greek City Times headline: "Al jazeera mouthpiece for turkish propaganda against greece in new film", - needs an RfC, obviously they are not generally reliable as state owned media. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many state-funded media that are considered reliable like CBC and BBC.VR _talk 11:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

But this one has serious issues involving US Law which really needs close scrutiny. Look at this Malaysia police raid Al Jazeera’s office, seize computers, and this Malaysian Police Raid Al Jazeera Offices Amid Probe Into Report on Migrant Workers . If our BLPs require us to adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies then the same would apply to what we consider RS for citing material we intend to include in our encyclopedia. It may even be an issue that we should bring to the attention of the WMF. Newslinger, please share your thoughts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a note for the casual reader about that first link: Al Jazeera is not actually having any issues with U.S. law, someone at the washington free beacon (which isn't exactly given a ringing endorsement in the archives of this page!) just THINKS they should be in trouble. Parabolist (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just another note - we don't need the Free Beacon - how about the BBC - Al Jazeera is not a RS anymore than RT is a RS. I don't particularly care for MSN but here it is. The problems aren't new as you can see in The Guardian article. And don't overlook what's happening in Malaysia - where there's smoke there is usually a fire. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, lets take this one at a time. I have no idea what the BBC link is supposed to say, that is just the BBC's profile of what Al Jazeera is. If your contention is that Al Jazeera is funded by a government, linking to the BBC is fairly ironic. And the MSN story is them reporting that the Free Beacon reports that a former US Congressperson THINKS that Al Jazeera did something wrong. The Guardian article gets us closest to any sort of actual sourced reporting on their independence, but is just about rumors that some employees are dissatisfied. Again, none of this is about Al Jazeera having, as you said, "serious issues with US law", outside of the opinion of a former politician. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not even a profile of Al Jazeera, it's a profile of Qatar. The only mark against AJ on that page is the (accurate) assertion that they practice self-censorship when it comes to their coverage of Qatar's government and domestic issues. Nevertheless, scholarly publications have repeatedly identified it as one of the most important, albeit not flawless, media voices out there today, placing it alongside BBC and CNN on a global scale and identifying it as the standard bearer of press freedom in the Middle East. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Reporters Without Borders's response to the "smoke" in Malaysia was to unequivocally denounce Malaysia's actions as an encroachment against press freedom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please answer the following questions:

1. Is Al Jazeera owned by Qatar - yes or no?
2. Has Al Jazeera faced criticism for its involvement in several controversies ranging from slanted journalism to anti-semitism per Al Jazeera controversies and criticism?
3. Does the BBC article I linked to not state the following: Al-Jazeera Arabic can be outspoken on subjects deemed as sensitive in the region. But the Qatari media observe strict self-censorship on domestic coverage and avoid criticising the state or government. Yes or no?
4. What sections in our WP article about Al Jazerra's controversies and criticism do you consider false?
5. If The Times of India is not considered reliable because a small few editors alleged that it is pro-India, and if RT is not considererd reliable because it is alleged to be a state-owned publisher of propaganda, what makes Al Jazeera any different considering they are also state-owned and self-censored, or so they claim that's all they censor? Why should we believe their claims when there are legitimate opposing views that dispute them?
6. What scholarly publications have repeatedly identified it as one of the most important, if not flawless, media voices out there today, placing it alongside BBC and CNN on a global scale and identifying it as the standard bearer of press freedom in the Middle East? Keeping mind that Al Jazeera published an opinion piece by scholar Hamid Dabashi accusing the BBC of publishing fake news. So if it is indeed placed alongside the BBC and CNN as a RS, then how are we not dealing with fake news? I have already provided multiple links showing that CNN repeatedly failed to retract false statements and errors.
7. Based on what neutral information can we present Al Jazeera to our readers as a RS they can trust for statements of fact, when we know full well the controversies that surround that network? Is the Qatari government the best representative of freedom of the press that we have, when WP itself is censoring media based on consensus discussions that raised legitimate questions as I have repeatedly demonstrated?

You certainly do not have to consider me an expert opinion about media, but at least show me a tiny bit of collegial courtesy by acknowledging that my questions raise legitimate concerns about this entire rating process, and the method we are using to determine what sources are or are not reliable for statements of fact. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme,

1. It's funded by the Qatari government and largely maintains editorial independence, although it has been accused of self-censorship with respect to its coverage of Qatar itself by various reliable sources. Honestly I think that this is a bit of a tired argument at any rate: it should be abundantly clear to anyone that frequents this forum that government-funded publications can be reliable, and that privately-funded publications can be unreliable.
2. Politicians and pundits have repeatedly accused Al Jazeera of antisemitism; reading through both Al Jazeera controversies and criticism and Al Jazeera, as well as peer-reviewed sources linked below, the worst I see that's credibly sourced is an anti-Semitic cartoon shared on a social media account that was then taken down and apologized for, and using framing that privileges Arab perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None of this rises to the level of something that would merit deprecation. The claim that AJ reported that Jewish employees received advance warning of the 9/11 attacks is concerning, but the way it's reported is suspicious: we have an AJR report citing a NYT editorial that criticized AJ. Where is the actual report? I wasn't able to find it searching online, and the accusation is puzzling given that there's a much better documented criticism of AJ's 9/11 coverage in that they gave too much airtime to Al-Qaeda members who took credit for the attack, which is a valid criticism of their political priorities but doesn't imply that their coverage is unreliable.
3. I honestly don't have time to go over it in detail right now, but from what I've read, a fair amount of the controversies actually reflect well on Al Jazeera: controversies of the form of authoritarian regimes trying to outlaw the publication. Our much better-written article at Al-Jazeera doesn't include any smoking guns.
4. I don't have an opinion of TOI's news coverage–I have much more experience with their film and celebrity coverage, which is largely tabloid-level puffery. RT is actually an unapologetic propaganda outlet and has been abundantly documented as such.
5. Type "Al Jazeera" into Google Scholar and tell me what you find. I see an abundance of academic sources poring over every detail of the network's coverage, and generally treating it as a source on par with CNN and BBC. Here's some of what I found:

1. AJE's coverage, like that of any news organization, is far from perfect. It sometimes slips into cheerleading and self-congratulation, and it sometimes makes mistakes...Nevertheless, the world of news is richer for having AJE as part of it [83]
2. Al Jazeera–the flagship media of the Arab world–has ascended to the zenith of the global market...its audience is now larger than BBC and CNN combined...Al Jazeera earned unprecedented popularity in the Arab world for its courage to challenge the Arab establishment and its role as a forum for free speech in a landscape defined by dictatorial propaganda [84]
3. Al Jazeera has also led the way in exposing Arab power abuses...it has instilled what may loosely be described as a culture of accountability [85]
4. The National Press Club has vouched for it, and I've already linked Reporters without Borders' vouching for it higher up in the thread.
5. I also found many more paywalled articles analyzing CNN and AJ side by side, apparently with the same degree of gravity.

In sum, I think that there's ample evidence that Al Jazeera, while hardly perfect, can be considered a counterpart to other international media, a peerless source when it comes to news in the Arab world, and thus a necessary component to our neutrality if we're going to continue relying on news publications as sources. It's widely used and analyzed by academics, and deprecating it would be a travesty. In the absence of a smoking gun that shows them intentionally reporting lies, I see no reason to consider it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Despite having made a few mistakes in the past, they correct mistakes and admit to them - no outlet is immune to making mistakes, it's how they handle those errors that counts. Otherwise known for balanced reporting without sensational headlines etc. Generally they produce straight news reporting with minimal bias, but I wouldn't use them for reporting about Qatar as they are a Qatari state owned outlet and have displayed a biased lack of criticism in that regard. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Guinness World Records

Guinness World Records is somewhat unusual as a source as it is primarily used to substantiate its own claims. It has been cited nearly 2,500 times per guinnessworldrecords.com  . It has been discussed enough previously to warrant a perennial sources entry, though it currently lacks one 1 2 3 4. I think the consensus of previous discussions is that obtaining a Guinness world record does not establish notability (many Guinness World Records are pay to play, see this story in Vox), but the discussions seem mixed on the publications reliability. Personally I would see it as a marginal source for facts not directly related to world record claims. And any claim of a world record should be directly attributed to Guinness, rather than simply stating that it is the "world record" Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s pay-to-play and therefore quite problematic even for obscure “records”. If I’m the world’s best or brightest foo, as a rule I’d be ignored by them if I didn’t pay up, whereas someone less than could pay for and scoop that title.

I think there’s a case to be made that at one time it used to be fair before they turned to this model. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware they had.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I definitely wouldn't use it for anything other than a claim to "world's best _____"; definitely no secondary info. Didn't know they did pay to play. Thanks for that Vox article, Hemiauchenia. I'll just add this to the growing number of advocates in Wikipedia spreading their industry content throughout the encyclopedia to broaden the reach of their marketing messages. Ugh! Normal Op (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• I actually know someone who appeared in the Guinness record book back in the 1960s. No payment was involved, and Guinness actually sent someone to verify the attempt (and its success.) Based on this, I would say that old editions are reliable historically (Ie that someone back then held a record). Not sure when the cut off would be, however. Do we know WHEN they changed to a payment model? Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think a time cutoff is necessary. Guinness itself is always reliable for establishing that something is a Guinness world record, but we need other sources to tell us why we should care. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣

This I agree with... my friend set a record for “longest time see/sawing”... not a record that would justify having a stand alone bio article on Wikipedia, but perhaps worth noting as background info if he were notable for other reasons. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• King of Hearts, I’m not sure that’s true. The case I ran across was World’ Largest Pride event, which is likely São Paulo, they held the record for many years until their government would no longer pay for Guinness judge(s). I’m not convinced anyone else was even in the running. So how could we trust that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Completely agree with KH. Another source should be used to establish its encyclopedic worth before the Guinness record is discussed. In other words, even an authenticated entry in Guinness doesn't establish its own noteworthiness. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Blueboar: The Vox article suggests that the change was post 2008 when they were acquired by Jim Pattison Group, which also owns Ripley's Believe It or Not! Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's used to verify the existence of a "Guinness world record" then I think it's reliable. I think that the claim that that is a "world record" (as in the best in the world ever) is less reliable, especially for the more obscure/quirky records. I would oppose the idea that inclusion in GWR makes the subject notable. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)

I notice Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not yet mention South China Morning Post (SCMP).

I know there have been ownership changes and the recent Hong Kong National Security Law (effective July 1, 2020) may impact reporting at the SCMP (and the same law could impact every publication in Hong Kong SAR).

I found at least one previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Straits_Times_and_the_South_China_Morning_Post

At the very minimum Perennial sources should tell people not to use articles from "Lin Nguyen" who turned out to be a fabricated persona. The SCMP withdrew all articles by this persona. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely anything published after the new national security law should have just as much reliability as The Onion. Articles during the period between the British handover and that law I'm not sure about. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Xinhua (RSP entry) is a better starting point of comparison than The Onion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That RSP entry is far too generous to Xinhua. [86][87]. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the entry based off the opinions present in the 2 discussions, and I think it is a reasonable reflection of them. If you think it's too generous then that's down to the responders, not me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW The Atlantic here published: "A Newsroom at the Edge of Autocracy" (August 1, 2020). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SCMP has been owned by Alibaba Group since 2016, when it closed its non english language editions and subsidiary publications like HK Magazine it also retracted an article criticising Li Zhanshu in 2017, so I don't think that the national security law is going to have a significant impact, as these changes have already been happening to the SCMP since 2016. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The allegations presented in The Atlantic are concerning, particularly the censoring of reporters coverage of the Hong Kong protests by editors to give a strongly pro-goverment slant, and the publication of an interview with Gui Minhai, who was detained by the Chinese government at the time, effectively akin to a forced confession. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Lin Nguyen articles were all opinion pieces; they didn’t affect the SCMP's usual news reporting.
  To my knowledge, the SCMP has been generally regarded as one of the most (if not the most) reliable news outlets in HK. Regarding bias, they've usually been more critical of the mainland Chinese government than friendly towards it, even since 2016. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The statuses in RSN and "Perennial sources" also affect the selection of opinion pieces suitable to quote in articles. In Alec Holowka I brought up an opinion piece from RT on his suicide in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Death but other editors felt it was not appropriate to refer to it because RT is discouraged for controversial subjects. See: Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Russia_Today_and_The_Post_Millennial WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it? Shouldn’t opinion articles and editorials derive their reliability predominantly (if not solely) from the author rather than the publication, per WP:RSEDITORIAL? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @MarkH21: That's a good question for a separate thread of RSN. I couldn't find much on that particular author (Igor Ogorodnev) so all the editors had was the publication itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Newspaper of record#cite_note-51 says "The clippings are from the South China Morning Post, the paper of record in Hong Kong". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've encountered the SCMP on a few occasions and just read the Atlantic piece, which I think should be considered a reliable look into the state of the newspaper. The SCMP is clearly a newspaper of record, and in some non-sensitive areas it should certainly be considered generally reliable. There are serious concerns about its ability to report fairly on the Hong Kong protests and on some issues sensitive in China, although I would need to look further into it to determine whether this often manifests as inaccuracies (a problem) or just bias (not so much of a problem per WP:BIASED). Regardless, I'm glad to see this discussion happening, since the SCMP is a very notable omission to the RSP list. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging participants from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#South China Morning Post reliability: @Skyring: @-Ni3Xposite: @Ckfasdf: @Feminist: @Slatersteven: @The Drover's Wife: @DreamLinker: @Burrobert: (Adoring nanny is already here) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: do you want me to format a formal RfC? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I would love that. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also @Buidhe: and @Darouet: from the first discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the South China Morning Post (SCMP)? The South China Morning Post has been cited around 7,000 times on Wikipedia per scmp.com  

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (SCMP)

• Option 1/2 The SCMP is the major English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. I would consider it a reliable source without exemption prior to 2016. However, after the 2016 purchase by the Alibaba Group and the continually deteriorating political situation in Hong Kong. I think caution is necessary for contentious topics like the Hong Kong protests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have changed by vote to a 1/2 to make my opinion more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: I have not changed my opinion on the reliability of SCMP. It would be common sense to attribute any claims it makes around its reporting of the Hong Kong disturbances. I haven't seen any change in the nature of SCMP's general reporting. The statement in the Atlantic article that "the use of terms like riot and rampage that often made it into the final versions of stories recounting protests" reminded me of similar statement that FAIR has made about the New York Times and Washington Post reporting on the various US protests. Regarding Lin Nguyen, which seems to have been the starting point for this discussion, the SCMP admitted its mistake and removed the five articles which had been located in the Opinion section of the paper. It said it had "reviewed and strengthened its verification process for submissions in response to the Daily Beast revelations". Seems like a sensible response. Burrobert (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I brought up Lin Nguyen since the entry for Der Spiegel does say it's generally notable but to avoid articles by Claas Relotius specifically. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. Yes a similar note for SCMP would be fine. Burrobert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. ~ HAL333 00:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 more or less along the lines of what Hemiauchenia argued. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 (reliable with caveats) per The New York Times' March 2018 article which says that In effect, Alibaba has taken Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record since the days of British rule and put it on the leading edge of China’s efforts to project soft power abroad. Every day, The Post churns out dozens of articles about China, many of which seek to present a more positive view of the country. As it does, critics say it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of propaganda. It also notes that there have been acts of self-censorship to avoid annoying the CCP. Still, from what I gather, it has many of the best journalists in HK. I have noted that some, possibly undue pro-China views, have been sourced to SCMP, such as a curious chapter detailing "Hong Kong's hatred of mainlanders" and xenophobia as an undercurrent for the protests. --Pudeo (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bigotry against people from the mainland and Mandarin-speakers is a well-known issue in Hong Kong. SCMP writing about it doesn't undermine their reliability as a source. Are we going to start deprecating sources because they cover issues that some editors perceive as being "pro-China"? In case anyone needs reminding, this is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia, or a European encyclopedia, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Tricky, this. Pre-2016 is OK, of course, but post 2016 it's also reliable for a lot of things, just nothing related to China or politics. I guess that's a 2? Guy (help!) 08:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Probably Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, more or less, per above. feminist (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for post-2016 articles, per above. There isn't evidence that the paper literally makes things up, however, we should also avoid sources that are turning into state propaganda outlets, "soft" or otherwise. Lack of press freedom in Hong Kong will also impact the reliability of other Hong Kong based media. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Cynistrategus (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 — one of the most important newspapers for any editor or educated person trying to stay informed about global events and opinions. So far, criticism presented here amounts to an Atlantic article [88] from a journalist who complains SCMP editors toned down pro-protestor language in his submission to the paper (what a surprise), and one more article [89] from a NYT reporter who was reciprocally thrown out of China [90][91], and who has pushed the conspiratorial view of the Trump administration that the WHO is too close to China [92]. More broadly, bringing up the SCMP at the RSP is yet one more example of the list's mission creep. At this rate Wikipedia will end up treating all domestic and international news sources that fall outside of the center of the quite narrow Anglo-American political spectrum as suspect, or unusable. That's a devastating development for what is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Pinging Blueboar since they've had valuable commentary on this issue in the past. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know the source at all, so I can not comment on specifics. In general, deprecation should be reserved for clear cut, “worst of the worst” situations. Even “we could do better” level sources should not be deprecated. That said, if we CAN do better, we should. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a high opinion of the SCMP and labelling it option 2 for "additional considerations apply" is more a reflection of the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong than the SCMP itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 SCMP is a well regarded international newspaper. Being owned by a mainland company means that of course there is going to be a bias towards the Chinese government, but as of now no sources seriously dispute that the paper is "generally factual." Maybe in a few years if Beijing continues to tighten its grip on Hong Kong and its press outlets in a demonstrable way the SCMP should be downgraded, but as of now a bias towards the Chinese government doesn't change that fact that it is generally reliable. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I feel that the SCMP is a trustworthy source. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I have worked quite extensively on the protests articles and I don't think I have seen cases where SCMP is outrageously inaccurate or biased. Their factual reporting is generally reliable. Their opinion articles, however, are mostly written by biased, unreliable, blantantly lying pro-Beijing columnists. OceanHok (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @OceanHok: Perennial sources also considers opinion columns, so if you don't mind please share examples of highly biased columns. That way the entry can add caution against using such columns. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Wait, perennial sources tells us what opinions can be referenced? Who has the audacity to prescribe acceptable opinion here? It's one thing to rate the factual reliability of sources, but saying which opinions are acceptable is something else entirely. Some editors may like the opinion columns of their favorite newspaper of record, some editors may think those columns are complete garbage. WP:RSN really has no business declaring some opinions good and others bad. What matters for opinion is WP:WEIGHT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: This came up in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1 where I had suggested including an opinion from a columnist of RT but other editors rejected the idea because RT was unconsidered unreliable for controversial topics, straight reporting and opinion pieces alike. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of examples. Some of their views and thoughts are hugely troubling to me. In many cases, they were following the rheotic of the HKSAR government. Not saying it is not ok to support the government, but in most cases, they were just discrediting the opposition without solid proof, or they intentionally discussed only one side of the problem.

• [93][94]: These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
• [95]: This one states that the "rioters" "lies" but didn't address the issues behind the police's lack of credibility or discussed why the police's claims were not accepted.
• [96]: the title itself is ridiculous enough already. They also followed the rhetoic that the voting stations will be vandalised by the protesters (which obviously didn't happened on that day).
• [97]: calling opposition lawmakers clowns without recognising that the pro-Beijing bloc is exercising tyranny of the majority as there is no universal suffrage for the LegCo election.
• [98]: Supporting Carrie Lam to delay the election because it gives time for people to "cool off". The way to "take a break from politics" is to postpone an election?
• [99]: And what happened on the next day was that the protesters and the ethnic minorities were offering support to each other when the protesters passed through Chungking Mansions.
• Therefore, with so many problematic statements, I find it is really hard to consider these opinion pieces as usable. OceanHok (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. The issues raised above should be kept in mind when using the SCMP for claims about the protests and other sensitive political issues. But for factual reporting it's generally reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 This RfC is ridiculous. Most newspapers have political biases and reliability issues. The only cases which are worth recording are those where they routinely engage in parody and fantasy : The Onion; National Inquirer; The Southport Times and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: 1. Wikipedia:Perennial sources does call out specific cases of scandal like Claas Relotius (Der Spiegel is otherwise generally reliable), and 2. there has been a recent major change in Hong Kong law (though it can potentially affect all HK outlets), and 3. SCMP is such a common news source that Perennial sources should address it. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 as a general reader I've found their articles informative and fair, but fully accept the need for caution. A bit better than other [former?] papers of record, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. . .dave souza, talk 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: As I mentioned in the pre-RfC discussion, the SCMP has been and is the newspaper of among the most reliable sources in Asia. It is still Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record. The factual accuracy (as opposed to its tone/bias) of its news reporting hasn’t been directly challenged by other RSes.
  The NYT and Atlantic articles discuss a change in bias towards Beijing. However, a change in bias itself doesn’t mean that the factual reporting is less reliable (cf. WP:BIASED). Whether its fact-checking and accuracy deteriorates as the situation in HK press freedom changes is speculation about the future. If/when that does happen, then the SCMP should be revisited as an RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Even if there may be bias on a small subset of topics and cases of problematic opinion pieces, it would require quite a stretch to argue that SCMP is anything other than "generally reliable for factual reporting." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Additional considerations apply. Most of the time SCMP is a reliable source, but the impact of the direction management is pushing and the new Hong Kong security law need to be taken into account when using it. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 The South China Morning Post is used as way for newspapers such as The Washington Post to know what is going on in Hong Kong. I have found that [100] a search in the WP's articles yields many citations of the SCMP. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is limited freedom of speech in Hong Kong right now and the newspaper has been called "increasingly pro-Beijing" by the NYT [101]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. I don't want to call this discussion a waste of time, but this certainly comes to close to being one. Remember per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)" and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." That guidance is already enough to go on in this instance. -- Calidum 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 with all usual cavaets on a case-by-case basis. No indication that there's enough problems of China's interference in the paper's reporting to be concerned that it makes them unreliable, in fact when I have to use them (this in the article of technology and video games) they certainly aren't speaking in a manner I'd consider as a mouthpiece for China. Obviously if an article feels fishy, use caution but that's true for all RSes even to the NYTimes, so I don't think option 2 is appropriate here. --Masem (t) 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, possibly split into 2 entries like Fox News and The Guardian on the main WP:RSP list. SCMP is a reputable newspaper with strict editorial control - educators on all sides of the HK political debate trust them as the written standard of Hong Kong English). However, it is also known in HK that SCMP has always had a pro-government bias, whether that government was British Hong Kong or Chinese Hong Kong. The Alibaba takeover has exacerbated their pro-Beijing bias but so far I don't see much of SCMP twisting facts to suit their agenda. I think we should put SCMP in the "reliable" category for factual reporting, but caveat all opinion sections in the same way we split Fox, Guardian, and other broadsheets with a known editorial bias. Deryck C. 19:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, because they have done good factual reporting of current events in Hong Kong. Félix An (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 with the caveat that we aren’t yet able to judge the impact the new situation (national security law etc) will have on SCMP’s ability to produce high quality journalism (especially investigative journalism). I think that this discussion is premature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for their factual reporting, seems to be reasonable accurate. Any opinion columns are subject to WP:RSOPINION. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, it's a good source and it is almost reliable.--RuiyuShen 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per OceanHok on news articles. Op-eds should be treated in the same manner as those of WaPo, etc. per WP:RSOPINION. We have not allowed Jeff Bezo's acquisition of the WaPo to affect our assessment of its reliability, there should be no difference vis-a-vis Alibaba and the SCMP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's not a fair comparison, because RS say that Bezos has not interfered with the operations of WaPo, whereas reliable sources say that Alibaba has affected the reporting of this source. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per MarkH21 and Bzweebl. The publication's (supposed) new pro-Beijing position has not affected the reliability of its factual reporting. KyleJoan^talk 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: The SCMP is one of the most reliable sources there is on China. Its reporting typically reflects a much deeper level of understanding about Chinese politics and society than reporting in major Western new sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I used SCMP frequently in a professional capacity related to coverage of the Hong Kong protests; I was admittedly frustrated with their tone at some points, as someone who supported the protests, but I would be lying if I said I noticed or suspected any glaring revisions or omissions of facts when it came down to it. A good editor should be able to strip away any latent editorializing tone when present and be fine using SCMP for reference. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - No evidence has even been presented that there are any issues with reliability. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 I agree with Hemiauchenia. wikitigresito (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Despite what I would have guessed, SCMP has been fairly accurate on their reporting and fairly neutral. I don't think the National Security Law will affect it because they can just move legal headquarters somewhere else; Alibaba's ownership is worrying but it still is the best non-biased source on China out there, at least for now. Albertkaloo (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2020
• Comment This is a bit of an odd discussion. For the SCMP to be ruled unreliable, we'd need to be guided by experts' views on the topic - e.g. expert media commentators who state that the SCMP is no longer reliable, etc. I can't see any such sources being provided above. From what I've seen in following Hong Kong from afar, there are long running concerns that the SCMP sometimes self-censors itself and has a long running history (including during British rule) of leaning towards the government line. But I haven't seen recent sources stating it's no longer reliable. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - From among the publications on Asian-specific topics covered by various outlets, the SCMP's coverage is usually some of the best. They tend to separate personal positions and facts fairly well, and I'd go as far to say that there are plenty of publications that ought to learn a thing or two from that. Goodposts (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Horse Eye Jack. I note that SCMP pretty much has been the newspaper of record in Hong Kong. From 2016 to 2020, after Alibaba acquired SCMP, there was little to no change in the general reliability of SCMP. (I note that in its news articles, if Alibaba is mentioned anywhere in its news articles, SCMP goes out of its way to point out that Alibaba is the owner of SCMP.) However, given the recent passage of the new security law in Hong Kong, it is currently not possible to assess whether SCMP's reliability will be affected following the law being passed; I opine that SCMP will continue to maintain its reliability (unless evidence to the contrary is discovered); however, SCMP is likely to shift (or at least face much more greater pressure to move) to a more pro-China stance, but not to the point where its reliability is affected (unless again opposing evidence is found). JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (SCMP)

I think Burrobert raises a good point regarding analogous biases in American papers of record; I'm reminded of allegations in John L. Hess's memoir that NYT systematically privileged the US government's perspectives in its coverage of the Vietnam war and myriad other issues during his career there (and this was published before the Second Iraq War). Nonetheless, I think that with the better way to address these issues is to treat papers of record with a greater degree of scrutiny, rather than twisting what "generally reliable" means. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat newspapers of record (and all newspapers) with serious scrutiny: the New York Times' coverage of the Iraq War is an extraordinary demonstration of the importance of that principle. However, as I note above, what we've actually been doing at the perennial sources list is casting doubt or prohibiting the use of newspapers in the United States (e.g. the Grayzone) or internationally (e.g. Xinhua, RT, the Times of India) whose political or national orientations fall outside the narrow center of Anglo-American politics. Sometimes it's unclear whether consensus was even achieved for a given outlet [102]. Furthermore it's bizarre to watch national outlets come under attack here, at an international encyclopedia, as respective governments find themselves in increased geopolitical conflict with the United States. It's both within our mandate and power as editors to be able to understand these conflicts, not participate in them ourselves. -Darouet (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with The Grayzone is that it has this strange "anti-imperialist" worldview where everything that western governments do is bad and anything that Maduro / Assad / Putin / Xi does is good. Of course neither of these perspectives is true, and nor is their reverse. I would support calling a RfC on Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Televisión Martí and Alhurra as these are directly controlled by the US govt, and I am unsure about their editorial independence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I'd be happy with an RFC of all of those US government-controlled publications WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Grayzone responded to being depreciated with a "You can't handle the truth!" meltdown that included calling Katherine Maher a "veteran regime-change operative" it is pretty obvious they operate in a different reality to the rest of us. Compared to the platonic ideal of a Reliable Source everything is going to fall short. That doesn't mean every source is equally (un)reliable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We deprecated the newspaper without consensus on the basis of a few flimsy articles from much weaker sources, and flimsy reasoning from editors who didn't demonstrate even a modicum of the competence of the journalists they were criticizing. The close was particularly egregious. As for their reaction to being deprecated, much found in their two articles on the topic is excellent [103][104]. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You’re going to lay it all on the line for TGZ? Please tell me this guy is pulling my leg and isnt going nuclear over a shit-tier source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The deprecation close [105] was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these [106][107][108][109][110][111]. The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" [112], another from The Daily Beast [113] (which our own list calls "a biased or opinionated source"), and lastly an article about the contents of a conversation that Max Blumenthal had with Karen Greenberg on the politically sensitive topic of torture in the US and Israel [114]. Importantly, from the perspective of our own governance, the close did not conform to any consensus that emerged from the deprecation discussion. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that TGZ is a shit-tier source and you're just quibbling about procedure? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that and I wouldn't be caught dead using such language here. In agreement with the rough consensus of the RfC discussion [115], the Grayzone is an opinionated source that is usable on Wikipedia, and in certain instances, where its views or reporting have been contested, it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good example of why news sources like SCMP are important in giving a global (as opposed to American or Western European) perspective on issues. Compare these two headlines:

• "Hong Kong third wave: three labs picked to help mainland China medical team conduct mass Covid-19 testing in the city": SCMP
• "China’s Offer to Help With Virus Testing Spooks Hong Kong: Infections have surged in the city, and its labs have been going at full speed. But wariness of the Chinese Communist Party [sic] runs deep." New York Times

The SCMP does mention criticism of the mainland's involvement in coronavirus testing in Hong Kong (there's an image of protesters about 3/4 of the way through the article), but the focus of the article is on how the testing is being carried out. The NY Times article approaches the issue entirely from the perspective of worries about the influence of the "Chinese Communist Party" [sic]. This is something one very often encounters in Western reporting on China - there's a very strong political angle on all the reporting. For issues such as this, I have much more trust that the SCMP will provide a relatively neutral and comprehensive view of the topic. That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China. That's precisely where it is most valuable, as a reasonable and well-informed counterpoint to sometimes distorted reporting in Western media. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Not one person has voted option 4, therefore your contention that anyone is trying to deprecate the SCMP is preposterous. Please make arguments about reality rather than constructing fanciful straw men to tilt at. Also whats with the sic? I’m not seeing an error in Chinese Communist Party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A fair number of people have voted to discourage use of the SCMP for topics related to Hong Kong. Those are precisely the topics in which the SCMP's reporting is more extensive and neutral than that of newspapers like the New York Times. I'm arguing that it is in precisely these contentious topics that usage of SCMP is important for a globally balanced, neutral view. As for the [sic], the name of the ruling party of China is the Communist Party of China, not the Chinese Communist Party. I see that the Wikipedia article was moved a few weeks ago (which might be in line with WP:COMMONNAME, given how often Western sources get the name wrong), and that you voted for the move. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" have pretty much the same meaning, just different ways of translating it. The CCP prefers the first translation but most third party entities prefer the second. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the discussion about the name of the CPC to overshadow my actual point above - which is to compare reporting by the NYT and SCMP. The two articles I cite are illustrative of a trend, in which many Western news sources take strong political angles on Chinese topics. In the above NYT example, plans to offer coronavirus tests to every person in Hong Kong become primarily a story about Hong Kongers being spooked by the CPC. The SCMP covers the issue in a much saner way, as primarily a story about coronavirus testing, that also involves some protests. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your core argument was "That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China.” despite nobody voting or arguing for WP:DEPRECATE. The SCMP and NYT might frame a story differently but they’re both reliable, can you imagine if there was no difference in framing between reliable sources? Everyone would write almost exactly the same story and we’d all be worse off for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Xinhua News Agency

What is the reliability of Xinhua News Agency?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Xinhua)

• Option 4 Xinhua has promoted the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 originated in a US Army lab in Maryland. [116][117][118]. For another fine example of Xinhua "reporting", see [119]. We should not make an exception for "non-controversial" topics or the like. For example, for the critical first few weeks, Covid-19 was not considered "controversial". Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I couldn't find anything in your sources that say Xinhua News Agency reported that COVID-19 was created in a U.S. army lab, just that the Chinese government had spread this disinformation. Some of your sources are behind a paywall, so perhaps you could provide the quote. Note that the head of the U.S. government, Donald Trump has publicly stated that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese Lab. That doesn't mean that PBS and NPR shouldn't be considered reliable. As for your other example, I don't see anything extraordinary about the claim that "nearly 100 people" in Hong Kong protested in favor of the government. Since Hong Kong has a population of 7.5 million, that would be about 1/1,000 of 1% of the population. There are 42 pro-China members of the legislature, the executive council has 30 members, so we're up to 72 verified supporters of the government already. TFD (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The difference is that NPR is WP:Independent of Donald Trump. It is free to, and frequently does, say that Trump is talking nonsense. By contrast, Xinhua is not WP:Independent of the CCP. NPR-style reporting would be to say something along the lines of "The CCP is promoting the theory that Covid started at a lab in Maryland, but we found no evidence to support this." But that's not what they do. Per my The Atlantic source [120], "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really." That's how Xinhua promoted the Covid conspiracy. See the article which as of yesterday was here [121] and can (as of now, but possibly not for long) be found in Google's cache here [122] and archived here [123]. Unlike what NPR does, I can't find anything from Xinhua saying that the theory is nonsense. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You claim above that Xinhua has promoted a specific CoVID-19 conspiracy theory. Can you provide a link to a Xinhua article where they do that? If you can't, you should strike your statement. Factual accuracy matters, especially at WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

[124] does it precisely in the manner described by [125] - "We're just asking questions, really". Adoring nanny (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). To list just a few, The Sunday Times (generally reliable) had a long report that repeatedly hints that SARS-CoV-2 might have leaked from the WIV: [126]. The Independent then wrote its own article based on The Sunday Times' story, including new quotes from Richard Ebright, who has been promoting the WIV leak theory non-stop for months: [127]. The Independent quotes Ebright as an expert, even though his expertise is in bacteriology (not virology) and the claims he's making about mutation rates of the virus are WP:FRINGE (for example, they're completely at odds with Boni et al. 2020). The Washington Post (generally reliable) played one of the largest roles in the promotion of the WIV leak theory, with its publication of Josh Rogin's column claiming that the US State Department had uncovered severe problems at the WIV in 2018: [128]. Though this was nominally posted under "Global Opinions," it was written in the style of a news article, and was widely referenced by other news outlets (and later by the Trump administration). For example, the BBC wrote it's own "We're just asking questions" article that speculated on the lab leak theory, based on Rogin's piece: [129]. The BBC article extensively quotes Filippa Lentzos, a promoter of the WIV leak theory. Even the venerable Columbia Journalism Review (itself often used to determine reliability of news sources) wrote an article that while criticizing some of the right-wingers commenting on Rogin's story, also posed the "What if?" question about the WIV: [130]. In other words, if "We're just asking questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" is a basis for judging a news source unreliable, get ready to deprecate The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Washington Post, the BBC and Columbia Journalism Review, and possibly many more sources. Xinhua is really a very minor offender in this department. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a CCP mouthpiece, it is probably reliable only in an WP:ABOUTSELF stylee for attributed statements about the CCP. As a source of fact, I would say no thanks. So that's option 3 with a bullet I guess, or maybe 4 but we need to clarify the wording slightly. Guy (help!) 08:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per JzG. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 We currently have around 9,500 citations to Xinhua per xinhuanet.com   and news.cn   Xinhua is the official state news agency of the Chinese Government. Like the Russian Government's TASS (RSP entry), and the Turkish Government's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry) and TRT World (RSP entry), Xinhua is usable for statements regarding the official views of the Chinese government, and non-controversial topics per WP:NEWSORG. However it is not a reliable source for stuff like the Xinjiang Camps/Uyghurs, Tibet human rights, Taiwan, or anything else where the Chinese government could be reasonably construed to have a conflict of interest. I don't see strong enough evidence (excluding the COVID-19 stuff which I don't think is definitive) that Xinhua is an outright propaganda outlet in the same way RT or Sputnik is, which I think CGTN falls a lot closer to. Any use of Xinhua should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that it is not always immediately obvious that something is controversial. For example, who could be opposed to a reduction in terrorism, an increase in stability, economic prosperity, and an increase in happiness? [131] (now dead link, here is Google's cache, at least for the moment)[132][133] Adoring nanny (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That particular piece is the attributed views of "Dr. Kaiser Abdukerim, a member of the Chinese delegation and president of Xinjiang Medical University", it states this right in the lead: "A Chinese expert from the Uygur ethnic group on Monday stressed here that without stability in his hometown of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, nothing can be achieved there." I don't think that Xinhua is making up what he is saying, and therefore can be considered reliable for his views. The statement by Dr. Kaiser that: "Today's Xinjiang enjoys social security, its people live and work in peace and contentment, its economic development is flourishing, all ethnic groups enjoy heart-to-heart solidarity, and the human rights of people of all ethnic groups are fully guaranteed" is not true, but it is his attributed opinion. Of course Xinhua is being selective in promoting this view, but this could be said for most sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UT

Per the article, "As a professional in medical education, he said he was especially impressed by such figures that from 1949 to 2017, the population mortality rate in Xinjiang decreased from 20.82 to 4.26 per thousand . . ." So the article is approvingly quoting him being impressed by mortality "figures" of 4.26 deaths per thousand people per year. Sure sounds like an alternate universe. One wonders what the mortality rate is in the camps.[134] Same story for the "happiness index" he approves of, whatever that may be referring to. Are the camp inmates happy? Lastly, the article describes him as an "expert." That part is the article's statement, not his. Is "expert" really an appropriate way to define him? Does his expertise include the camps? Does it include the ability to distinguish real data from fake data? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

4.26 is less than half of the UK's mortality at 9.3, but this is probably related to Britains proportionally older population. I can't find any other evidence of Kaiser's existence outside the UN speech other than a single paper where his is last author. Compare Xinhua with this story in CGTN and you can see that the CGTN story comes much closer to outright propaganda. I definitely think there is a case for deprecating CGTN, but not really for Xinhua at the moment. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#CGTN_(China_Global_Television_Network) Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't mind seeing China Central Television/China_Global_Television_Network added to the Perennial sources list. Not sure if new RFCs are needed for those? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: As as I mentioned in previous discussions, Xinhua often has decent reporting in English for quite a few non-controversial topics. For example, I used it heavily on some tables to provide accurate dates for Xi Jinping presidential trips. For international reporting, it has published many reports about COVID-19 in underreported areas in Africa. These reports could be verified in non-English sources (French, Arab), but hard to find in other secondary English sources. Now, there's a few topics where it would be no-go except for quoting Government officials, specially US-China disputes and other political controversies involving China. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option four makes a statement which is demonstrably true but I am opposed to outright bans on any source. CCP propaganda can be judged on a case-by-case basis, recognizing what it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 US government sources peddled the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but that theory didn't stand up, did it? All government-controlled organs are partisan by definition and this naturally matters in controversial cases such as wartime. Xinhua should be treated like other government sources of information and attributed so the reader can decide for themselves whether to trust them. Holding a straw poll here to decide the matter is ridiculous because Wikipedia and its editors are definitely not reliable sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Straw polls on RSN are the standard way feedback on each particular source is collected. Honestly I haven't thought of a better system than that, though one could post information on polls and surveys indicating trustworthiness of sources in certain countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: In both Chinese and English, Xinhua generally report factual information with carefully chosen terms that favor the PRC government. It also often publishes articles for major government propaganda points. Xinhua should only be used for certain restricted cases.
  It's important to note that the heavy journalistic spin doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting. An appraisal from a 2010 Newsweek article (pre-2013 Newsweek is considered generally reliable on WP:RSP): It helps, of course, that Xinhua's spin diminishes when the news doesn't involve China. [...] And even if the agency fails to improve its image, naked bias is not a handicap the way it was for TASS, the Soviet Union's 100-bureau news agency during the Cold War.
  That said, I still would not use Xinhua as the sole source for most claims given that their editorial oversight is severely compromised by being an arm of the PRC Central Government, which does not hesitate to actively censor information. It's really only useful as a source for the view of the Chinese government, or for obscure details of uncontroversial events (e.g. the dates and lineup of a concert). — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Updating vote: after seeing Newslinger's response and seeing that Xinhua has a news exchange agreement with AFP, I'm also okay with a very restricted option 2 that relegates its use to covering the Chinese government point of view and uncontroversial events. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, any source that published conspiracy theories related to COVID should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Neither The Telegraph or The Atlantic stories specifically mention Xinhua in reference to COVID 19 conspiracy theories. The NYTimes story refers to this tweet which contains a bizarre video mocking Pompeo using automatically generated speech and weird animated figures, see what you make of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3. It is similar to RT (TV network) that was depreciated. We need to be consistent. It does not matter that much if it is controlled by a government, although to be controlled (rather than simply be funded) is a red flag. It is known for promoting disinformation, which is opposite to be known "for fact checking and accuracy". My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  RT and Xinhua are superficially similar as state-run news outlets by Russia and China. However, they have different histories and different sets of appraisals by RSes. The history of RSes calling out RT for disinformation and other journalistic malpractice is significantly more extensive than Xinhua.

  The two outlets have no formal relation, so Xinhua needs to be looked at independently from RT. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  They do have a lot of similarities, as sources say. For example, according to US senators [135], "Similar to Russia’s state-controlled RT and Sputnik news services, the People’s Republic of China controls several media organizations that disseminate news and propaganda domestically and internationally." So, they are placed together. Also, they both appear in the controversies about the "foreign agents" in the USA. Now, according to the letter above, Xinhua is not just a propaganda organization (like RT). “Xinhua serves some functions of an intelligence agency by gathering information and producing classified reports for the Chinese leadership…”. See als o here. Yes, that appear to be a difference. In Russia such reports for "the leadership" are compiled by the GRU and SVR (Russia), not by RT. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, and none of these similarities have to do with the reliability of factual reporting published by Xinhua. That can be assessed on its own merit by what RSes say about the accuracy of Xinhua's reporting. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think this analogy is precise. Xinhua is China's largest state-owned news agency and is targeted to audiences both within and outside China, which makes it the equivalent of Russia's TASS (RSP entry), currently considered a situational source. The Chinese equivalent to RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry) is China Global Television Network (CGTN), a television network that was modeled after RT and is targeted exclusively to non-Chinese audiences. — Newslinger talk 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree: the analogy with TASS would be more appropriate. It indeed served as a front organization for the KGB, although even TASS did not prepare the intelligence reports for the Soviet leadership. But it does not add any reliability as a source for controversial content. Using TASS or Xinhua for official statements by the government? Even that would be pretty much just a "primary source". One should use other, secondary RS which would place such government statements to proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 It's a reliable source for the views of the Chinese government, but there are better sources for that. Presumably a secondary source will discuss important Chinese political views without us having to determine what is and is not propaganda. The misinformation is disqualifying similar to RT, and anything factual those sources say will be corroborated by a news organization with a better track record. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'm against banning major news outlets on principle.ImTheIP (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, even if they technically meet the definition of option 4 and are eligible for deprecation I would oppose deprecation on the grounds that it would leave us with few direct sources for Chinese government opinion. They are the world’s second most powerful country after all, even if they engage in world leading levels of disinformation and generalized information operations. That being said the disinformation published by Xinhua in relation to the coronavirus pandemic has been shocking even by the standards of Chinese information operations and information warfare, the argument for full depreciation is a solid one I just oppose it for the reason stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice) by process of elimination. Xinhua News Agency is the official state-owned news agency in China, and its content is guaranteed to be consistent with the Chinese government's position. If used (whether under WP:ABOUTSELF or on its own merits), content from Xinhua should be attributed in-text. Xinhua is not generally reliable (option 1), because it is a biased or opinionated source that is not editorially independent from the CCP. Among all mainland Chinese state-owned sources, Xinhua is the highest-quality source, which is enough to make me oppose deprecation (option 4). There are other Chinese sources for which deprecation is warranted (e.g. the Global Times), but if I were only able to use one mainland Chinese source to provide coverage of China across Wikipedia, it would be Xinhua. It's the gold standard. Compare to Russia's TASS (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  An alternative approach would be to treat Xinhua similarly to Turkey's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry), a state-run news agency that is considered a situational source (option 2) for general topics and a generally unreliable source (option 3) for controversial topics and international politics. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 per Wugapodes. If you need to quote the Chinese government's statement, there are better, third-party independent sources for that. OceanHok (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2-3 WP:ABOUTSELF for the PRC. Xinhua is useful for uncontroversial details like who's the Party Secretary of randomProvince, what jobs did they held beforehand and when they were elected to the Central Committee. Some people may see that stuff as trivial, but due to the way the PRC/CCP Nomenklatura functions I think that it provides notable information. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, except where WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - This is the official news agency of the most populous country on earth, and should be treated as major news organizations in the west that are closely aligned with their respective governments. -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Newslinger. Regarding the argument that state media outlets transmit conspiracy theories through insinuations, anyone trying to cite a claim in an article to something as weak as an insinuation should rightly be reverted, regardless of the publication. As long as the disinformation doesn't rise above the level of insinuation (and as long as the publication publishes something other than insinuations), I don't think that we as editors have much to worry about. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: there is quite a lot of opinion here but few examples. Those examples that have been given don’t show unreliable reporting. Regarding the quote "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really.": this describes some of the COVID reporting published by western media outlets that have been trying to assign blame to China. Burrobert (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 1) The AFP cooperation agreement, in force since 1957, speaks volumes. 2) And there is no basis whatsoever to have an assessment vastly different in spirit (e.g. "generally unreliable" or deprecation). 3) Per Rosguill and Burrobert, insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, anyone who suggests otherwise should be regarded as in violation of WP:CIR; to add to Andrew Davidson's point, major U.S. newspapers (WaPo, NYT, USA Today, WSJ) played as propagandists to promote the false notion that Gaddafi was perpetrating large-scale state violence on yet another largely nonviolent "Arab Spring" revolution; as an example, the WaPo has no story on HC 119, which confirmed that the US/UK/France had made a false case to the UNSC for NATO intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  CaradhrasAiguo, I don't know that I'd say that insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, they just aren't the kind of promotion that affects our ability to use the source here because we shouldn't be basing claims on insinuations in any context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1-2 depending on the topic. For non-politically-controversial subjects (e.g. China opened _______ new train/subway line/road/some other building), it would be a reliable source. However, for some more controversial issues, it is reliable only for getting the Chinese government's view on the subject, as it is the official view of the Chinese government (e.g. The official Chinese government view on ______ subject, according to Xinhua, is "blah blah blah"). Félix An (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, just like for any other news agency. But this discussion is far too theoretical for my liking. Are we discussing something specific here? Is there a specific factual inaccuracy that we're evaluating? I haven't seen any examples in this thread of actual problems in Xinhua's reporting. I therefore propose that this thread be closed with no result. If someone has a question about a specific Xinhua article, they can bring it here to get input. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, an unreliable source as is typical for a state run outlet from a one party state which is consistently at or near the basement of press freedom rankings. Analogous cases include PressTV (which was deemed unreliable) and Telesur (which was deprecated) so I don't see why this source should be granted an exception. To grant an exception to Xinhua for the simple fact that it's a non-"Western" or non-European/Anglospheric source isn't going to cut the mustard. If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between its political vs non political reporting, then we can split the Xinhua source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. While there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. @Newslinger: and @My very best wishes: The two of you are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I would say (in my lay and non-expert capacity) that the comparison with TASS and I would even go so far as to say RUssia Today is misleading because: 1) Russia is a constitutional democracy and 2) the press freedom situation/ranking in Russia is significantly better than that in the People's Republic of China. At this point I would strongly recommend closing this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting given my comments and the tally of the votes above (11 votes for option 3/4 vs 6 votes for option 1 vs 5 votes for option 2 - I've disregarded option 2/3 votes to prevent bias.) Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Press TV (RSP entry) is a television network solely targeted to non-Iranians, which makes it the Iranian analogue of RT and China Global Television Network, but not TASS or Xinhua, which are news agencies that serve both domestic and international audiences. Telesur (RSP entry) is a single television network with plenty of competitors, whereas Xinhua (as a news agency) is the closest thing China has to an Associated Press or Reuters, complete with a news exchange agreement with Agence France-Presse as others have mentioned. Yes, China scores lowly on the Press Freedom Index, but there is more to a source's reliability than the country that it is based in, and even in countries with low press freedom, some sources are more reliable than others. Finally (and this applies to both comments above), RfC discussions are not solely assessed through vote-counting, and early closures are not performed unless there is overwhelming support for a single option and close to no support for the other options – which is not the case here. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that Xinhua can't be used for "political" topics would be the worst outcome, as it would substantiate editor fears that this discussion is being used to censor Chinese political viewpoints. Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, In some non-political news, this is still relatively reliable. But for news involving politics or controversy, just because it is the official release channel of the Communist Party of China, this means that it will be accompanied by its political needs to meet its interests. This may deviate from the objective facts.——Cwek (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, mostly per Cwek. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 01:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Xinhua is not just state owned, it is an integral part of the Chinese Communist Party. All information coming from Xinhua should be indicated in the text, not footnotes, of articles. It is a task for someone who actually knows something about China to figure out what is true and false, slanted or straight in a Xinhua article. It is not 4, which I would reserve for unprofessional, low grade conspiracist drivel. It is a professional propaganda unit of the world's largest Communist Party. It has many professional journalists, but its goals are set by the party, its writing is supervised and monitored by the party. Writing which is in any way inconsistent with party policy appears there only by accident, and will be punished. Accuracy is NOT its primary concern, except insofar as it serves the party's purposes. It can and often should be cited in China-related articles, but with clear indication of where the information came from. It should never be used for general information outside China! Why should it be when there are so many accurate and timely sources of information that are not part of the CCP? As for general information inside China, always check whether there are non-Xinhua sources available first. It should never be a default choice and special care in attribution should always be used. Rgr09 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, most of their news reports are reliable. Their political comments may be controversial in neutrality. --Steven Sun (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: So just to be clear. Are you saying we should split the evaluation of this source into its reporting on political vs non-political issues (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics? Because it seems like that's what you are saying. I am asking because of how similar your position is to mine, which is to close this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting Festerhauer (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn't split the discussion as we don't have an agreed-upon boundary yet. We do want to think carefully about how we delineate the topics for which Xinhua is considered unreliable, as POV pushers (in either direction) will wikilawyer every single word of the RSP entry to get it to say what they want it to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, a good source.--RuiyuShen 03:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1I think Xinhua News Agency is reliable. If you say it is non-neutral, then Fox News, CNN, Voice of America and other media also have non-neutral phenomena. For example, Fox News exaggerates Mr. Trump’s political achievements and CNN has fake news. Voice of America is not neutral in some matters, and my English is not very good, so use Google Translate, please understand!Jerry (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — 城市酸儒文人挖坑 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 1-2: Most of the time, Xinhua Net is a good source for Chinese news, even it is the best one in all nationwide news agency of China.--Xiliuheshui · chat 04:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, as I know it is serious and accurate when reporting the facts, and more neutral than RFI, VOA (especially when reporting China). Compared with NYT, BBC, it has less doubts, assumptions and implies which is trying to lead to conspiracys in its reports. Maybe you dont agree with its ideas for it has a Chinese offcial background, but it doesnt mean it is unaccurate when reporting the facts. --“ ROYAL PATROL ” ^{☎ 911} 04:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 when the reports is not about China's politics. KONNO Yumeto 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 and 2 - Xinhua is a reliable source with special considerations. This is pretty clear cut to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time citing their articles: they are more reliable than many national and international news providers, except on certain topics where there is an incentive to propagandize — and likewise for SCMP. Prohibiting either of these two would have completely unnecessary and wide-reaching consequences across the project, and I would strongly oppose a blanket restriction even on politics because there are dry, non-controversial political stories where they are literally the most reliable source tangible.   — C M B J   04:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - A lot of political decision/policy from China Mainland government and China Mainland NPC are published via Xinhua News Agency as official policy release channel, thus needed to be Option 1. For non-politically news, Xinhua News Agency is fairly reliable. For political decision articles that is not marked as "Official Release", they can be in the scope of option 2. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for controversial topics and international politics and Option 2 (situational source) for general topics. Per Newslinger ([136]) Flickotown (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, mostly per Newslinger. It is a state propaganda source, so must be used with caution and attribution except the most basic information, such as the dates of Xi's trips (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Xinhua is owned by the government of P.R. China and hence they are, or could be, biased when reporting around topics like China's international policy and so on. When reporting most of China's internal news, they are still pretty reliable. Itcfangye (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — Itcfangye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 2/3, it is a state propaganda source which should be used with great care.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Xinhua News Agency can be regarded as a relatively reliable media in China, and it is actually relatively neutral except for political reports. --⌬Yxh1433 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2-4 depending on subject. Like RT is a state propaganda mouthpiece. For boring insider baseball it is probably fine. The more the CCP dislikes something or needs spin, the less likely it is to be reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 depending on topic. I came here wanting to argue 2/3 but was convinced by the arguments that (a) RT is in category 4 and (b) actually I have never written about any topic for which Xinhua was a reliable source I depended on - for topics about Mainland Chinese culture and events there are more specialist sources; for anything vaguely political they're firmly in category 3+. Deryck C. 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. As an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, use should be attributed by default, which is how their reporting is generally handled in reliable sources I've seen. Reporters Without Borders calls it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" and "at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party". Some straight news and the fact that independent original reporting from China is hard or impossible to come by for certain topics doesn't make it reliable. I think this is most important when considering due weight – if other sources don't cover something they've said, we shouldn't either, and if they do, we should be able to cite those sources instead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for most cases, while Option 4 for global news/politics of regional/global concern . It should be generally reliable in local (China) news, but when it comes to global or regional news, like that in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even that in Xinjiang, it becomes a propaganda service rather than a global news service. I can't agree with what most Chinese editors think of putting it a direct option 1 because it is the official mouthpiece of China. Being a mouthpiece means some reliable sources for news related to the location, but at the same time, can raise doubt of neutrality and factuality if the thing that they report is of global concern that doesn't align with the country's values.--1233 ( T / C） 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is state-run media, how about Yonhap, Tanjug, Anadolu Agency? If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is communist country media, how about VNA, KPL, Prensa Latina? As for Covid-19's source, Xinhua is just quoting rumors on social medias, just like some media (including US-based) said Covid-19 originated in a Wuhan Institute of Virology. I think Xinhua is generally reliable as a news broadcaster, though its political words and opinions are left-wing. 隐世高人 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of those would indeed also be unreliable. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe of all the sources you just named Yonhap is the only one we hold to be generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So what about Antara, MTI, CNA, they are all generally unreliable as state-run media? 隐世高人 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Antara is complicated and has changed massively over the last three decades. I’ve discussed MTI before and its a middling source but their issues seem to be with selective coverage and boosting of the governing political party there not disinformation. By CNA do you mean Taiwan’s or North Korea’s? I wouldn’t consider either to be of top quality but Taiwan’s CNA would be a solid 2. State media as a category is not inherently reliable or unreliable, its a very diverse group of sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh jeez pete Singapore’s is CNA too isn't it? I would say they’re also a two, they generally produce higher quality journalism than Taiwan’s CNA but Singapore’s press environment and freedoms are inferior to Taiwan’s. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

When you ignoring Xinhua's left-wing words and opinions which makes it nonneutrality, Xinhua would be generally reliable. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - we should exercise caution regarding all news sources, particularly state-owned sources when it's political, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, and WP:RSBREAKING while keeping in mind that the paradigm shift from print publication to digital online has made once trusted news sources dependent on clickbait revenue and sensational headlines in a highly competitive cyber environment. Also to consider are the nuanced changes in journalism today which is an opaque blending of opinion journalism and factual information in the same article (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Op-Ed for links) which creates media spin and makes it difficult for the average reader to distinguish between the two. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Pretty obvious. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• 'Option 2' It depends on thetopic. For topics of current controversy where the Chinese government had a particular contested opinion, then Option 3. For routine news,Option 1. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 mostly per Hemiauchenia. It is a government news outlet, and in China there is no practical difference between the party and the state. However, Xinhua's articles skew straight reportage rather than publications outright designed to be party propaganda like People's Daily or Global Times. I would trust Xinhua for e.g. statistics of airports in China. feminist (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I find Hemiauchenia's opinion reasonable. wikitigresito (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - Per Newslinger, because it makes sense to still have a Chinese source for inside China stories. Albertkaloo (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Xinhua's reporting in many underdeveloped news markets is sometimes the only source available online, owing to their global footprint. I don't see any case made for why all of Xinhua's reporting should be presumed bad. [MBFC also rates it mixed. --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI Ad Fontes Media and their media bias fact check are not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ad Fontes Media. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) and Ad Fontes Media (RSP entry) are separate entitites fyi, though they are often mentioned together. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, I’m confusing AFM’s Media Bias Chart with Media Bias Fact Check (shame on me but those are awfully similar). I don’t believe that either is reliable though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Object to form of RfC - based on the lack of a succinct question. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  The RfC statement meets WP:RFCBRIEF and this RfC format has been recommended since Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6 § RfC: Header text. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 - I am fimiliar with their work, especially in the field of foreign policy when I was researching the Syrian Civil War. Their publications on the topic tended to be accurate, well-informed and corroborated by other news outlets. Furthermore, as another editor noted, they have a cooperation agreement with AFP, which is considered a very trustworthy reputable news agency. Xinhua is state-run media, which could mean editorial viewpoints in line with those of their respective government, but most of their work lacks any serious issues. As long as their reports continue to be accurate, I do not believe that their state-run status ought to be cause enough for a deprecation. For these reasons, I opine that they ought to remain an acceptible source, though may require attribution in cases in which their status as a state-run outlet could be problematic. Goodposts (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-3: Xinhua News Agency is a big news agency, and its reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. Xinhua inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think Xinhua should be split into multiple entries in the Perennial sources list when it gets added there:

Option 1 for all African and Central/South American topics per MarioGom. The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (and to a lesser extent Central/South America); in these regions, Xinhua has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. Specifically, I should note that English-language reporting in Africa is relatively scarce and Xinhua does help to somewhat plug this void of African-based reporting. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, there will definitely be a pro-China bias, but I don't know if this bias affects their reliability for such cases).

Option 2 for all other general topics per Newslinger and Hemiauchenia not covered above or below. From here on citing Xinhua should preferably (but not mandatory) be used together with in-text attribution. Topics that fall into this category include some European topics (i.e Eastern Europe), Oceania topics, South-east Asian topics (except South China Sea), South Asian topics (except the China-India border), the Middle East, etc. For such topics, Xinhua is generally useable, but if other sources are available, cite those sources in addition to the Xinhua article being cited.

Option 3 for all topics where China is involved/has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and some European topics (i.e Western Europe), the politics of East Asia, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. For such topics, Xinhua can be used for the viewpoints of the Chinese government; outside of that, other sources should be used instead. Citing Xinhua for these topics should use in-text attribution.

Per Newslinger, I don't think Xinhua should be deprecated given that it is the "gold standard" of Chinese reporting. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You might want to clarify what you mean by "where China is involved". As I explained in my !vote above, I consider Xinhua most reliable for Chinese inside baseball and routine reporting of uncontroversial events that don't rise to international prominence (where Chinese sources are often the only ones available). And since China is one of the biggest investors in Africa, I'm sure the CCP has certain politicians it favors, so I'm not sure it is that great for covering African politics. If Xinhua reports on any international news that isn't covered in other media, that's very suspicious. So for me Xinhua is primarily a source for Chinese domestic matters which are not highly political in nature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Xinhua)

Pinging participants of the last discussion @SwissArmyGuy:, @Newslinger:, @MarioGom:, @Horse Eye Jack:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If there is consensus that Xinhua is generally unreliable, we would need to re-evaluate the reliability of the Global Times (RSP entry), a Breitbart-like tabloid (except state-owned and pro-CCP) that could not possibly be more reliable than Xinhua. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Definitely. If Xinhua is deprecated then almost every single news outlet in mainland China would have to be deprecated. Xinhua is the only publication in mainland China with a news exchange agreement with AFP, for instance. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua. The other government sources are worse and the “independent” sources don’t exist for our purposes as they only re-write and republish content from the government sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Every news source should be evaluated on its own merits. Blanket banning of sources from entire countries is a very bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not a blanket ban if theres an exception. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that your proposal would mean banning Caixin, which as far as I can tell, does excellent reporting. During the outbreak in Wuhan, for example, it published articles that revealed a lot of previously unknown information about the initial phases of the outbreak and the initial government response. These articles were fairly critical of the government. This is just to illustrate that a blanket ban on an entire country's news sources is misguided. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal investigative reporting does not exist in China in a way which would be recognized in the west, what does occur is illegal. Like all other non-government media organizations Caixin is banned from doing independent investigative journalism and primarily publishes rewrites of stories from state media, sometimes they do add their own reporting to these stories but thats not what people in a free country would consider investigative journalism. The problem here is Chinese law, not the companies themselves. If the law changes then we can reconsider. See media in China for more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think to add to Horse Eye's statement is I believe exposing stuff on local governments is allowed by the CCP in China but not on the CCP leadership and nor the central government. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats very true, within China the media plays an important role in exposing and/or scapegoating local and regional officials for major problems/corruption to deflect from or obfuscate the failings of higher officials or the CCP. Its much more a kangaroo court of public opinion than what we would recognize as genuine muckraking though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan, contrary to your blanket statement. More generally, their articles appear to be mostly original content - not reprinted from government media. We should evaluate every news source on its own merits. Deprecating every news source from China, without looking at them one-by-one, would be wrong-headed. You appear to have some very strong preconceptions about Chinese news sources, but the statements you're making about Caixin are just factually incorrect. Political dislike of China by some editors should not trump WP:RS policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: If Caixin's reporting was focused on the wrongdoing of the Wuhan municipal government I could see the CCP let them do that, but one would not expect Caixin to do "independent investigative reporting" on the CCP highest leadership. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan” source? That would mean they broke Chinese law btw, there is no dispute here that independent journalism as we would recognize it in the free world is illegal in China. China is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to press freedom, they make the Russians look good in comparison. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Caixin does good investigative reporting, as proven by their coverage on Wuhan ([137]), but because you assert that their reporting is actually illegal in China, you want to ban their use on Wikipedia. Where's the logic in that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed the part about investigative reporting, is there a specific quote you have in mind? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the Caixin article I linked? It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known, before the article was published (29 February 2020). Caixin learned this information by talking to people directly on the ground - for example, at labs that had tested samples. This is the sort of high-quality reporting that you're saying should be barred from use on Wikipedia, simply because it comes from China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I did read the article, however if I want to read it again I must subscribe. Thats why I’m asking for specific quotes. I also noticed you havent responded to the much meatier comment below. Are all those WP:RS lying? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The whole article is here at archive.is. I'll see if I can get one on Megalodon. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m not seeing a level of information here that would allow us to discern whether or not "It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known.” We need a third party to deliver that analysis. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Every statement in the article that begins with something along the lines of, "Caixin has learned that ..." is based on Caixin's original reporting. There are many such statements throughout the article. For example, almost all the details about how the first patients were discovered to have a novel coronavirus was uncovered by Caixin, by talking with its sources (including people at the testing labs). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you know that? I also wonder how you can argue that their board is independent given their Chairman’s affiliation, you do know who he answers to right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is almost no media freedom or editorial independence in China, per the BBC "Most Chinese news sites are prohibited from gathering or reporting on political or social issues themselves, and are instead meant to rely on reports published by official media, such as state news agency Xinhua.” and media outlets are shut down for doing independent reporting. Most indipendent media outlets have been forced to shut their doors and the few that remain publish under heavy state supervision and control. Xi Jinping has stated that Chinese state media are “publicity fronts” for the CCP/government and that “All news media run by the Party must work to speak for the Party’s will and its propositions and protect the Party’s authority and unity,” (Xinhua translation) Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: how we have not deprecated Global Times is beyond me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Then start a vote for it. No sarc when I say this, but it should be a guaranteed deprecation given the reputation of that publication/Communist Party rag Festerhauer (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The last time it was up for discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Global Times I made my views clear, it wasn’t a RfC so a formal deprecation wasn’t on the table. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Err...so do you want to start an RFC on it or do you want me to? It's better if you did as I'm not familiar with the procedures of rsn. And while we are at it maybe open an RFC on CGTN as well? I mean we might as well given what we have discussed here...Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe in starting RfCs from whole cloth, I prefer it to be a specific incident which is escalated here. We don’t want to clutter the space. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Festerhauer See Global Times RfC below. It is used in more than a thousand articles, so better deprecate sooner rather than later, imo. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

buidhe we might as well do CGTN too as its between Xinhua and Global Times in reliability, that would be our direct analogue to RT. They also publish straight up disinformation like this gem: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020. I suggest you do as they say and "Click the video to find who's spinning a lie for the audience.” [138] TBH this one video is probably grounds for deprecation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the votes in the TASS discussion were for option 3, yet it wasn't found to be generally unreliable. I think DannyS712 did an excellent job closing that discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between Xinhua's political vs non political reporting, then we can split the source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. The thread above shows that while there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We are only two days into this RfC, and RfCs on this noticeboard are open until there are no new comments in five days, with a minimum duration of seven days. An uninvolved closer will assess the consensus here. It is premature to make such an assessment when the discussion is still highly active. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Well I would have to respectfully disagree with what you've said. Based on what's written above I just don't see my assessment as being premature. There is near universal consensus that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics and that needs to be reflected in the final consensus; you don't need to look any further than all the comments that have been made after our above exchange (Cwek, Eric Liu, Rgr09 and Steven Sun). Their voting options may be different but they all agree on one thing: that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics. You are right when you say that the discussion is highly active but tahat doesn't mean we can't draw stable conclusions in the interim. And you are also right when you say that we ourselves will not be determining the consensus, but of course our contributions are still important as they help determine the consensus. Could you comment on my point above to split Xinhua's source between its political vs non political reporting (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics accordingly? Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Sixth Tone (RSP entry) split would also be appropriate for Xinhua, and I had made a note under my original comment in the survey section referencing Turkey's Anadolu Agency (which is treated similarly) after you submitted your previous comment. Yes, many editors who have already participated in the discussion agree that Xinhua is less reliable for politics, but there are still at least five more days in this centralized RfC, and the consensus could very well shift in either direction. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please participate in this discussion regarding the interpretation of WP:Biased. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just to mention that someone placed a link to this page on Chinese wiki's village pump, with an inaccurate claim that "enwp proposes to list Xinhua New Agency as an unreliable or deprecated source" (while this is actually an discussion on reliability-related issues), before the surges of editors with little experience here. --Antigng (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Antigng: Except that is exactly what Adoring nanny is setting out to do, considering this previous post of theirs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually quite impressed that nobody has yet been able to show an example of Xinhua's reporting being factually inaccurate. I came into this assuming that there very well could be problems with Xinhua's accuracy. But all of the criticism has been entirely theoretical - that Xinhua must be unreliable, because of its connection to the Chinese government. But the inability of Xinhua's detractors here to actually present real examples in which Xinhua's reporting has been unreliable has convinced me that the news agency is probably generally reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: With reference to our article Xinhua News Agency, it was easy to find:

• Dodds, Laurence (2020-04-05). "China floods Facebook with undeclared coronavirus propaganda ads blaming Trump". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on April 6, 2020. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
• Zhong, Raymond; Krolik, Aaron; Mozur, Paul; Bergman, Ronen; Wong, Edward (2020-06-08). "Behind China's Twitter Campaign, a Murky Supporting Chorus". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
• Kan, Michael (August 19, 2019). "Twitter Bans State-Sponsored Media Ads Over Hong Kong Propaganda". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
• Doffman, Zak (August 19, 2019). "China Pays Twitter To Promote Propaganda Attacks On Hong Kong Protesters". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
• Lakshmanan, Ravie (2019-08-19). "China is paying Twitter to publish propaganda against Hong Kong protesters". The Next Web. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.

Doubtless older resources could be found for less topical matters. GPinkerton (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You posted a bunch of links about China. Do you have anything about Xinhua? I'm asking for actual examples that demonstrate Xinhua's supposed unreliability, not a litany of complaints about the PRC in general. If there are real concerns behind this attempt to deprecate Xinhua, other than general dislike of China, then there should be some specific examples you can give in which Xinhua's reporting is unreliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: All the articles I listed detail Xinhua, the agency which has been spreading and amplifying misinformation it wrote for the purpose at the behest of its superiors. The headlines mention China, the actual articles describe Xinhua malfeasance in China's service. GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your links show neither "malfeasance" nor "misinformation" by Xinhua. The first link only mentions Xinhua once, and doesn't actually point out any instance of inaccuracy or misinformation in Xinhua's reporting. The second article, from the New York Times, only mentions Xinhua to link to a humorous video they posted on Twitter. I don't think anyone is proposing treating tweets as news articles. I'm sorry, but at this point, you either show actual examples of misinformation printed by Xinhua, or you admit that you can't find any. Decisions on WP:RS have to be based on real facts, not on political dislike of one or another country. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried taking a peak in the local references section? It doesnt appear you have, why go nuclear on GPinkerton when you havent done your due diligence? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda by Xinhua, among other state-sponsored channels Chinese and no, is analysed here:

• Ma, Cindy. "Coronavirus Coverage by State-Backed English-Language News Sources". The Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
• Ma, Cindy. "Covid-19 News and Information from State-Backed Outlets Targeting French, German and Spanish-Speaking Social Media Users". The Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved 2020-08-06.

by the Oxford Internet Institute. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I opened the PC Magazine link, and it is a typically incoherent mess and hack job, stating on the one hand In response, Twitter told PCMag it removed the ad cited by Pinboard for violating its ad policies on inappropriate content, which bans advertisements that can be considered inflammatory, provocative, or as political campaigning. Twitter also appears to have removed many other ads Xinhua was promoting concerning the Hong Kong protests., while, in the next paragraph, It isn't the first time a state-run news agency has been accused of spreading misinformation via Twitter ads. Well, which is it? Inflammatory / provocative / political campaigning, or outright "misinformation", for which they provided no evidence of Xinhua itself (and not random accounts) engaging in? Inclusion of tangential links, as Thucydides mentioned, to bait discussion elsewhere is not a sign of good-faith discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean stuff like this is clearly lie by omission. Like TASS, it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interview with a Chinese government official, in which all views are properly attributed to that official - just as we expect reliable sources to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• "it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics". Here is the problem: with sources like that you never know if this is really a personal opinion by a state official or a scripted disinformation he was asked to promote, and you do not know if this is something really "non-contentious" or this is a "kernel of disinformation" about something you know little about. such tactics are generally well known [139]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Like this kernel of disinformation put out by gov't official, broadcast by Xinhua: [140]. Or: this bland propagandizing or this. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As Comrade J said, 98% of information would be accurate. Only 2% would be the "kernel of disinformation". But you never know which 2%. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

1. It's perfectly legitimate to report what Chinese officials say. 2. Nothing in that first link is "disinformation." It's a short statement by a government official complaining about anti-Chinese sentiment in the US. You appear to be upset about the idea that a news outlet might actually report on the views of Chinese officials. This is a global encyclopedia, and reporting on the views of Chinese officials is just as important as reporting on the views of American officials here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• A concrete lie by Xinhua I've seen repeated statements in the RfC that Xinhua doesn't lie, they are just selective. I'd like to point to a counterexample. In this article[141], Kaiser Abdukerim is described as an "expert." The remainder of the article consists mainly of quotes from Kaiser. The choice of word "expert" is therefore crucial in framing how the reader understands the article. And Xinhua introduced that word. The article then goes on to describe his reaction to various "statistics" about death rates, poverty rates, the "happiness index", and so in in Xinjiang. These "statistics" all claim to show dramatic improvements. But the Xinjiang re-education camps hold a large number of people who are utterly destitute, die with considerable regularity, and are surely unhappy.[142] A true expert would notice that the "statistics" could not possibly be correct. For example, it is not plausible that there is a death rate of only 4.26 per thousand in a region where a significant portion of the population is held in such camps. Therefore, Xinhua should not have used the term "expert" to describe Kaiser Abdukerim. But it's actually worse than that. A quick control-F shows that they use the word four times -- once in the headline, and three times in the body. So they are hammering the usage home. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: Re: the CNN link, using one verified death (of the infant Mohaned) and a former detainee's spurious claim of deaths of fellow detainees is hardly solid evidence, and your die with considerable regularity extrapolation is thus WP:SOAP-violating nonsense. There are numerous examples of former detainees fabricating stories of physical abuse; e.g. that of Sayragul Sauytbay, who witnessed no violence in her facility(ies), per reporting from Aug 2018, yet in Oct 2019 "reporting", somehow was disrobed and violated in front of 200 inmates. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per CNN: But Tursun's story of detention and torture -- which she also delivered in full to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in 2018 -- fits a growing pattern of evidence emerging about the systematic repression of religious and ethnic minority groups carried out by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Those are CNN's words, not mine. Based on what do you conclude that her account is "spurious"? See also [143]. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your initial strongest claim above was large number of people who...die with considerable regularity. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I am not going to allow a shifting the goalposts. And as with the Nayirah testimony, yes, people do perjure themselves in human rights testimony to U.S. congressional institutions. And please stop the WP:SHOUTING. There are templates such as {{tq}} which can allow for emphasis in quoting.
• Just for the record, I don't contest the "destitute" part for many detainees who feel utter emptiness in the facilities. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Toned down the bolding. You are arguing that nine deaths in a single cell does not support "considerable regularity"? What about this? [144] I am still interested in your assertion that the nine deaths statement is "spurious". Based on what? Does evidence that one person lied support an assertion that a different person lied? Or do you have something more? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You're citing "Radio Free Asia," a US-government-funded outlet established explicitly in order to oppose the Chinese government. Even if we believe the article, it claims that 150 people died, which would not have much of an effect on overall mortality in the region (Xinjiang has a population of over 20 million). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Adding why there are so much Chinese users flocking to this place: someone posted in the Chinese Wikipedia that enwp tried to label Xinhua as unreliable when this is clearly a RfC. Then, these people who basically ruined the Chinese Wikipedia's discussion atmosphere of sensitive topics, flocked here to defend the news agency. They are mostly Chinese and seems to be linked to a working group (which called themselves a User Group) Wikimedians of Mainland China. BTW, this vote sea have been seen in the Chinese Wikipedia at admin votes and some other issues, but it is really another story. Back to this story: there should really be a separation of columns and news articles of Xinhua, where can be seen below:

User:1233's opinion on Xinhua News Agency (and all other agencies with communist influence in China)

Content related to:	Opinion	News Story
China, excluding Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan	Normally Reliable	Reliable (considering this is a government mouthpiece)
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, South China Sea	Proceed with caution, may contain disinformation	Mostly contain disinformation, while in some cases, such level can be considered as fake news
East Asia (Japan, the two Koreas)	Normally Reliable	Proceed with caution, may contain discinformation
South and Southeast Asia	Normally Reliable	Proceed with strong caution, especially related to South China Sea
Africa	Be careful, but mostly Reliable	Reliable, but proceed with caution in news reports about clashes as it may be sided
Other regions with a positive Chinese presence (e.g. Pakistan)	Mostly reliable	Mostly Reliable
Other regions with a negative Chinese presence (e.g. USA)	No comment on opinion	Beware of disinformation, though news tips from Xinhua (and other CCP-controlled media) would mostly be considered ok and could supplement an article in a positive side.

--1233 ( T / C） 15:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• That is interesting. Note to closer: people living in mainland china who don't want to be blacklisted, arrested, or otherwise punished, may not feel free to write something bad about CCP organizations such as Xinhua. People living in China are subject to punishments up to and including disappearance for expressing the "wrong" opinions.[145] See also [Ren Zhiqiang]. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Its actually a bit more pervasive than that... Its any Chinese citizen anywhere in the world, there is a portal maintained by the Chinese Communist Party's Cyberspace Administration which allows users overseas to report Chinese citizens committing political crimes (they can even report them by just their username and the CCP will investigate who is actually behind that account). In July they handles 95,000 reports and thats just for political crimes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: It looks like you're telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Have I misunderstood you here? @Horse Eye Jack: Do you agree with Adoring nanny's suggestion? This is really beyond the pale, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your assertion of what Adoring nanny’s comment does, advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern is not the same as telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Do you disagree with the characterization of the nature of political crimes in China or the Cyberspace Administration's online portal? I doubt the Sydney Morning Herald is making that up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the practical distinction between "advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern" about Chinese editors and "discount[ing] the views of Chinese editors." Anyone can see what Adoring nanny is asking the closer to do - to treat the Chinese editors as if their votes are based on fear of their government, and therefore to ignore them. I don't see any other plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Failure to WP:AGF would be unwise, I’ve already given you another plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. That you don’t see a distinction between them is your opinion, I see a very large distinction and you need to respect that. Also consensus isn't about votes, wikipedia (like China) isn't a democracy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Spell out the distinction: how should the closer take this legal concern into account? If the implication isn't that the closer should discount the opinions of Chinese editors, then what is it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about that issue that needs to be had. But on this RfC, it's a distraction, so I've struck much of my comment. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References (Xinhua)

References

J Station X

Over on Hades (video game), an IP editor has been inserting a claim that certain characters in the video game are LGBT+. While the claims are supported in-game, I am questioning if the source from which this information was taken from and cited, J Station X, is considered reliable. The "About" page mentions that the site was founded in 2010 by one person, Jasmine Henry, and that [o]ver the years, J Station X has evolved from just an echo chamber of video game content and now focuses on bringing [readers] news, previews and reviews about games that are inclusive of people of all identities. Emphasis in original. There do not seem to be any other people managing or contributing to this site except for a graphic designer named Sophie. The generated content appears to be written professionally, but the solitary contributor makes it seem more like a blog. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• @Tenryuu: Hi, it's not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as a reliable or unreliable source so it may be worthwhile asking the Wiki Project Video Games to assess it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA

At User talk:Normal Op#PETA (permalink here), I stated the following to Normal Op: "Regarding edits like this and this, where was it deemed that PETA is unreliable? Even if it was the case that PETA falls under 'questionable sources', WP:About self applies."

And, well, you can see Normal Op's reply. In response, I stated, "This isn't about me wanting to use PETA. I am not a PETA advocate. It's about you removing PETA when the source is being used to report on their own activities, such as whatever celebrity appeared in their PSA or whatever celebrity they gave an award to."

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• If it's not covered by a third party source, it's not WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The policies/guidelines in play are WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:CHALLENGE. Yesterday, I laid out my case in detail for exactly this sort of edit (though using a non-PETA advocacy group as an example) at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Activist editors ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE. — Normal Op (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, a salient point: don't make decisions about sources on Wikipedia based on MBFC, which we don't consider a reliable source. Including it in Cite Unseen seems questionable if the goal is as a guide to what Wikipedia considers reliable. That said, mention of a non-notable award (any non-notable award) and citing only the issuing organization is going to be WP:UNDUE. There is no reliability issue, though, as PETA is a perfectly fine source for who it gave its own award to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed... the problem ISN’T reliability (an organization is reliable for saying that it gave an award to person X, per ABOUTSELF)... the problem is DUE WEIGHT (why should we mention that the organization gave the award to person X). Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my concern was the editor removing the source with an "unreliable" rationale when the source was being used to report on PETA's own activities. As for mentioning that certain celebrities have appeared in PETA's PSAs, have been given PETA awards, or whatever else? PETA is the most well-known American animal rights organization and gets plenty of media attention, such as its "Sexiest Vegan" list, as reported on by Elle. So, yeah, if a reliable media source reports on something going on with them, it may be worth mentioning per WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The ASPCA is the most well-known American animal rights organization and if PETA gets plenty of attention then there is no need to use the unreliable PETA for anything at all as anything relevant will be covered by WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we'd need to compare sources on which organization is the most well-known. But as for "unreliable"? Like others stated above, its reliability isn't the issue regarding these cases. It's reliable for its own activities as long as it's not making a statement that would require a secondary source for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

”Its own activities” is a near universal category... Do you mean they would be reliable for their own non-controversial activities such as awards and whatnot? For instance if they call the conviction of one of their activists a “miscarriage of justice” would we then state in wikipedia’s voice that it was so? Surely thats not what you are suggesting. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going by what WP:About self states. Simple. Rhododendrites and Blueboar are clear above. And so is WP:About self. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To give a more practical example that I could see with PETA, let's say the NYtimes mentions a celeb did a visually-interesting promo for PETA, and PETA has a blog statement that gets into details about the shoot with the celeb, some that would be worthwhile encyclopedic info in talking about the shoot in the celebrities page that the NYTimes mention didn't discuss. The fact the NYTimes mentioned the celeb's shoot with PETA would be the needed allowance to use PETA's blog to talk about its own shoot with the celeb for the facts of that shoot and nothing more. If no source otherwise mentioned the shoot, then we'd not be able to use PETA's blog here for lack of weight. (obviously how much of that blog to use in light of the NYTimes would still be tempered, shouldn't be paragraphs-long inclusion). --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements. We should be clear on that. We should also be clear that in articles other than PETA, it should generally not be used, per WP:UNDUE. The comparison with the ASPCA is a valid one. If the ASPCA publishes an article with statistics on, say, prevalence of abandonment of pet alligators, or cases of dogs dyiong ion hot cars, that is probably acceptable, because the ASPCA, while it certianly has activist tendencies, is not in the end an activist organisation, its main activity is animal welfare, whereas PETA is about animal rights. But this isn't really about PETA, it's more about awards and accolades, which is a broader problem. Most "awards" handed out by groups, especially activist groups, are awarded in order to promote the group rather than to recognise some worthy individual. It's a form of the association fallacy: by associating PETA with Justin Bieber, thus parity is asserted between the two. Perhaps we are supposed to think that PETA is popular with pre-teen girls or something, I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, association fallacy is the reason why celebrity branding is so effective in advertising. Good catch, Guy. Normal Op (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • * There are 400 articles in Wikipedia that use citations or links to website peta.org. Most of them are celebrity articles. Check just a few and you will see how the celebrity branding is being used by PETA to advertise and legitimize their message. There are hundreds more than 400 if you count the other domains petaindia.com (35), peta2.com (115), petaasiapacific.com (17), peta.org.uk (46), peta.de (18, English), peta.de (138, German), petafrance.com (25, French), peta.nl (1, English), peta.nl (3, Dutch), peta.org.au (6), petaasia.com (7), petaasia.cn (3, Chinese), petalatino.com (6, English), petalatino.com (6, Spanish), and there are others. Normal Op (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

      Ouch! I would just get rid of any use of PETA on a celebrity wikipage for WP:DUE, WP:NOTADVOCACY reasons. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on it, but then I get blowback, like this RSN. But it's all good, because that puts it in the open and gets other wiki-pinions. Maybe this thread can forestall the other 400 edit wars others will start as I begin to strip those 400 citations. Come join the project? Normal Op (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy says, "PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements." And yet I see that Normal Op removed PETA as a source for its own statements and positions at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in July and is now back at it. Purging going on. I'm not stating that one should not ideally rely on secondary sources, though. No article about an organization should be mostly built on sources by that organization.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also applies in this case. Using PETA for things that are vegetarian/vegan in the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, for example, is fine.

As for supposed blowback, I was very clear about why I brought this matter here. And others have agreed with me about reliability and a source being used for its own activities...but not using the source for things that would require a secondary citation for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that reliability isn’t the only policy in play here. It does not matter whether PETA is reliable as a source for a statement about its own activity if some other policy indicates that we should not mention that activity. It’s a moot question. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:About self has already been cited more than once in this discussion. If WP:About self, WP:Due weight and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS are followed, there should be no problem. Reliability isn't the only guideline in play here, but it is one of them the rules in play. If we are going to deem PETA unreliable for anything but its own activities and statements, as long as those statements don't run afoul WP:About self, we might as well go ahead do that. Turn this discussion into an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a general RfC on PETA is needed, since most people seem to agree that PETA is only citable via WP:ABOUTSELF; the disagreement is over what exact claims are self-serving or not. In general I feel we ought to avoid citing selfsource'd mission statements in the lead as often as we do, since they're often unduly self-serving, especially for controversial organizations or ones with a generally negative reputation. If that mission statement is taken seriously by anyone or is seen as a meaningful way to understand the organization, it ought to have at least some secondary coverage; if it does not, it's WP:UNDUE to focus on it, and potentially even actively misleading if the overwhelming thrust of coverage describes the subject differently. "The Death Cyborg Army says their mission is to bring peace and stability to earth" isn't a reasonable way to start an article if they're the only ones saying it about themselves and nobody else takes it seriously enough to even cover that claim. --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that going with an RfC is best. We have people debating the reliability of PinkNews above and giving it more leeway than a source like PETA...despite the fabricated news reporting PinkNews has engaged in. So RfC started below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the PETA question

The example Flyer22 Frozen gives is a very narrow example, and I feel the above answers have already covered it well. However, a lot of these peta.org blurbs that I'm finding inserted into BLP articles say extra stuff like "So-and-so is an animal rights advocate" or "So-and-so supports PETA" when there are no other mentions about animal rights or PETA in the biography and the only citation is directly off PETA's website. In this case, I feel strongly that these three Wiki policies/guidelines apply.

1. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
2. WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
3. WP:BLPSOURCES: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Opinions? — Normal Op (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA is a source for information about itself that is in controversial. Anything that might be seen as self serving (such as membership) is should not be used for.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If the public figure has given an exclusive interview to PETA or otherwise told PETA that they are an animal rights advocate, etc., as has happened in the past, using PETA as a source for that is fine. But using an additional source or a different source to report on that matter, similar to a different source being used in the Mariah Carey article to report on a PETA award she received, is also an option. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

1. PETA isn't a questionable source. The organization promotes the idea of ethical treatment of animals. Hardly an extremist position in the Western world. 2. If we take this to the extreme, the official site for Premier League could not be used as a source for who won the league because it's a self-published source and involves a claim about a third party - the team that won. 3. I think one should look at what the claim is. A celebrity winning a PETA prize is mundane and uncontroversial. The likelihood that it is true is overwhelming. It is not the same as a claim that someone was awarded a prestigious prize from the International Holocaust Denial Society. ImTheIP (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an advocacy group that exists to promote a specific viewpoint, which is contested (most people in the world are not vegans). I have trouble seeing that it is WP:DUE on high profile articles like Justin Bieber, where reams of independent, reliable sources exist. (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, yes it is. It's an activist group with a fringe perspective ("meat is murder"). Guy (help! - typo?) 11:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a more important question here is whether or not the content is DUE. It might be notable if the article was about a member of PETA who set fire to a car because it had leather seats, or if they threw paint all over a woman who was wearing a mink coat, or something else notable. Just belonging to PETA is no different from being a member of any other advocacy or organization - do our readers care, is it relevant in the grand scheme of that BLP's life, and does it pass WP:10YT? I'd be more inclined to challenge that content per WP:NOTADVOCACY. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

But if it is true (idk) that PETA has a fringe perspective, then it becomes more notable, not less, who they award their prizes to. Consider again the fictitious International Holocaust Denial Society. If they give an award to X it is relevant to know how X responds. Whether he or she repudiates the prize, declines to comment or warmly accepts it. Though, of course, you would need strong third party sources to verify that the prize is a real thing and not just some publicity stunt/attention grab.ImTheIP (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: They're all publicity stunts using celebrity branding techniques; or as Guy pointed out above, an association fallacy. Here are 400 publicity stunts by PETA mentioned in Wikipedia. One of their publicity stunts is naming people "Sexiest vegan", or "PETA's person of the year". There is no "acceptance" to refuse. Hollywood celebrities take all the news and attention they can get; it helps their career. Actors are not really free to turn down advertising gigs or endorsements by anyone as their careers are often short-lived. Normal Op (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, a lot of things are publicity stunts and there is no Wikipedia rule against describing successful publicity stunts. There are lots of organizations handing out awards to celebrities and other famous persons. I see no harm in mentioning who has won major PETA awards.ImTheIP (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This article has recently been created Jackie Kearney and mentions a PETA vegan award. Are mentions of these awards not aloud on biographies from now on? If this is the consensus then this should be publicized better because users are going to keep creating articles linking to PETA or adding the PETA website as a source to existing biographies. Should it be added to this list [146] and get a ruling? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Whether their views are fringe or not isn't really the problem (well, it introduces an additional problem if they are, but none of the cites that I saw were to obviously fringe material, so that's not the issue.) The issues are that first, PETA doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (hence, they're not an WP:RS, making what we can use them for very narrow); second, many of the claims are potentially self-serving given that the organization is controversial and they're basically saying "look at all the good / uncontroversial stuff we do" or "look how important we are"; and third, if it's WP:DUE it ought to be covered in a secondary / independent source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor stripping PETA from any and everywhere

I'm sorry, but looking at Normal Op's latest contributions, all I see is an editor yanking PETA from any and everywhere based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. All I see is an editor with a serious anti-vegetarian and anti-veganism angle to his edits. This editor is not taking WP:CONTEXTMATTERS into consideration whatsoever when it comes to this topic. As seen at Talk:Sia (musician)#Undue advocacy content in this article, where he was challenged by Ssilvers, Jack1956, Somambulant1 and SchroCat (permalink here), Normal Op has argued against use of PETA, pointing to this thread as justification, as if this thread has ruled that PETA is unreliable. As seen here, he removed the following from a section titled "Activism": "Albarrán became a vegetarian after seeing a documentary about slaughterhouses and remained as such for around 25 years, until making the transition to veganism. He has participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights." Oh, so we can't use PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan, and/or that they participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights? What? Just like we may use sports sources to report on someone being an athlete, or LGBT sources to report on someone being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we can use PETA to report on someone being vegetarian or vegan, especially when it's a significant part of that person's life and they specifically told PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. PETA is a perfectly good source for reporting that someone participated in a PETA event. Based on Normal Op's bullying at Sia (musician) I removed the PETA sources, but I think his argument was wrong. He is still edit warring to delete the mention of animal rights advocacy at Sia's tour Nostalgic for the Present Tour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA is an advocacy group , so if it is the only source reporting on a person's support for animal rights, that can be seen as promotional and should be removed. Same would be true for GLAAD regrading one's sexuality. I'd argue that a sports team talking about an athlete is a far different relationship as that's a professional one and not advocacy. But that said, once other sources have talked about the person's animal rights activities from a third-party, it seems fair to use PETA to add more info that third-parties do not give, as now it does not give the feeling of advocacy. Care still must be taken to not make the added material look like advocacy for the group. --Masem (t) 05:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: There is no edit warring by me. However, there seems to be a bunch of other editors who have jumped on the anti-advocacy bandwagon in the last 24 hours and are either removing peta.org citations and/or are finding alternative (non-peta.org) sources to cite. They probably read this thread and jumped on board. The count seems to have gone down by over a hundred since yesterday, and I made just 4 or 5 of those. Normal Op (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: you keep trying to narrow it down to things like "PETA's Person of the Year Awards", because you know peta.org wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a full and general reliable source discussion when the scenario is expanded to how these peta.org citations are really being used. And I'm not focusing on PETA's Person of the Year Awards; I could care less about them. For your information, FF, I am anti-ADVOCACY and against using Wikipedia for ADVOCATE work. I do not discriminate between one advocacy or another. I didn't have an opinion about PETA or peta.org before I started researching it for Wikipedia, and don't even recall how I wound up in the animal rights topic, but I have since then discovered that ADVOCACY is rampant in the PETA, animal rights, and vegan topics. You need to quit WP:HOUNDING me, FF, just because you don't like the subject area I'm editing in this month. (In June it was Confederate statues, before that it was places on the National Register of Historic Places, and before that it was Tiger articles.) I'm trying to fix the advocacy stuff, per Wikipedia policies, and to better the encyclopedia, while you're trying to stop me with this... what is it... oh yeah, the THIRD calling me out on a board over the SAME issue in like two days because it's not going the way you want it to. Stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, already. And no more PAs!

I assert PETA is NOT a reliable source. We're here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Maybe we SHOULD be debating whether to add PETA to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

When I see these tiny insertions in dozens of articles saying so-and-so is a vegan or so-and-so is pro-animal rights, and there's nothing else in the article about it, and the citation source is peta.org, I can assume that it's not a big part of the person's life or someone else would have published it. Contrast those with the article for Joaquin Phoenix which mentions "animal" 15 times and doesn't need a peta.org sourced citation to show he's an animal rights activist. Check Bob Barker's article and you'll find "animal" 11 times and zero peta.org citations. That's because those two men ARE animal rights advocates and the newspapers know about it; it's a big part of their lives. (See WP:DUE.) But when you instead see that these tiny PETA blurbs have been inserted into hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and you check a few dozen of them and find the only mention of "animal" or "PETA" or "vegan" is with a peta.org source, one can logically conclude the content was inserted as part of an advocacy campaign that is an extension of PETA's advertising machine. If you look at one or two or three articles, you don't get the big picture. When you do a search for "peta.org" and find hundreds of these little insertions, and check a bunch of the BLP articles, you quickly find out it has been part of an WP:ADVOCACY campaign. I use the word "insert" because I've checked several of these with the "Who wrote that" tool, and I've found that the editor that inserted the PETA content, only inserted that content; they weren't already editing a biography and decided to add animal rights stuff as well. And I found that this pattern of editing behavior happened over and over and over again. See WP:DUCKTEST.

Then there's PETA's "Sexiest Vegan" awards and "PETA's Person of the Year Award". These are free awards that PETA can "give away" (simply labels, actually) that operate as free advertising with all the benefits of celebrity branding and none of the costs/expenditures. By simply naming someone, without even getting their permission, PETA can all of a sudden gain some sort of news coverage (or generate its own) that aligns PETA with a celebrity. Celebrities are usually happy to take any attention they can get; it increases their value as a commodity. So the celebrity isn't going to say "No". The award itself has no actual value beyond the publicity and public goodwill it generates. The awards themselves are worthless and, as such, mentioning them in Wikipedia in someone's biography is WP:UNDUE. You argue that mentioning it in a wiki article is harmless, but you're wrong.

As for using PETA's publication to support what they say about someone else, even if you were in the room and you could verify it happened, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you know a fact to be true; it only matters if some other reliable source said so. That's why we use secondary sources for our citations in this encyclopedia.

PETA has a long record of controversial publications, outrageous stunts, stretching the truth and outright lying about events and facts, as well as what people say or think about issues. Here's just one such news report (published in The New Yorker and reposted by its author) [147] where it says "peta's publicity formula–eighty per cent outrage, ten per cent each of celebrity and truth", and Newkirk's quotes "We are complete press sluts" and many more... er... "questionable judgment" quotes.

In a second example (which I had researched and wrote for the PETA article) PETA continues to this day to promote the information that milk causes autism even after being proven wrong AND admitting it! "When pressed, PETA cited two scientific papers, one from 1995 and one from 2002 using a very small sampling of children (36 and 20), and neither showed a correlation nor a causation between milk and autism. Newer studies from 2010 and 2014 have shown no association between dairy and behavior in autism. Despite having been corrected, PETA says they still keep the information on their website "because we have heard from people who have said it contains helpful information." Excuses by PETA to keep their false scientific claims on their website for the last six years! Do you get that? This is not what reliable sources do!

So why would anybody ever use them as a source! Peta.org would fail to be called a "reliable source" under the Wikipedia reliable sources policy: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:REPUTABLE. And from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: " In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." PETA is not a newsroom with an editorial staff doing fact checking, they are an advocacy organization, and with their history of falsifying matters and publishing it, they would NEVER pass a reliable sources test. Editors above have been very generously "PC" about the touchy subject of calling out such an outspoken organization (whose annual budget for advertising is over $10M [148]). After all, one's fellow Wiki editors many well be PETA followers. No, you cannot use peta.org's statement that so-and-so is a vegan or vegetarian. It violates WP:ABOUTSELF, and it's self-serving for PETA to publish that. It's completely different than a sports publication mentioning someone is an athlete. Using an LGBTQ source to say that someone is gay or bi might well be advocacy and nonRS. First of all, being called an athlete is unlikely to be controversial; being called gay/bi/etc. is more likely to be controversial. But that's all hypothetical and not really related to the PETA discussion. Per Wikipedia rules, if you want to discuss or argue about a policy, such as WP:ABOUTSELF, then you're supposed to discuss it on the Talk page of the policy.

You need to find some other reliable source that says someone is vegan — and if you find one, and they say that, then go ahead and use THAT in someone's biography article. Earlier today I did just that; I swapped out a peta.org citation with a reliable source saying that someone was a vegan; then posted that. But I don't suppose you noticed that when you checked my contributions and then called me anti-vegan.

I have presented a case that PETA/peta.org is NOT a reliable source. I have read (above) that others also think peta.org is not a reliable source for anything other than information about PETA itself (per ABOUTSELF). So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source, nor even one opinion that PETA is a reliable source.

Remember, we're on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

— Normal Op (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think quite that much needs to be said. The previous part of the discussion (PETA saying things about themselves) was at least debatable because what's self-serving is sometimes unclear, but stating that someone is a vegan or the like is unambiguously a claim about a third party and therefore not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF; and I think it would be difficult to argue that PETA itself has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source." In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information. Has PETA been caught doing that? If not, I don't understand why it would be an unreliable source. ImTheIP (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Milk_and_autism Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information. This isn't quite correct, although I can understand why you would think that given the sort of sources we usually discuss on WP:RS and how the discussions tend to go. Overall WP:RS requires that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this is something that, in theory, needs to be positively affirmed and proven by the people who want to use the source - it isn't something we assume. So when talking about a think-tank, advocacy organization, or private website the burden is on people who want to use the source to make the argument that it passes that threshold. The reason discussions here normally seem like the inverse of that is because most of the time the sources that require in-depth WP:RSN discussion and a full RFC are ones that, at first glance, seem like they might pass that bar (eg. sources that present themselves as reputable news organizations or high-quality publications, and whose presentation in that regard at least some editors accept.) We don't generally waste time discussing organizations that trivially fail that threshold and which nobody (or almost nobody) thinks is an WP:RS. PETA is different in that it's not really claiming to do serious fact-checking or anything like that - while some of the people above saying it's not an WP:RS might be basing that on its bad reputation, for the most part that's not the issue. It's not an WP:RS because, by the nature of what it is, it's not really attempting to be one and that's not really its purpose. For an activist organization, you would have to actually show they perform fact-checking and have a reputation based on it in order to convince people it's generally usable as an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for that, Aquillion. That's very well expressed. Normal Op (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op, I didn't read any of your latest comment. I might read it later, but I won't be replying to it. I know from this ANI thread on your tendentious, advocacy editing and having skimmed enough of your gaming the system/wikilawyering arguing that debating you would be a huge waste of time. It's because of that ANI thread that I now see why you focused on the "Pet food" section of the Veganism article. In my opinion, that ban should not have been lifted, and it is perhaps time for a different one. And I will also note that no one has stated that PETA should be used for scientific claims. This is where you do not grasp WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Like I stated above, we have people debating the reliability of PinkNews above and giving it more leeway than a source like PETA...despite the fabricated news reporting PinkNews has engaged in. So RfC started below. It's designed similarly to the PinkNews RfC.

Aquillion stated "that someone is a vegan or the like is unambiguously a claim about a third party and therefore not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF; and I think it would be difficult to argue that PETA itself has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires." If a public figure tells PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan, that is a WP:About self matter and is acceptable. We use exclusive interviews and similar all the time. We have no reason to think that PETA is lying. No such reports of them lying about stuff like that exist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Though not your first PA offence against me, Flyer22 Frozen, this is your second and final warning to knock off the personal attacks! I've already muted you because of your contemptuous writing to me, and about me. You even accused me of edit warring on an article by mis-attributing to me edits of others. You have been going after me like a dog with a bone. Your attachment to PETA has quite an Wikipedia:Advocacy flavor, to wit: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy." I care not one wit about PETA one way or the other, but you seem to care... a lot. Normal Op (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop pinging me to this page that I'm obviously watching. I see no need to ping you to this page again either. To repeat, I am not interested in your gaming the system/wikilawyering. I am far too experienced a Wikipedia editor to fall for any of that. It humors me to see you trying to school me on Wikipedia's rules. You stated that I "even accused [you] of edit warring on an article by mis-attributing to [you] edits of others." False. You state that I have committed a personal attack against you by noting your documented activism on Wikipedia, and yet you call me an activist when there is no documented proof of it and when many editors (Mathglot, for example) on this site know that I do not tolerate activism editing on Wikipedia. When I look at your history, including your recent "must purge Wikipedia of PETA" silliness, as if this is some WP:DAILYMAIL case, all I see is an activist. Go report me at WP:ANI if you must. Your assertion that I am attached to PETA, when I do not agree with their extreme views and have been clear on my user page in the past that I do not try to police people eating meat, is laughable. It's as laughable as you stating that you "care not one wit about PETA one way or the other." For me, this is about the way you have gone about editing on this matter. Yes, I am a vegetarian. But I am not a vegan, and couldn't care less about trying to police your meat-eating. I did not become a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, if I am mentioning you, I should notify you. If you don't want the pings, use the mute function. Normal Op (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

[149] in regard to deletions like this shouldn't we wait until a consensus is first reached here? I don't think we should delete anymore PETA until we get an official decision has been made by consensus vote. (see discussion below). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Talk to the hand", really? Did you just time travel from the 90s? Somehow I'm not surprised that you would reduce a woman's response to "talk to the hand." You stated, "Per Wikipedia guidelines, if [you are] mentioning [me], [you] should notify [me]. If you don't want the pings, use the mute function." This is yet another Wikipedia aspect you are wikilawyering. And, really, since it's not based on any rule, it's questionable to even call it wikilawyering. If you were reporting me at WP:ANI, you would have a point. But that would only count for you notifying me on my talk page. Nowhere are you required to keep pinging me to a page I am watching. When an editor tells you to stop pinging them because they are watching a page or will check back, you should stop. Point blank. This is per WP:Harassment. It's per WP:Harassment because your pings are not being helpful in any way and are instead causing distress. Your unnecessary pings annoy me. Since you know that, you should stop. Stating "Oh, well, just mute your pings. It's your fault if you keep getting pings from me." is silliness. And it's not like you would lose anything by simply ceasing pinging me. You're just going to keep pinging me when mute is on? Who is the pinging for then? What nonsense. Editors have been reprimanded for unnecessarily pinging others -- meaning after they were asked to stop. Likewise, editors have been reprimanded for thanking editors via WP:Echo when it has been used as a harassment tactic. Editors have been warned and/or reprimanded for either when it comes to their interaction with me. And you would be no different. As certain admins (including WP:CUs) know, I have stalkers who ping me via sock accounts. So that is one reason I don't like to be pinged unless necessary.

Now that aside, let's get something very clear: Your reckless edits have removed PETA for WP:About self matters. That is the main reason this thread was started. And as made clear by Ssilvers above, SMcCandlish below, Adrian J. Hunter here, and by others, using PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan because that person told PETA that, or using PETA to report that a public figure did a PSA with them, or won a PETA award are WP:About self matters. As is clear by this post you made, you are aware that PETA is not some little organization and that they are instead powerful. They aren't telling falsehoods by stating that a public figure is a vegetarian or vegan. And yet you are going on your "must rid Wikipedia of that pesky PETA in all cases" crusade. It's ridiculous. You've stated that editors are being PC for not going along with your extreme take on using PETA as a source. You've gone on about an advocacy campaign for PETA on Wikipedia, when it's significantly more likely that the reason editors have used PETA as a source is because it's so well-known.

When this thread is archived, you're going to point to it like it's the WP:DAILYMAIL case, as if PETA can't even be used to name vegetarian and vegan foods. And, actually, as is clear by the Sia case, you pointed to PETA in a "no, not the Daily Mail" way before I started the RfC below. Sighs. I'm just going to state now that when you are again sanctioned for disruption, whether it concerns the PETA website or something else, I will state, "Told you so." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Added more to post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

___

Sources

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PETA?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Only reliable for WP:About self matters

Further questions:

• 1. Is PETA reliable for statements about a person being a vegetarian or vegan? What about when the person tells PETA that they are a vegetarian or vegan?
• 2. Should citations to PETA be attributed and/or have an inline citation?
• 3. Are PETA awards and commentary about a person making PETA's "sexiest vegan" list to be excluded from Wikipedia articles unless covered by a secondary source? Should such material be included at all, such as in the "Public image" section? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Note: I updated this time stamp when adding in the third "further considerations" aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PETA)

• Option 3 if we're really doing this. There's no indication that they do any sort of fact-checking. Interviews with them are likewise generally unusable - we rely on the interview being with a WP:RS, normally. Since PETA isn't an RS, an interview with them cannot be considered WP:RS - that is not "person X says they're a vegetarian" (which would be the case if we were citing eg. their Twitter), that is "PETA says person X says they're a vegetarian". WP:ABOUTSELF requires that it be published by the person in question - otherwise articles would be full of hearsay from unreliable sources. Awards, commentary, and so on generally require a secondary source, and always require a secondary WP:RS source, without exception, whenever any third party is mentioned, including any awards, recognition, description of someone's characteristics, whether they are a vegan / vegetarian or not, etc. I'm baffled the discussion has gotten this far - we wouldn't accept a political think-tank saying "X totally agrees with us" as a source for their politics without secondary coverage, either. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Οption 4. This organization is singularly focused on one objective, the welfare of animals. The means it uses are often confrontantionally militant. Its internal and operational structure approaches those of a military group. Therefore, it would be expecting truly too much to expect to come out of PETA some neutral critique of others' or its own actions and ideas. But, of course, we can always quote and relay PETA's viewpoints as they emanate from the organization itself, per WP:ABOUTSELF. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - not to be trusted, surely anything they report can be found in alternative (reliable) sources. GiantSnowman 09:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: PETA, like all activism organizations, is not a reliable source for alleged facts, beyond their own positions, statements, and non-controversial history (e.g. who is on their advisory board, or where they were founded), though they are not categorically unreliable "no matter what", like a publisher devoted to falsehoods (Weekly World News, National Enquirer). Advocacy/pressure groups like this (on any topic) aren't reliable for statements of alleged fact about the world, because everything they write is one-sided socio-political staking out of a position, a stance, and is unlike other forms of non-fiction writing. It is the nonprofit/NGO direct equivalent of marketing. That said, PETA is not less reliable (nor more) than other such organizations, regardless of the subject of the activism. PS: In the heated discussion above, Flyer22 is correct that if celebrity A. B. Ceedy says they are a vegetarian in an interview published by PETA, we can use that. That's WP:ABOUTSELF material on the part of that person, and we have no evidence of any kind that PETA fabricates interviews. For interview material, PETA is a conduit for the statements of someone else, and is not the creator of them. There's a very big difference between PETA asserting, in their voice, that someone is a vegetarian, versus PETA quoting an individual personally stating he or she is a vegetarian. Whether PETA is biased and self-serving in who they choose to interview and what they choose to ask them is irrelevant. This reminds me a lot of the failure to distinguish between something like Facebook or Twitter (a legal entity) as a speaker and publisher (e.g., whether claims that Facebook or Twitter makes about its own relationships with various government agencies and how it handles private user data), versus Facebook or Twitter as a self-publishing service, as a conduit for other's own expression. Twitter is not a reliable source for whether Twitter actually abides by regulations, or whether a particular vaccine idea is a good one, or whether Pluto should be reclassified as a planet again. They are a reliable source, in the conduit sense, for the fact that Trump really did tweet another stupid and inflammatory thing this morning, and what exactly the wording was. In short, do not confuse the medium with the message, or confuse the source of the idea with the venue through which you encountered it. PETA as an originator of a claim is useless, but PETA as a relay of the claim of someone else isn't suspicious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
• Option 3 - maybe a source for claims about itself, absolutely not a source for claims about anyone or anything else, and obviously not an RS for statements about living people that can't be source to an RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's #4 verbatim. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 PETA is an agenda-driven activist organization, not a news outlet. They should not be cited for anything outside simple factual statements about themselves. Zaathras (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's #4 verbatim. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 They seem perfectly happy to let truth be a casualty of getting what they want. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: If PETA has made an interview with some celeb claiming to be a vegetarian/vegan, that interview is a sufficient source to claim that someone is a vegetarian/vegan. If PETA has published a report linking meat to cancer then that is not a sufficient source for the claim eating meat gives you cancer. It all depends on the context and what kind of claim is being made. The claims "X is a Nazi" and "X is a vegetarian" are syntactically similar, but the former obviously needs much stronger source support than the latter.ImTheIP (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per SMcCandlish. Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 4 per above. Also, any claims in any source that a person is vegetarian/vegan need to be dated because many people stop eating a vegan diet [150]. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - close enough to being the same thing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Given their nature (extreme advocacy) and tendency to see things form a very "narrow perspective" I am gona say not reliable for anything except the fact they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. No, PETA is generally not a reliable source. But an outright ban on citations is inappropriate. Is the fact that a certain product won one of their awards something that could be sourced to them? Probably, as PETA is the primary source for information about PETA's awards, and that may be content worth including in an article. Is PETA good for factual matters about the world outside PETA? Probably not. I do worry that (as I say below) it's not entirely clear what is actually being proposed, and I do worry (as is fairly clear above) that people's own views of PETA are influencing their assessments. Nonetheless: I echo what SMcCandlish said above about PETA being no "worse" than any other pressure group, and what he said about interviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - They are not a news organization, they are an advocacy group. That's fine for things they are doing, but they don't claim to be objective, so we shouldn't either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: Per Atsme and Dennis Brown. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)

Discussion (PETA)

Comment how is "PETA" defined? Is this a website, all their websites, quotes of theirs in other media, their own quarterly journal, what? GPinkerton (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As currently noted in its Wikipedia's article, it's an American animal rights organization. Some in this discussion have also called it an activist organization. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I would include anything published on any of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' numerous websites including peta.org, peta2.com, petaindia.com, petaasiapacific.com, peta.org.uk, peta.de, petafrance.com, peta.nl, peta.org.au, petaasia.com, petaasia.cn, petalatino.com, petakids.com, furisdead.com, and dozens more. I would also include any statements directly attributed as being from PETA, including statements made by Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco or any of the PETA executives or staff in the performance of their duties at PETA. Normal Op (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the question of how we define PETA is a good one. The people you mention by name also publish in outlets that do have a reputation for fact-checking. Even if PETA-published sources have to be ruled out or limited (on which I right now express no opinion) we should not ban citations to these writers' work in more reputable outlets. (The only time I can think of citing PETA on Wikipedia was literally yesterday, and this was for one of their awards -- though not their "sexiest vegan" nonsense. Their various awards are quite widely commented upon in the vegan world, among the winners, and in the mainstream press.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In what outlet would Newkirk or Pacheco publish that isn't PETA commentary, op-ed, or press release? Do you have any examples? (I'm assuming you saw my "in the performance of their duties at PETA" qualifier.) Normal Op (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not share your assumptions (or what I take to be your assumptions) about "op-eds". Newkirk has published several times in The Guardian: this is a highly regarded UK broadsheet. I think it would be problematic if a hamfisted anti-PETA guideline banned citing work published in The Guardian. (Obviously, these pieces can't be taken to be completely "neutral" with regards animal protection issues, but no broadsheet is "neutral" anyway.) Newkirk has also published scholarly work (e.g., she has a chapter in Sister Species, published by Illinois UP, which is a key collection in the scholarly literature on animals and women) as well as non-fiction (but non-scholarly) books with established, reputable publishers (e.g., Animalkind was published with Simon & Schuster). Restricting citations to PETA's website is one thing. Blacklisting people associated with PETA is completely another. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I'm not advocating blacklisting; you must have missed my "in the performance of their duties at PETA" qualifier. Books go through an editorial process that op-eds do not. All 4 of Newkirk's articles in The Guardian are labelled as "Opinions" and are covered under primary source policies including WP:PRIMARY: "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; ... original philosophical works..." Normal Op (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't miss it; a lot of what you are saying (including the "duties at PETA" claim) is ambiguous, which is precisely why we're having this conversation. If I understand you correctly, you accept that the books are OK, even if the proposed "PETA ban" goes through. You are not advocating a ban on work from people associated with PETA. (Though I honestly do not know what your position on the "op-eds" is. Could I ask you to state it in plain English?) So what are you proposing? Is it simply a ban on content published by PETA? Or is it more than that? SMcCandlish seems to think it's more than that. I am inclined to oppose this proposal for the simple reason that I do not know what it is. It feels suspiciously like an attempt to just ban a bunch of citations that certain editors do not like because of a perceived link to an organisation that certain editors do not like. I've got a lot of issues with PETA (though I understand that their very decentralised structure and love of press attention complicates views of the organisation), and I don't see any reason to think of them as a particularly reliable source on most things, but this whole thing feels a bit off. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow-up (and a partial going-back on myself): Feel free to reply, and feel free to ping me if you want me to see something, but I am not sure I want this to be any more of a time-sink than it already has been! Do not feel you have to answer my questions if you do not want to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I meant to indicate that your attempt to frame this RfC as an author blacklist discussion by using books and op-eds as examples was immaterial because we already have policies/guidelines for the handling of books and op-eds. Books are usually more acceptable because they have more editorial oversight. Op-eds are usually less acceptable because they have less editorial oversight. The phrase I used "statements directly attributed as being from PETA" meant those cases where an otherwise reliable news source is quoting PETA to get filler for their article, or just plain churnalism. I have seen numerous instances recently of 'news articles' which are only repeats of what the 'reporter' read on peta.org or gleaned from the latest PETA advertising video. And I don't mean the reporter was covering the subject; they were merely repeating the PETA campaign message; a sort of well-disguised press release. That falls under "statements directly attributed as being from PETA". Normal Op (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Re, 'how is "PETA" defined?' As an organizational author and as a publisher. 'Is this a website, all their websites, quotes of theirs in other media, their own quarterly journal, what?' All of the above, and quoted statements by them in the press.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Could someone provide examples of use? I'll eventually get around it, but the earlier we have them the better this RfC will go. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned my own citation of PETA above -- it's in Jackie Kearney. I doubt this is the sort of thing that some others so strongly object to, but it certainly seems to be something they want to ban. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Quote below. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is worthy of inclusion people other then PETA would care (see wp:undue). If no one cares why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• In Jackie Kearney: "The book won the PETA UK Vegan Food Award for Cookbook of the Year 2016."

References

Jack Buckby‎

Is this [[151]] an RS for the claim Mr Buckby‎ is no longer far right (sources for him being far right [[152]],[[153]])?Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think we'd need a third party source, since this is an interview. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an interview, and not a particularly in-depth one at that (a video only a few minutes long, with the primary focus on someone else). I'd be wary of using it by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I shall leave it a bit longer before reverting to give a chance for a bit more input.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I would not be opposed to inclusion in the body, along the lines of "in a 2020 interview, Buckby suggested that he had left the far right" or some such. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but heart is this is being used to exclude that he is far right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I understand, and that is unambiguously incorrect, per above. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but as there is edit Waring going on over it I wanted third party input.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This was debated at WP:BLPN a while ago. Basically there's no third-party evidence that Buckby's views have changed - he still espouses ethnic nationalism, for instance. I would personally not think there was any reason to trust Buckby's statements about himself - though WP:BLP says we probably should mention self-statements, if we can do so in a non-self-aggrandising way. The discussion was here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive308#Jack_Buckby. Nobody could source, e.g, a simple "I believe" statement from Buckby that would meet WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Chabad.org

The website chabad.org should be treated as:

1. A reliable general reference on Judaism;
2. A self-published / affiliated source in respect of the Chabad-Lubavich movement, used as WP:ABOUTSELF and otherwise only with attribution;
3. Deprecated as a source.

See background for further details. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• chabad.org  

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303 § chabad.org. This website is used as a source in 1,346 articles. Chabad.org "is the flagship website of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement". The issue here is that while the site is used as freely as, say, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Lubavicher perspective is a minority within a minority within a minority: a subset of hasids, which are in turn a subset of orthodox Jews. Chabad is on the fringes of orthodox Judaism; there are "profound ideological differences" between the Chabad movement and the rest of Judaism. It seems to me that the popularity and well-crafted nature of the site obscures its status as advocating a distinctly fringe position. Much of its content rests on interpretations of the law that are stated in absolutist terms but may and often do represent extremely idiosyncratic views. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions (chabad)

• Support 2 as proposer. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: (Guy), when you state that "This website (Chabad.org) is used as a source in 1,346 articles" could you please break down the numbers: Such as, (1) how many articles about the Chabad movement and ideology does Chabad.org on WP link to? (2) How many times is Chabad.org listed in WP:External links in articles, usually about Judaism or Jewish holidays? (3) how many times is Chabad.org actually given as a reference within articles about Judaism in general? Outside of these three areas on WP I can't think of any way that Chabad.org would be used as a reference point on WP. In light of this research you may even consider withdrawing your proposal as unnecessary. I think you will find that your concerns are unwarranted and that the need for limiting the site as a reference point is overblown.IZAK (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, reliable for about self and thats pretty much it. About self extends only to the Chabad-Lubavitcher movement and they are not a reliable authority on orthodox Judaism or Judaism in general. We must be especially wary of using anything the Lubavitcher have published on history as they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field. In general I think we should treat them like any other extremist religious organization, they’re much closer to something like Falun Gong than mainstream Judaism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be using the term "extremist" here. The word extremist is loaded with negative connotations to terrorism, and insulting religions onwiki isn't conducive to a good editing environment. There's also no need to call out Falun Gong as an "extremist" organization either. There's no need to insult people's religions in this discussion.Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to engage in whatever level of political correctness and personal censorship you wish to engage in, I will continue to WP:Call a spade a spade. Deeply religious people with *always* find some way to be insulted by wikipedia’s coverage of their religion (and particularly their sect), ignore those POV pushing voices. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But why call a hammer spade? There are criteria in the social sciences for "extremist group" and Chabad is not an extremist group. So please, keep your language neutral. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah Debresser! I do love debating you but don’t you have a COI to disclose before participating further in this discussion? I don’t see any note about it in your vote explanation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: Chabad is pretty unambiguously a fairly small and often idiosyncratic sect of Judaism in general. We shouldn't be using them as a source for Judaism in general without attribution. Loki (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, no, it's not, it's one of the largest sects of hassidim in the world. It's also not a "fringe" movement in Judaism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Any sect of Chasidim is small and idiosyncratic. Most Jews aren't even Orthodox. I never called them fringe but wouldn't object to that description since they're a minority of a minority within Judaism. Loki (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Loki—what are you trying to say when you say "Most Jews aren't even Orthodox"? This being an encyclopedia, of course we want to give a detailed explanation of the beliefs and practices of observant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 That being said, I think that the presentation of the evidence against Chabad/Lubavitch overstates their fringe status within Judaism. They are a highly influential and widely respected and well organized and effective minority voice for highly observant Judaism. Yes, the messianic teachings of some of their adherents are controversial, but they remain a powerful and respected voice in Orthodox Jewish communities worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to be a minority viewpoint in Judaisim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no viewpoint in Judaism that is a majority viewpoint. Editors here should take into account that the outcome of this discussion will be applied to any and all Jewish resources, including OU.org and Aish.org. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Chabad represents around 13% of Hasidic Jews and Hasidic Jews represent around 5% of the total Jewish population, meaning that Chabad counts for less than 1% of the world's total Jewish population. That's very different from just being a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, just to argue, if we are going on numbers and percentages, what percentage of Jews perform, or even know about Shiluach_haken? Do you think it makes sense that in this case Chabad.org might be a source? (I haven't checked, but assume it might be a reference or two.) It's on these types of articles that this RFC is proposing that we take out Chabad (and then in the future, the OU and other religious sources). I don't think that's a good idea. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia That is actually a stupid argument. I mean, scholars are less than 1% of the population, and still it is precisely the publlications of that less than 1% that are considered the best sources for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources should be preferred over sites like Chabad.org and myjewishlearning.com  , except where they are reprinting them. As to Shiluach haken a quick search came up with a section discussing the term in The World of Orthodox Judaism, which was one of only 7 hits on google scholar. Ultimately if Chabad is to be used it should be WP:INTEXT attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 1.5, I think I'm in agreement with Cullen. Chabad is probably one of the most widespread and well-known denominations within Orthodox Judaism, if not Judaism as a whole. Their views are, however, often idiosyncratic, and their popularity is largely due to a willingness to engage with people that do not fully see eye to eye with them on theology; anecdotally, the percentage of Jews that fully agree with Chabad's worldview is much lower than the percentage of Jews that belong to their congregations. All that having been said, I think that the framing of this discussion is poor: I think that it can likely be used as a source for non-extraordinary claims about Judaism and can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If this were a standard 4-option RSN survey, I'd say 2, but among the options presented here #2 is closer to a standard #3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Rosguill, to be fair, that could be because they are more vocal and they, as you say, do more outreach and they engage and are very proficient with media, etc. I do agree with you though that the RFC isn't written correctly, especially when Guy writes that Chabad is "fringe." Chabad is many things, but it's not fringe. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 As per my own previous comments on the RS Noticeboard before this RfC was started. Also, agreeing with all the caveats explained by Cullen328 and Rosguill above. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: this isn’t a deletion discussion. Whats the logic here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye Jack, I mainly notified the WP:JUDAISM talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Chabad.org and then also placed a notification at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Miscellaneous for the same effort to inform Judaic editors. IZAK (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is a reliable source for anything related to Judaism. Its website is specifically meant for the wider public, and often brings points of view that are not specific to the movement. Even though the group itself is only one of many within Judaism, it is specifically geared towards outreach, and its information is not meant for the use of its adherents only. In addition, we would do the WikiProject Judaism a great disservice if we were to limit the use of one of the largest online resources about Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the outcome of this discussion will have wide-reaching repercussions for all online resources about Judaism, including OU.org and Aish,org, which are just as much not representative of Judaism as Chabad.org (even more so, since e.g. OU.org is a US organization, while Chabad is at least a worldwide organization). Debresser (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at our Chabad.org article: "Chabad.org has a comprehensive Jewish knowledge base which includes over 100,000 articles of information ranging from basic Judaism to Hasidic philosophy taught from the Chabad point of view." and "Chabad.org and its affiliated sites claim over 43 million visitors per year, and over 365,000 email subscribers." I mean, is this really a smart proposal...? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is an impeccable source on all things relating to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Chabad has its own agenda and shouldn't be cited for general knowledge on Judaism, any more than I would support using Jehovah's Witnesses or Campus Crusade for Christ's websites for general information on Christianity. It's surely reliable for itself though.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Chabad.org's agenda includes foremost informing people about Judaism. Why would it not be a reliable website for precisely that? I really fail to understand all of you guys here. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—the comparison is not apt because Christianity engages in proselytization and Judaism does not. The only "agenda" found at Chabad.org is informational. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". Can you tell me what that "agenda" might be? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Chabad#Outreach activities Much of the movement's activities emphasize on outreach activities. This is due to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson encouraging his followers to reach out to other Jews.[110] Chabad outreach includes activities promoting the practice of Jewish commandments (Mitzvah campaigns), as well as other forms of Jewish outreach. Much of Chabad's outreach is performed by Chabad emissaries (see Shaliach (Chabad)). This is certainly a form of proselytism, even if it's only aimed at ethnic Jews or Jews of other denominations. Cf. also Chabad outreach Chabad Hasidic outreach is a Kiruv phenomena, whereby Chabad Chasidim attempt to encourage Jews to adopt Orthodox Jewish observance. It's already been pointed out that Chabad follows a different theology than many other Jewish groups. I'm not saying that's bad, it just affects how we should use them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Every group has its own opinions. But the information on the website is mostly general, unless it is specifically about Chabad subjects, of course. I get the feeling you are speaking from some kind of theoretical point of view, without any knowledge of the group or its website. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural objection – while the options presented here are not the standard 4-option survey that RSN regulars are familiar with, the responses nevertheless look very similar to that format, which could cause confusion among participants that didn't read the prompt carefully. The wording of the option presented here as #2 is closer to the deep end of #3 in the standard prompt. I wouldn't go as far as to say that that we need to throw everything out and start over as there's been useful discussion, but I think that the framing was less than ideal and would thus suggest caution when closing or otherwise evaluating the outcome of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps this discussion should be closed and re-opened as a standard 4-option one. I for one also object to not having been informed at WT:JUDAISM till after 4 whole days of discussion here, which I consider an outrage. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The way it's written now, I'd say it's a reliable general reference for Judaism. I wouldn't use it as the sole reference on a Jewish topic and try to get other sources, but I do not think we should be throwing it out as a reference. If someone wanted to know what Passover was about, and Chabad.org had an article on it, I see no reason why we can't incorporate that as a reference into our articles. Are we going to next go and claim the OU or CCAR or the CJLS is also not reliable? We use what's best for the article and most have varied resources from multiple sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Chabad.org is a reasonably reliable source for Chabad/Lubavitch's views on Judaism (and other topics). That said, for almost any Jewish topic (including the topic of Chabad/Lubavitch itself) it is possible to find scholarly sources at a much higher point on the WP:RS scale (e.g. books published by University Presses). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (chabad)

2010 ArbCom Chabad movement case, including Chabad.org

This subject was dealt with by the ArbCom about ten years ago, and they decided on no action. For more information please see:

• Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver
• Main case page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That ARBCOM case didn't address the question of Chabad as a wp:RS, only a wp:COI for some users and Chabad - or am I missing something?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a very long case that included my own complaints that Chabad.org was being over-used by pro-Chabad editors, you'll have to go through the whole case to pick up all its points, but the ArbCom decided to pass the buck, and required no sanctions, just some cautionary warnings to the pro-Chabad editors, as they (the ArbCom) glossed over anything the pro-Chabad editors were doing be it COI or using Chabad.org as a RS. You'll have to wade through all of this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver to find out how Chabad.org is involved in the complaints and case. IZAK (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich is correct, and that case was not about the resource, but about editors. And it remains in my opinion a repetition of the witch-hunt of the Hassidim by the Misnagdim and one of the poorer moves of IZAK, not to mention a chillul shem HaShem. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, don't get melodramatic. There were very good reasons for the original case, and Chabad.org was part of the original COI discussion. When pro-Chabad editors decide they WP:OWN an article, no one can get a word in edgewise, as is well-known, but this is not the subject right now in any case. IZAK (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Belated notification

Why in the world was WT:JUDAISM not informed right away?! 4 days?! Debresser (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree! I was the one that did the notification [154] immediately after I belatedly came across this discussion. IZAK (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Are TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin?

The only sources in the long section on Darwin in Scientific racism (other than direct quotes from Darwin) are talkorigins.org and rationalrevolution.net. A 2016 RfC on TalkOrigins [155] concluded that its reliability is good for defending evolution against creationists, but otherwise needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'm asking about whether these two sources are reliable for saying that Darwin's views on race were not racist.

The section Scientific racism#Charles Darwin is being discussed at Talk:Scientific racism#Section on Darwin.

Can my question be resolved quickly, or should I start an RfC? NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive is a very reputable source for dealing with creationist claims, which is the use being made Scientific racism#Charles Darwin. For some reason, NightHeron seems reluctant to look for equally good sources for non-creationist claims about Darwin, and instead appears to be proposing original research based on direct quotes from Darwin. That's not good. The TalkOrigins Archive articles give a useful pointer to other potential sources, as I've just pointed out. This argument can be resolved quickly by either following up these and other sources, of by confining the section to the creationist claims alleging Darwin was racist, until such time as reliable independent sources are provided for other commentary on Darwin's views on race. . . dave souza, talk 12:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza is wrong - I did not make or propose any OR-edits to the article. The only edit I've made to the section on Darwin was a single revert of dave souza's edit. The problem I raised with dave souza's edit is that it gives WP:UNDUE attention to the creationists' claims and misconstrues the source by selectively quoting from it to suggest that Darwin did not have racist ideas. But another passage (not quoted by dave souza) in the source says Even if we hold that Darwin was a racist (by our present-day lights), what of it? Would that invalidate modern evolutionary theory? The source does not claim to have disproved that Darwin held some racist beliefs. Rather, what the source refutes is the creationists' claim that modern evolutionary theory is racist. The dispute between creationists and scientists over evolution is not what the article Scientific racism is about, and so it seems to me that the extensive use of that source is WP:UNDUE.

I'll be glad to edit the section, trimming it down and using different sources, but before removing the material sourced to TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution, I'd like to have other editors' opinions on whether or not those two sources are RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

TalkOrigins is reliable. Rationalrevolution.net looks to be some random person's website, but its use in that section appears redundant anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ NightHeron, the sentence you've now quoted as a talk quote is one you cut bits out of, and in my reply I quoted it in full, in context, and to be helpful with an archived copy of the source cited in ToA link [5] which you've trimmed out of the sentence. The ToA article says before that sentence that "Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist", and it's a "what if that was untrue" statement, not a concession. It's wrong to remove the mainstream response to common creationist quoting out of context repeated in the article, and I see no reason to exclude from the article the fact that creationists make these claims, or to word it in a way that belittles TalkOrigins Archive. Your revert mangled the sourcing, at a time when I was in the process of making improvements. This looks like a rush to forum-shopping, rather than taking reasonable time to discuss improvements on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely there are academic sources which discuss this question? (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, while TalkOrigins Archive is good for creationist claims, it also gives references leading to academic sources and I've suggested a couple on the article talk page. A paper presented at an Interdisciplinary Conference at Princeton University is at least helpful, and Robert Bannister's book published by Temple University Press is good but not readily accessible online, except as a user-uploaded transcription from EPDF.PUB so I'm cautious about that. There are of course other academic sources, it's a complex topic. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, TalkOrigins is not the best source, and the changes made by NightHeron (which rely on better sourcing) is an improvement. I also agree that direct citation of Darwin should be significantly reduced. However, the older version explain better the actual views by Darwin about it in proper biological context/terms. I restored a couple of relevant para from the older version. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks. But can you improve the sourcing on the part you added? Right now it's sourced only to Darwin's words and to a website that is (I think) less RS than TalkOrigins. To avoid OR, the interpretation of Darwin's words needs a better source. Also, the words of the Jackson-Weidman textbook shouldn't be shortened to give the incorrect impression that they didn't see any racist ideas in Darwin; the full quotation I used makes their evaluation clearer. NightHeron (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but "he did think that there were distinct races that could be ranked in a hierarchy". The meaning is not obvious at all. Is it something about racial superiority, or is it about hierarchic classification in taxonomy? My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What's unclear? The Jackson-Weidman book is a textbook intended for classroom use by undergraduates, and they write quite clearly. If a student isn't sure what hierarchy means, they can check in dictionary.com and find that definition 1 is any system of persons or things ranked one above another. What's in the current version, by eliminating the qualifier confirmed and removing the but part, completely reverses the sense of the whole sentence — "He was not a confirmed racist — he was a staunch abolitionist, for example — but he did think that there were distinct races that could be ranked in a hierarchy." On the same page in the next paragraph the authors say Darwin admitted that the gap in intelligence and moral sense between civilized people and the animals was a great one. But one could look to the lower races to fill that gap. They're discussing The Descent of Man, in which the last sentence of Darwin's long passage in the article's earlier version states that Black people are in a gap between Caucasians and apes. (Jackson-Weidman don't specifically quote from Darwin, so I don't know if that passage is what they have in mind.) Jackson-Weidman are clearly not saying that Darwin did not have racist ideas. NightHeron (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The textbook may be great, but the meaning of this specific quotation was not clear, at least for me. Using modern terminology, one could reasonably say there was a certain historical hierarchy of different ethnic groups, meaning some of them were newer in light of the Recent African origin of modern humans. That would not be a "scientific racism". My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In the context of the whole sentence the meaning is clear. Darwin's belief in a hierarchy of races is mentioned in the but clause. That is, it comes after "He was not a confirmed racist" — BUT he thought that races could be ranked from more civilized to less civilized. The sentence is not talking about older vs newer ethnic groups. NightHeron (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As ToA discusses, he ranked human civilisation in a social hierarchy rather than biological, so questionable if it's racism and his views changed over time. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, as noted on the article talk page I think there should be a shift from Darwin's views on race to the influence he had on the debates of the time and on his followers. He wrote so much as his way of evaluating the work of others that it's easy to find racist ideas, so there's probably a need for more sources for a nuanced evaluation. Anyway, as a frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality,[156] it's time for bed. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"unreliable sources" vs. common sense

Moved from WT:RSP

People seem to think that unsourced content is preferable to content from an "unreliable source" and that unreliable sources are sufficiently toxic to spoil an article by way of even being mentioned in a comment in the source text - invisible to the reader.

I would want to suggest

1. clarifying that a "bad source" is better than "no source" and
2. maybe establishing a rule that uncontroversial content from a "bad source" may be added if it is clearly marked as "alleged", "unreliable", "controversial", "doubtful", etc..

All this is probably already encompassed by the rule: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

I am in no way endorsing the use of "The Sun" as a source. I am simply opposed to removing content which does not seem controversial. And if the content is admitted, then obviously the source should also be stated. Clearly marking the source as "unreliable" should be sufficient. Everybody is thus free to form his own opinion on the matter.

Some of this had already been stated by JohnHarris here.

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest not using deprecated sources like The Sun - sources so bad that they should basically not be used for anything.

The correct answer to "but what if I just use the deprecated source this way" is pretty much always "don't do that".

Do you literally not have any reliable sources at all for the stuff you want to put into the article, and the only source you can find is deprecated? Perhaps it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article - 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

David, your first action was to delete the source, but to leave the content!

How can it be better to have (possibly unreliable) content from an unknown source than (as yet actually unchallenged) content from a (possibly unreliable) source ?

Next you reverted the edit where I had clearly marked the source as "unreliable"?

Since then you have been deleting every mention of "The Sun" without regard of context and even visibility.

I really don't know what to say ..

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Depending on the article type and the nature of the source (if it simply unreliable or if it deprecated or if it is to avoid at all costs like the Daily Mail...), there are different steps that should be done. The default should be to try to retain the source but mark it in a manner to find a better source, but this should only be done when the current source is merely unreliable and the content is not BLP related or is not seen as contestable, so that editors can see what the original source said and look to find a better source. As soon as you move away from either of those points, its probably better to remove the source outright and leave a CN instead. The only thing that would be nice in those cases that unless we're taking the BLP and/or Daily Mail cases, where the source absolutely cannot be used, that commenting out the source and leaving a CN behind is more helpful to allow again for editors to find a replacement based on reviewing the original source article and not what a WPian interpreted from that. --Masem (t) 16:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• No source is always better than a bad source, because 1) you can just put a good source in there instead and 2) if there are no other sources than bad sources, then the information in question should not be in the article at all. Furthermore, if you suspect that good sources should exist, but you cannot find them, that is what the {{cn}} tag is for. It allows us to flag statements for people who are better at finding good sources to do so. A bad source would give a false impression of sufficiency. Your options are a) provide a good source b) remove the information or c) tag it so someone else can do it. Under no circumstances is it useful for you to leave the information tagged with a bad source. --Jayron32 18:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• KaiKemmann, a {{cn}} tag is more likely to be fixed than any tag identifying a source as unreliable - even WorldNetDaily or InfoWars. You are free to remove the unsourced content or replace the {{cn}} with a reliable source, but in the end, content with no source is better because the fact of the source being unreliable means the content needs verifying, and a crappy source provides superficial referenciness that bolsters the credibility of the statement. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• There is always Template:Unreliable source? with which you can tag a suspected unreliable source without deleting it. Perhaps that's a middle ground between the two scenarios you are mentioning (deleting citation while leaving unsourced content versus keeping the unreliable source 'just in case'). I agree with Guy/JzG that leaving behind an unreliable citation (especially without tagging it in some way) lends credibility to the suspect content, and that poor content should not remain in Wikipedia. As an editor, sometimes you just want to get that unreliable citation out of there and you don't have time to fully read the content and modify it as you should, and so you just yank the citation. I get that. It's not ideal, but there are several options an editor has, and he's not forced to fully research and re-write a segment just because some other editor used a poor/unreliable citation. Normal Op (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with JzG, I add sources all the time and am much more likely to fix a citation needed tag than to engage in (likely) drama over a contested/poor source. Better to remove a poor source and tag for a new one. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• We had such discussions before (eg. in 2019: [157]). I know I´m in a minority here, but I will reapeat, what I wrote back then: Having bad (even garbage) source is better than no source at all. Simply tag the source as unreliable (or use better source template).

Policy based reasons:In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. (from WP:RS guideline) All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. (from WP:V policy). Pavlor (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, yes, you said it. But this is about deprecated sources, which are deprecated only because they have a history of misleading content. In these cases the unreliable source adds weight to a statement that may be bollocks (such as one of the Mail's fabricated quotes). A {{cn}} is a bigger and more compelling red flag than {{dubious}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Then why not remove such content altogether? It is worthless without a source of origin. Casual reader would not know true sense of our tags anyway taking unsourced text as something true which only needs an additional reference (from my own experience with my friends and family). Pavlor (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• "uncontroversial content" That would require decisions on whether the content is controversial or not. Based on what information? "if it is clearly marked as "alleged", "unreliable", "controversial", "doubtful", etc.. " Such language should reflect what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Or else we risk reflecting our editors' POV in article space. "Alleged" in particular is highlighted in Expressions of doubt as having the implication "that a given point is inaccurate". Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• My preference is that people used the {{unreliable source?}} template when they came across a source that is of questionable quality. The template alerts the reader that 'hey wait' this content might not be true: 'heads up look at the source we're not sure its good'. Similarly, the tag alerts a potential editor that 'hey look' let's make Wikipedia better and find a better source: 'here's the low quality source, try and use it to find something better'. If people are adamant about removing poor sources on first sight, then I would recommend using {{cn}} and hiding the source with <!– ... --> from the main space. This allows the interested editor to see the poor source and figure out how to go from there to find something better. If this method isn't used, then the only option that the editor has to discover what the bad source was is to waste excessive time searching through the edit history. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  "Questionable quality" is different from "Known bad quality". Where a source is not just questionable, but beyond-a-question shit, we should remove the source. Every time and twice on Sundays. If it is just questionable, yeah, tag it. But where we know the source is bad, to leave it behind implies an endorsement of it, which is not good. --Jayron32 18:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to explain (although I don't know what BLP is).

Seconding Guest2625: {{cn}} and Template:Unreliable source? should be used by all means. They are absolutely very useful and I do not understand why the majority of the contributors of the German Wikipedia for example voted against this system of marking doubtful content.

But my/our concern really is: How can I judge dubious content if the source is removed?

If I come across a {{cn}} tag I generally tend to believe the content is true albeit apparently noone has taken the time yet to enter the appropriate source. Going by the "no source is better than a bad source" doctrine, wouldn't this allow me to remove any mention of an extremist organisation quoted as a source (for they are generally likely to be 'unreliable') but leave the extremist content in the article (as long as it is tagged 'citation needed')?

Do I not absolutely need to know the source to judge the degree to which the content is unreliable, as there is an extremely wide span ranging from 'sometimes unprecise or awkward in wording' to 'clearly fictional/ racist/ strongly biased ..'?

With or without the {{cn}} tag, I do not see why additionally stating that the content originated from "source x, which is judged generally unreliable" would make the content appear more reliable.

Going back to our example: If the 'possibly dubious' content originated from a source associated with one of the suspects involved in the murder case then this would obviously make the information much more biased than any content from a nationwide newspaper is likely to be (which may be politically biased or follow purely economical interests but that is obviously another matter).

Again I quote JohnHarris (not mainly because he referring to The Sun specifically but also for the more general implications regarding many kinds of shady sources): "May I offer an observation in passing, being British? The Sun and Daily Mail undoubtedly lie on occasion, deliberately, in exchange for circulation boosts. So does a lot of British journalism. Circulation is a powerful incentive when the consequence is trivial and far in the future. They also, and in the main, report factually when they're not making it up for scandalous effect. It's a matter of judgment whether a given report is truthful news or not. Flagging up disputed source is fair enough as a warning but it doesn't mean a report is false. You can be pretty certain it will be biased, which is another matter, but it may well be factual. Flagging sources as biased would cover far too high a proportion of citations on Wikipedia, the bar has to be higher than mere predictable repetitive bias which would necessarily include stalwart factual newspapers of record like the Guardian as well as the tabloid trash - and I say that as a Guardian subscriber."

To summarize: I really do not see what harm there is in "commenting out" the source AND marking it as "unreliable" in order to allow other editors to judge the original source. I do regret that I failed to leave the {{cn}} tag in, which was added by David. Usually working on the German Wikipedia I wasn't very familiar with all of its specific functions and I apologize for being ignorant about it.

@Dimadick: Please explain or give an example of what you mean by "Such language should reflect what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Or else we risk reflecting our editors' POV in article space. "Alleged" in particular is highlighted in Expressions of doubt as having the implication "that a given point is inaccurate"."
Why should information of a reliable source be qualified as "alleged"?

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Doubts of a story's veracity should reflect such doubts in the sources, and not our personal opinion on the story. How would you suggest stopping editors from adding "alleged" to articles to express their own beliefs? Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

{{unreliable source?}} or {{deprecated source}} don't work in practice - nobody fixes anything. {{cn}} works much more often to gets a better source in. My source on this: having removed tens of thousands of uses of deprecated sources, i.e. sources that shouldn't be used on Wikipedia at all - US or DS tags linger forever, CN has a chance at some action happening - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And this is exactly what troubles me. You are removing tens of thousands of sources on autopilot, often (or usually?) without much consideration of context and circumstances.

Deleting the source and leaving the content will leave people guessing where the content originated from and deprives us of the possibility to properly judge the validity of the statement and the reliability of the source.

Deleting the source and the content means removing information which is correct in most cases, because it is likely to be incorrect in (very) few cases.

Again I would ask you to place the {{cn}} and either mark the original sources as "unreliable" or comment the source out. Or make both invisible, sources and content, instead of plainly removing everything.

Give other editors a chance to examine and improve suboptimal sources and content instead of obscuring the origin and causing much "collateral" damage by removing mostly valid information alongside minor amounts of actually doubtful content.

thank you,

KaiKemmann (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You are removing tens of thousands of sources on autopilot This claim is false. However, I am assuming it's a source that shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, per not one but two general RFCs to this effect.

I am treating this as a long-neglected cleanup task of sourcing that absolutely shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and that is worse than nothing at all.

Other editors had years to act on the "unreliable?" tags and they didn't.

So what you're asking for is that a deprecated source not be removed from Wikipedia. However, it remains that they should be - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

KaiKemmann, some sources are deprecated because they are unreliable; WP:RS demands that such sources are not used.

1. Some people demand that the content be removed with the source.
2. Some people demand that the content be left and tagged as {{cn}}.
3. Some people demand that the unreliable source be left.

These three are mutually exclusive. Only one is forbidden by policy: leaving an unreliable source in place. Your options are therefore to remove the content or to add a reliable source, since reasonable people differ on which of those is better. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I second the use of common sense when removing lower quality sources. RS doesn't say "a low quality source should never be used". It says we should balance the reliability of the source against the claim being supported. An uncontroversial fact supported by a low quality source should still be acceptable. The dogmatic removal of sources without considering if they are sufficient for the claim in question is a problem and isn't something that makes for a better article. Springee (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A deprecated source is presumed unreliable under almost any circumstances, and should not be used on Wikipedia. Removing deprecated sources is almost never incorrect. This follows from Wikipedia policies and strongly followed guidelines. As you'd know from previous discussions of this precise point that you directly participated in - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say deprecated sources. While I think you raise on of the issues with effectively banning deprecated sources for everything but ABOUTSELF applications, I was thinking of low reliability sites dealing with non-controversial claims. For example take an article on Formula Ford racecars. The current section is limited on technical detail that might be of interest to some readers. They might be interested to know that the Hewland Mk8-9 and LD200 gearboxes were both used in these cars. This is not a controversial claim nor is it one that is likely to get a lot of coverage in our more traditional sources. It might exist in a book like Anatomy of a Formula Ford Race Car but it's as likely to only exist on various privately created sites. I would consider The Kent Lives [[158]] to be WP:RS compliant for such a claim. I understand that some editors will say such information isn't DUE since it hasn't been published in a RS. My counter argument to that is we have to weigh DUE with respect to other published information. US Formula Ford technical specifications are a rather narrow topic (but also one that a source like Wikipedia is particularly good at capturing. Few readers will find such detail interesting but some will and given the uncontroversial nature of the claim I think this is a great example where such information should be retained rather than removed. Springee (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say deprecated sources This is literally a thread about deprecated source removal - if you want to talk about another subject, you can make a thread for that - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• The issue here seems to be: What do we do when potentially accurate information is supported by an unreliable (or even deprecated) source? Wikipedia has two answers to this question, depending on what the statement is about:

1. If the potentially accurate statement is Biographical information about a Living Person/people (BLP), we err on the side of caution and remove the statement along with with the unreliable source. We are intentionally overly STRICT about this.
2. If the potentially accurate statement is NOT about Living Person/people, we err in the other direction... we remove the source, but retain the statement (and either replace the source ourselves, or tag it so someone else will know that the statement needs to be supported).

If on the other hand, we think that the statement is not only poorly sourced, BUT ALSO inaccurate... we should remove both. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Again many thanks to everyone trying to explain the current policy which seems quite different from the way these issues are handled in the German Wikipedia that I am more familiar with.

You have made it sufficiently clear that sources considered unreliable may not be mentioned under any circumstances.

But what about the case where I would want to illustrate the way a particular news issue was reported in "the media" or "the yellow press". Would I then also have to exclude "The Sun" from the recital?

Also I feel that "citation needed" may not be strong enough to mark content from a source considered so toxic that it may never be mentioned in the article. Shouldn't such content generally be flagged more explicitly by using the beforementioned Template:Unreliable source? or something similar?

Lastly I would propose to define "hiding the source by commenting it out" as being equal to the required "removal of the source". After all there is no visible difference to the reader (and hence really no danger of "endorsing" the source in any way).

But leaving the original source as a note to future editors will in many cases make it much easier for them to find better sources based on the information, cross references and context in the original source. Also -as mentioned before- judging the validity of the remaining content can a time-consuming process if the original source was removed a long time ago and might require a lot of digging around the edit history to uncover.

Maybe David could give us an idea for how many of the tens of thousands of instances of unreliable unsourced content remaining/ resulting from his edits he did then add better sources afterwards.

Insofar David claims that the {{cn}} tags he uses to "replace" the sources attract other editors which then take on the laborious work of finding and entering new and better sources it would be interesting to know how much of the now unsourced content has been provided with new sources, say within a year. I suspect it will be a percentage in the low single digits, possibly as low as one or two percent ..?

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Global Times

What is the reliability of Global Times (globaltimes.cn  )? It is used in more than a thousand Wikipedia articles.

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

(t · c) buidhe 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Global Times)

• Option 4 a tabloid newspaper known for disinformation, state propaganda, and conspiracy theories [159][160] (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: Almost all of the attention for the Global Times is focused on its outlandish editorials, which should never be used outside of WP:ABOUTSELF regarding its authors. Their factual reporting also has major issues and should be regarded as unreliable; so possibly a 3 for non-editorials, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Global Times' false reporting extended to its factual reporting. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. I wouldn't rely on the Global Times for anything except to get a sense of the most hawkish and nationalistic propaganda coming from Chinese state media. Only usable for WP:ABOUTSELF, I think. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. While Xinhua (RfC above) exhibits some of the highest-quality reporting that mainland China has to offer, the Global Times exhibits some of the lowest-quality reporting. The main factor that distinguishes the Global Times from other Chinese state-owned publications is that the content published by Global Times is not necessarily aligned with the position of the Chinese government. Often, the Global Times exaggerates to generate a reaction, which frequently leads to Western publications incorrectly describing what the Global Times says as China's stance on an issue. This is a mistake: even though the Global Times is owned by the more respectable People's Daily, the Global Times is just a tabloid that publishes polemic for the sake of polemic (or in other words, propaganda). The Global Times serves the same purpose as Breitbart News (RSP entry) in the US, but is state-owned and takes a stance favoring the Chinese Communist Party. Here are some quotes from reliable sources that describe the Global Times, taken from my previous comment in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271 § Chinese news sources:

Quotes about the Global Times from reliable sources

As tensions rise on the Korean Peninsula, the world’s eyes are on China’s response. And "China" has given plenty of answers. "China Offers to Defend Kim Jong-un If He Gives Up His Nuclear Weapons," read one National Interest headline. "China Warns North Korea Not to ‘Cross Point of No Return’ With Nuclear Test," claimed Breitbart. The problem is, it wasn't the Chinese government issuing these statements; it was a market-driven tabloid that strives for exactly this sort of attention. [...] By its own admission, the paper’s actual relationship with China’s levers of power is tangential at best. And while the Global Times and the Chinese government have interests that overlap, they aren’t nearly identical. Several current and former editors at the paper say business incentives drive it to be intentionally provocative whenever possible. Provocations that involve straying from the official line of the Chinese government are welcome, so long as they don’t entirely sever the illusion of a tight connection between it and the newspaper. "China's Angriest Newspaper Doesn’t Speak for China", Foreign Policy Few countries have invested more man-hours in suppressing awkward facts than China. Internet censors employ more foot-soldiers than some armies. Propaganda officials are so strict that, lest instructions faxed to newsrooms leak, they issue some orders to squelch stories by telephone, to be recorded by hand. Yet the rules do not bind all equally. The Global Times is a jingoistic tabloid that tackles topics shunned by rivals, even though it is a subsidiary of the Communist Party mouthpiece, the important-but-turgid People's Daily. [...] It is not fashionable in China to take the Global Times seriously. Mention it at dinner with Chinese intellectuals and fireworks follow. They deplore its sabre-rattling towards Taiwan and Japan, and its deep reservoirs of grievance (this week the paper peddled a largely confected tale accusing Swedish police of brutalising some rowdy Chinese tourists). "China's Global Times plays a peculiar role", The Economist (RSP entry) China's most belligerent tabloid, the Global Times, is certainly a one-of-a-kind publication. The Chinese- and English-language news outlet is published by the ruling Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) paramount mouthpiece, the People's Daily, but it goes much further than China’s typically stodgy state news. The Global Times is best known for its hawkish, insulting editorials—aggressive attacks that get it noticed, and quoted, by foreign media around the world as the "voice" of Beijing, even as the party's official statements are more circumspect. "Inside the Global Times, China’s hawkish, belligerent state tabloid", Quartz The tabloid that Hu edits is known for its nationalistic coverage and bellicose opinions, which are frequently quoted by Western media. Like all state media outlets in China, it operates within a heavily censored environment that is tightly controlled by Communist authorities. Published in both Chinese and English, the Global Times boasts a daily circulation of two million copies, and every month its website attracts around 30 million unique visitors. Where other state media outlets adopt a more measured tone, Hu's paper takes a combative approach to covering international issues by calling out perceived threats and slights to China from across the world. "The man taking on Hong Kong from deep inside China's propaganda machine", CNN (RSP entry) From the preceding discussion of Huanqiu Shibao and Global Times, we can see that the two newspapers operate within the broad boundaries of the Party-state's propaganda strategy. The domestic edition pursues commercial objectives and strives to differentiate itself from its official state-run parent publication, People's Daily. It also maintains propaganda discipline by upholding the Party-state's main melody on important issues that shape China's interaction with the rest of the world. The international edition seeks to bring a nonofficial, pluralist Chinese perspective to foreign audiences. When it comes to sensitive subjects such as human rights and democracy whether there is conflict between the official Chinese discourse and Western discourses, however, Global Times seems more likely to reproduce the main melody than to provide a venue for the expression of a plurality of Chinese perspectives. The Globalization of Chinese Propaganda, p. 149, Springer

If the Global Times is ever used (primarily under WP:ABOUTSELF), it should be attributed in-text as a biased or opinionated source. The attribution should be made to the Global Times specifically, and not to "China". — Newslinger talk 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per above and for the fact that Global Times has been criticised for its coverage by the Chinese government itself. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, one of the worst in the world among the major state media outlets. Deprecation benchmarks RT and Daily Mail are superior in almost every way to Global Times, I don’t see any wiggle room on this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per Newslinger's sources --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, Newslinger's sources make it pretty clear that its widely recognised as a state owned propoganda outlet at best, which is saying something. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per nom. That newspaper does not even pretend to provide reliable information about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This really is just a propaganda outlet. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 concerning its propaganda service nature, and how much the world agrees on its nature as a propaganda service.--1233 ( T / C） 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Straight propaganda. feminist (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 pure propaganda. Cavalryman (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 3 Propaganda. KONNO Yumeto 09:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Pure tabloid propaganda. Sometimes Global Times (or Hu Xijin, should I say?) takes on a straw-man role with extreme opinions that go beyond Chinese state propaganda as a means for the CCP to test the waters regarding particularly controversial positions. As a result we can't even say GT reliably represents Chinese government opinion. I thought for a while about GT opinion being so notable that they might be cited and inline-attributed, but on second thoughts figured out that more reliable news outlets will have covered those opinions if they were sufficiently notable (in the news media sense, not the Wikipedia sense). Deryck C. 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 There's long been a consensus in the reliable sources I've seen that the Global Times is essentially a propaganda outfit, and is not a reliable source for facts. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - They have been officially chastised by Chinese authorities for their publications before, so their editorial line cannot even be said to be in line with that of the Chinese government. Neither does it even match that of their parent company, whose standard of publishing is far, far higher. Couple that with the criticism over conspiracy theories and you have a good argument for being very careful with them. Perhaps they might be kept around when referring to perticularly jingoistic strains of Chinese society, though. Would be open to having that discussion, though it should be handled with care. Goodposts (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 The Global Times effectively combines the "reliability" of the Daily Mail and state intervention of RT with Chinese propaganda to produce a tabloid milkshake that is likely to be reliable for... uhh... "facts". JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Global Times)

The votes above are amazing. Every single source listed by anyone notes that the Global Times is an important voice of hawkish elements within the Chinese establishment. If you take the sources seriously, its perspective is necessary to understand Chinese politics, but is obviously biased. Here on Wikipedia, editors cite these sources but then counter that we should deprecate the Global Times. What is the point of the categories Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, or Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, when we so often think in the binary terms reliable vs deprecation? -Darouet (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Options 2 or 3 are for sources like Xinhua not bottom of the barrel tabloids like the Global Times. I see no evidence that anyone is thinking in binary terms, can you say more about why you feel that way? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?

There’s a discussion that RSNB editors may be interested in at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin

I came across a discussion at Talk:David_S._Rohde#Michelle_Malkin_blog where another contributor referred to Michelle Malkin as merely the author of a "self published blog".

I looked to see if a discussion here had ever occurred as to when, if ever, her writing merited being used as a reliable source. Her name came up in five archived discussions here - but always in passing. None of those discussions was actually about her reliability.

My opinion, prior to looking into this, had been that Malkin was one of those American full-time professional columnists, who was far to the right in American politics, whose opinion, nevertheless, had the respect, or at least the grudging respect, of most of her peers, and thus would generally merit being considered acceptable as an RS.

Since then I saw that she seems to have agreed to have the Unz Review, published by Ron Unz, serve as the archive for some or all of her older articles. Our article on him says he is allied with holocaust deniers. Well that erodes his credibility, and by extension, Malkin's credibility.

If a discussion here concludes her opinion pieces generally shouldn't be used as RS then how should the dozens of links to Michellemalkin.com from article space be dealt with?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nuked, just like an equivalent left-wing blog, such as The Grayzone. (t · c) buidhe 12:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Our article on him says he is allied with holocaust deniers." So is Malkin herself. "In 2020, Malkin faced criticism for speaking at a conference hosted by far-right YouTuber Nick Fuentes and Patrick Casey, head of the neo-Nazi organization known as the American Identity Movement (formerly Identity Evropa). At the conference, Malkin said it was "not anti-semitic" to question "whatever the precise number of people is who perished in World War II." Malkin was dropped by the conservative YAF organization for her support of Fuentes, who has also denied the Holocaust. " Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Nonie Darwish a reliable source?

Is Nonie Darwish a reliable source? The following content was restored by Grufo who claims Darwish is reliable:

Khomeini, in his subsequent writings, also approved of adults satisfying their sexual lusts with children provided such activities stopped short of any penetration.

I strongly believe that Darwish is not reliable. Darwish has no scholarly credentials. Additionally, Darwish is a highly WP:QUESTIONABLE source:

• Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, says "Nonie Darwish has numerous affiliations with anti-Muslim organizations, has made false claims about Islam, and has called for Islam to be 'annihilated.'"
• The Intercept reported that Darwish has stated Islam should be feared, and should be fought, and should be conquered, and defeated, and annihilated. It also called Darwish "anti-Muslim".
• The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Darwish as "anti-Muslim activist".
• The New York Times reported that Darwish said, "A mosque is not just a place for worship. It’s a place where war is started."

VR _talk 18:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Further evidence of Darwish's extremism:

• The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Darwish as not only "anti-Muslim" but also "anti-Arab". It quotes Darwish as saying "Lying and slander is an obligation in Islam."
• Professor Deepa Kumar in Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire p. 183 writes "People like Gabriel play an important role in the Islamophobic network - they legitimize the racist attacks on Muslims and Arabs...A whole slew of people, mostly "ex-Muslims," have a played this role of legitimation. One such ideologue, Nonie Darwish..." The book seems to have received positive reviews from several professors: Gilbert Achcar, Hamid Dabashi and Arun Kundnani.

VR _talk 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

None of the points above makes her an unreliable source. An unreliable source is only a source that does not reliably do fact-checking. Her opinions do not constitute a valid argument against her reliability and she is perfectly entitled to think whatever she wants about Islam or have all the affiliations she wants to have. I invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --Grufo (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, if editors agree that the information is WP:DUE, I would use inline attribution to cite that claim to Darwish. I wouldn't use Darwish to state something as a fact in wikivoice. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor Vice regent seems to believe that all sources critical of Islam or openly anti-Islamic should be considered unreliable per se, and this is not the first source he removes only because of that. So I don't think the point discussed here is so much about Nonie Darwish, but it is more about creating a precedent. His activity is a bit like if I started to remove all Islamic sources that talk about the Quran labeling them as "biased" arguing that only atheists can be neutral about the topic. --Grufo (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd do you believe Darwish is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, which includes sources expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist? I would think Darwish's opinion that Islam be "annihilated" would be considered "extremist".VR _talk 18:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo that's totally disingenuous, you aren't quoting her for her attributed opinion, your using her a source in Wikivoice. Have any other sources corroborated this allegation? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not using her and I am not the one who inserted her among the sources. I am only contrasting the idea that having anti-Islamic positions makes a source automatically unreliable. Every time a source is removed I would rather prefer to read an explanation about why the facts stated are dubious or even just a mention to the author's bad reputation concerning fact-checking, rather than using his/her political or religious views as an argument. --Grufo (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, you clearly used Darwish as a source to insert the content. Do you now agree that Darwish is an unreliable source and content sourced to her should be removed? VR _talk 19:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It's quite a stunt to state that a revert in a page where I had never intervened before is equal to “using a source to insert the content”. --Grufo (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, do you consider Darwish a reliable source for this content you inserted or not? A "yes" or "no" would be quite helpful.VR _talk 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo just a point of order, when you revert a removal you take responsibility for what you reverted back onto the page. Please review WP:BURDEN. There is no stunt being puller here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Being described as "anti-Muslim" is not the same as being actually unreliable. Quite the opposite in many cases. I don't see any reason why the claim is controversial, though a better source can certainly be found. GPinkerton (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, I would have said the same thing if Pinkerton hadn't commented first. (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

buidhe wouldn't you agree that antisemitic sources should considered un-reliable? How is a source that is described as "anti-Muslim" and calls for the annihilation of Islam any different? Does WP:QUESTIONABLE not say that sources with "extremist" views should not be used? VR _talk 20:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: That's a fallacy of false equivalence. Antisemitism is not about criticism of Judaism as an ideology, it's about racism towards Jews. Calling for the annihilation of Islam is in no way comparable to calling for the annihilation of Jews, which of course the article's subject did on a regular basis, and his devotees continue to do to this day. GPinkerton (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

How is "anti-Muslim" not equivalent to antisemitism? VR _talk 20:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism is based on race, not beliefs, so it is not an acceptable position (and by the way, Arabs are Semitic people too). And yet, even an antisemitic source can be reliable as a source sometimes. Furthermore, while antisemitism is unacceptable, anti-Judaism for example is a perfectly acceptable belief. --Grufo (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can acknowledge the equal humanity of Muslims and Jews and other groups then you should be able to acknowledge that anti-Muslim is just as extremist as antisemitic.VR _talk 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. You really love, fallacies, don't you? Having a negative view of a religion does not mean judging its believers. One can think that the Bible and the Quran are mental masturbations (or worse) and at the same time suspend every judgement about their individual followers. --Grufo (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No-one - except the antisemitic Ayatollah - is denying the humanity of anyone. Being "anti-Muslim" has nothing to do with denying anyone's humanity. It has to do with denying the validity of belief systems - which are mere ideologies. GPinkerton (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Islamophobia is a real phenomenon that has claimed the lives of many innocent Muslims, just as antisemitism has. Darwish has been called both "anti-Muslim" and an Islamophobe by many sources.VR _talk 22:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobia is often used as a scare word to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. Criticism of Judaism is also widely practiced without being antisemitism. Criticising a religion or ideology is very different than demonizing a race or ethnic group (which is what antisemitism does); however, Muslims are not a race or ethnic group. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

buidhe, Do you agree that demonizing Muslims is as extremist as demonizing Jews? VR _talk 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Are you now going to claim Darwish is responsible for a "list of Islamophobic incidents"? Or are you going to present some reason why you have been unable to provide any source that so much as backs your claim that "Darwish has been called both "anti-Muslim" and an Islamophobe by many sources". Your NYT article does not in any way support any of your claims; the SPLC describes her as "anti-Muslim" but not an Islamophobe; neither does The Intercept use the word. Nor indeed does the Georgetown University Bridge Initiative, it merely states that another advocacy group had labelled her a "validator" in what they call "Fear Inc". Nothing about any of this supports your idea that Dawish means that "anti-Muslim is just as extremist as antisemitic". Are you really supposing that criticism of ideology is equivalent to antisemitism? You are apparently arguing for WP:CENSORSHIP of all views opposing the Dear Leader. No demonization is mentioned anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll just point out that there is a not so fine line when it comes to being anti-Islam and Islamophobic or anti-Muslim as some like Maajid Nawaz (who I think balances the issue properly) prefer. Yes, improper accusations of Islamophobia exist but that does not void the existence of the phenomena [161].

Certain views of Islam (not necessarily Muslims) such as viewing it as "static and unresponsive to change" do indeed veer into Islamophobia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Contrasting_views_on_Islam]. Nonie Darwish is not so different form Raymond Ibrahim [who is regarded as unreliable) or Robert Spencer (same as Raymond and he's referred to as anti-Muslim by RS). Anti-Muslim or not they are clearly unreliable and if these are the best sources you can muster up for "academic" criticism of Islam, I'll point out that you are standing on thin ice (for the record I believe better sourced criticism exists).

As for the comparison with anti-Semitism I'll point out that many anti-semites strongly deny being called such and instead insist on being seen as anti-Judaic or critics of the Talmund or whatever part of Judaism or Jewishness they detest. The line is not as clear-cut. Despite these protestations, they are usually classified as anti-Semites. When you have people calling for the annihilation of a religion, for example "Judaism should be annihilated" especially when backed up by some kind of activism, you are being extremely prejudiced even if you clarify that you have no issue with individual believers per say. Plus, how is religious based prejudice less worse that ethnic prejudice? I'll also clarify that that the legacy of anti-Semitism has certainly been much more destructive than other types of prejudices. Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right. Islamophobia exists and is wrong even if it doesn't reach the level of anti-Semitism. I'd wager that most people with anti-semitic beliefs have never harmed a Jew, neither have most people who are anti-Muslim ever directly harmed Muslims, but that doesn't change their anti-Semetic/Muslim beliefs which builds up towards mainstream acceptance of these views.

Coming back to the topic, it is quite clear that Nonie Darwish is an unreliable source except perhaps for her own views on her own page.

P.S. Anti Semitism does not refer to prejudice against Arabs. Just check the freaking red clarification on the top of the talkpage of the anti-semitism article. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

“Nonie Darwish is not so different form Raymond Ibrahim [who is regarded as unreliable) or Robert Spencer (same as Raymond and he's referred to as anti-Muslim by RS).” This confirms my suspect that all that Vice regent (and the anonymous IP address that often accompanies him) wants with Nonie Darwish is creating a precedent in order to remove all the anti-Islamic sources “as such”, independently of the context or the content (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5). As I had already explained in Talk:Islam and blasphemy – the place where they removed Raymond Ibrahim and which is the reason why the IP address can now state that Raymond Ibrahim “is regarded as unreliable” – personally I am not a fan of conservative folk like Ibrahim, but defining him “not reliable source” to my eyes would require more than an editor's personal dislike due to political or religious disagreements. --Grufo (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, they can each independently be established as unreliable as can some other unreliable anti-Muslim sources I can think of who have not been mentioned or cited, for example: [162]. My comment was directed at you in particular, knowing that you were familiar with the previous example of Raymond Ibrahim. Eperoton was the one who cast final judgement on Raymond Ibrahim, remember? Is he in cahoots with us too? VR even challenged you to take him up on this noticeboard but you refrained from pushing the issue. You really think this precedent for removing obviously biased sources was hatched up a few days ago by me and VR? Check the talk-pages on Islam related articles and you'll see such sources routinely removed except on the persons own articles or when they are overlooked. These articles are meant to provide a holistic overview of various topics by reliable academics. They aren't meant for naked polemicism by unreliable authors and this hold true for religions other than Islam as well. For all your talk of being a progressive atheist, every single source you defend (i.e when you present sources at all) turns out to be either non-scholarly and extremely POV or misquoted with OR added in. By now you simply seem to be engaging on a quest to Right Great Wrongs which is quite unconstructive. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

“Eperoton was the one who cast final judgement on Raymond Ibrahim, remember? Is he in cahoots with us too?”

Of course not, Eperoton is only a user you had invoked via private message in your support, and nevertheless has demonstrated good balance in his interventions.

“all your talk of being a progressive atheist, every single source you defend (i.e when you present sources at all) turns out to be either non-scholarly and extremely POV or misquoted with OR added in”

You should have said “all your talk … and every single source you defend turns out to be conservative”, it would have been much stronger and more effective. And indeed this is what progressive people do, they oppose the fact that a political or religious opinion may constitute a prejudice towards a person, independently of his/her views. The fact that not all of them are academics and some are just book authors is definitely not an argument for being considered unreliable. We are still talking and yet I have not heard one single argument why these right wing people that love to spend their time focusing on the rotten parts of a religion are unreliable “per se”.

“These articles are meant to provide a holistic overview of various topics by reliable academics”

I agree with the claimed approach (although journalists and authors can be very reliable too). And indeed I tend to be the one who fights to save content that you and Vice regent want to remove, remember?

--Grufo (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"nevertheless has demonstrated good balance in his intervention"

Yes that's precisely why I called him and what unbiased editors do. He's an experienced and neutral editor. I most certainly did not invite him for "my support" although yes he did tend to agree that your edits were against WP. He's much politer than VR and I, no doubt. But he clearly cautioned you a number of times about the usage of the Quran, about secondary sources, about Ibrahim and much more, all of which you have chosen to deliberately ignore or pretend not to hear.

'conservative' Many of the sources above can very well be described as "Far-right" (note: Far-right does not necessarily mean neo-Nazi), so this is not just your garden variety conservatism were talking about Grufo. RS claim that many of these people are considered prejudiced against Muslims i.e anti-Muslim, their own denials notwithstanding.

"rotten parts of a religion are unreliable" Polemicism is by its very nature unreliable Grufo. Despite being authors Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on Christianity in general, Israel Shahak not on Judaism and the sources above not on Islam. Simple. You have not really provided any evidence that these sources are reliable and the onus really is on you. Where are the academics and why not rely on them?

Regardless of how much you claim to have progressive leanings, the proof is in the pudding or rather your edits I should say. I'm sure you received your information on Islam from secondary sources as well. Which ones I do not know but can probably guess they would not be described as "progressive". Your claim that progressive people should not be biased towards people or authors who are known to have problematic views is a moral abomination as well. Should we really be completely unprejudiced towards people with anti-semetic/Racist/Islamophobic/etc views when they are discussing their pet peeves? In any case, this is not really relevant to WP. Eperoton has said in no certain terms that Raymond is unreliable as is his publisher. What more do you want? Do you dispute this?

"journalists and authors" Depends on whom your talking about. Might as well have said people can be very reliable too.

"who tends to fight to save content" Yes, yes I remember Saeed and your well cited edits over at Islam and Blasphemy. First impressions are lasting ones... and I've responded to your added or "saved" content on the various article talkpages as have others. We can keep that discussion there. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

“Many of the sources above can very well be described as "Far-right"”

As I said, a political position has nothing to do with being a reliable source or not. Being a reliable source means only doing the due fact-checking and stating the truth.

“Polemicism is by its very nature unreliable Grufo”

This is quite an empty sentence that can be read in many ways. Thanks to a lot of polemics we invented secularism, democracy, and many other things. And yet polemicism can also be an empty tool for not going behind the form without ever touching a content. It is interesting that rhetorical fallacies are often used in support of empty polemicism. I'll leave to the reader to check where and by whom rhetorical fallacies have been used in this multifaced discussion.

“Your claim that progressive people should not be biased towards people or authors who are known to have problematic views is a moral abomination as well”

I never said that, I think we all are biased. For example I am biased against who thinks that a political position is enough to judge the honesty of a source about a particular fact without any further check. And as I already mentioned before, in this particular case I have also the bias of suspecting that you and Vice regent want to create a precedent for denying the reliability of anti-Islamic sources “as such”, which I find unacceptable. To make a parallel, without anti-Christian western authors we would not have reached the progress and the freedom that we have reached so far.

“Eperoton has said in no certain terms that Raymond is unreliable as is his publisher. What more do you want? Do you dispute this?”

What I said so far applies also to Eperoton, who has not argued in favor of his statement enough for “a normal time”, let alone for an ongoing dispute, and I would have argued way longer than he did if I was him. And yes, of course I “dispute that”, since no exhaustive motivation was given. I never agreed with the removal of Ibrahim, I only happened to become minority in that discussion.

“I remember Saeed”

Again, I did not remove Saeed, I removed an ideological statement that used Saeed as support reference. I thought you had understood that by now.

May I ask you why you still refuse to create a Wikipedia account, especially given that your IP address always changes? --Grufo (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The source of the claim is Tahrir al-Wasilah, and this issue recieved extensive discussion on that articles talkpage over a decade ago. There are loads of translations but obviously all the parties who are translating the text have an incentive to spin it a certain way to either defend Khomeini or condemn him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Darwish also claims on the same page that "Khomeini didn't just make this stuff up. Mohammed was practicing thighing with Aisha at age six and consumated the marriage at age nine". Is this a mainstream scholarly view? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I get that it's the traditional date according to hadiths, but quoting it as is without question makes me suspect that this is not a particularly scholarly account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe that anyone has ever claimed that Nonie Darwish is a scholar or that their work is academic in any way. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tahrir al-Wasilah sounds like a WP:PRIMARY source. A reliable English-language secondary source would avoid the whole issue of "spin". The job of interpreting hadith and Tahrir al-Wasilah belongs to reliable, secondary sources. We need to mainly resolve whether Darwish a reliable source. (I could go into my own personal analysis of the WP:PRIMARY texts, but that would be WP:OR).VR _talk 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The book publisher Thomas Nelson appears to be christian focused, and the book was largely ignored outside christian circles, with the only reputable review I can find originating in city journal. If we are going to make claims that Khomeini endorsed pedophilia we are going to need a better source than this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, coming back to Nonie Darwish, can you unambiguously clarify if she's a reliable source for articles on Islam in general. I think you can save us a lot of text here. (apologies if this comes off as a bit rude, the problem is on our end) 39.37.135.0 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable for statements of fact about history. First, it's not the case that a source is assumed to be reliable unless proven otherwise. On the contrary, we need to establish "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For a history book, we generally do that by looking at the author's scholarly credentials, such as peer-reviewed publications on the subject, or at the publisher. In this case, the author is not an established historian. The publisher specializes on religious content, and I don't see evidence that they have a reputation for fact-checked publications on history, as university presses or some other publishers have. As another editor noted, given the wealth of academic publications about Khomeini, if the statement is accurate, it shouldn't be hard to find it in a RS. Eperoton (talk)

• Eperon, there are quite some syllogistic fallacies in your comment. First, we are not discussing Nonie Darwish' reliability as a source because not “proven otherwise”, we are discussing her reliability because Vice regent explicitly asked us to discuss about it. Second, she qualifies as a writer, not an academic, so measuring her academic achievements is out of place. Third, I have only heard so far discredit about her publisher or prejudices about her views as disappointed ex-muslim and yet I have not heard anything about her alleged lack of fact-checking or dishonesty. I have the diametrical opposite political views of Darwish, especially concerning her endorsement of the state of Israel, I would have zero interest in the average titles of the Thomas Nelson publisher, and yet I still defend her right not to be prejudiced for her beliefs and her right to be judged only on the facts. Fourth, the editor specializes exactly in history books together with Christian-focused books. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Again, to establish a source as reliable, we need to establish its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Being a writer doesn't establish one's book as being a RS for history, not does being published. The onus is on those who seek establish reliability, not vice versa. Of the things that we normally look at to establish reliability for a history text, I see none of them here. Where do you see that the publisher specializes in mainstream history books? The religious nature of their publications is stated explicitly in their mission: "Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. [...] Thomas Nelson is committed to one central mission: inspiring the world by meeting the needs of people with content that promotes biblical principles and honors Jesus Christ." Eperoton (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, though I'm not opposed to in-line attribution. I agree with Grufo, GPinkerton, and buidhe here; just because a source is critical of Islam as an ideology, it doesn't mean it's Islamophobic (the same goes for criticism of other ideologies). There is a major difference between "demonizing" and "criticizing", and unless we know for certain that the author has a particular agenda here, I don't see why we can't use a book that's been released by a reliable publisher. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I only see one reason for reliability in your statement above, that the book has been published "by a reliable publisher". The publisher is Thomas Nelson (publisher) and their most famous book has been subject to criticism. They publish books on trying to prove the infallibility of the Bible. So I ask you once again, Stefka Bulgaria, are all books published by Thomas Nelson reliable?VR _talk 11:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Defining a publisher that has been existing since 1798 as “unreliable” only because it focuses on Christian books is quite a bold statement. To give you a parallel example, the Vatican Publishing House is a very reliable publisher. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

G. P. Putnam's Sons is a reputable publisher, doesn't mean that Chariots of the Gods? isn't total nonsense. Non-academic publishers like the big 4, (which Thomas Nelson is a subsidiary of, as part of HarperCollins) are interested in what sells, not what is scholarly and accurate, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Another_fringe_book_from_Simon_and_Schuster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vatican Publishing House books may be reliable for views on the Catholic church, but I doubt we'd use in the article on evolution.VR _talk 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? Unlike many other religions people, Catholicism accepted evolution as fact more than a century ago. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion I had with Roscelese. Stuff published by the Vatican Publishing House could be reliable for views of the Catholic church, but it would not be a reliable source for factual statements in most fields, like anthropology, evolution, Islam etc.VR _talk 16:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

While I haven't read through the entire discussion here, between Darwish's questionable credentials and the questionable status of the publisher, there's absolutely no way we can cite this kind of statement to her. If it's true, why are these low-quality sources the only sources that talk about it? Shouldn't reliable sources have said somrthing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this book ("Refuting the Anti-Israel Narrative: A Case for the Historical, Legal and Moral Legitimacy of the Jewish State" by Jeremy Havardi; pubisher: McFarland) saying something similar to what Nonie Darwish claims:

"Sharia law dictates that there is no legal minimum age for marriage (beyond puberty), an opinion upheld by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini lowered the marriage age to 13 for girls but permitted girls as young as 7 to be married, if a physician signed a certificate agreeing to their sexual maturity. The Ayatollah also stated that a Muslim man could "quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby" provided he did not "penetrate".

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That quote contradicts what scholarly sources have said about minimum age for marriage in Sharia. I don't think Jeremy Havardi is a reliable source on Islamic jurisprudence. His book makes many mistakes when talking about Islam.VR _talk 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This controversy is also mentioned in Khomeini's book: "The book has been the target of some polemics by some critics of Khomeini, owing to certain passages which seem to sanction sexual practices with minors, including toddlers"; although the source for that passage doesn't seem to be currently working. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't source wikipedia especially if that content is likely original research.VR _talk 11:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

“You can't source wikipedia”: You have literally just done that. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a link to Khomeini's book (Tahrirolvasileh) where he said this, but I'm not sure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Nonie Darwish isn't a source - she's an author. The source we're talking about here is her book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, which appears to be published by a respectable publisher. A quick Google check tells me that it appears in the reference list of at least one academic monograph, Global Jihad in Muslim and non-Muslim Contexts by Jonathan Matusitz of the University of Central Florida, but I haven't read the book and can't see exactly how it was treated by that work. I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd be leaning towards saying that this looks like a reliable source, as far as our guidelines are concerned. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Matusitz seems like a pretty controversial figure himself, per the Orlando Sentinel:

Matusitz’s views on Islam have generated controversy before. In 2013, the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations accused him of teaching anti-Muslim bigotry and asked UCF to review the content of Matusitz’s courses. Later that year, he was the featured speaker at an event called “The Islamic Threat to America" in Viera. The American-Islamic advocacy group described the organization that sponsored the event as “an anti-Muslim hate group” and asked Brevard County not to allow it to use a commission meeting room.

The second incident is referenced in this Yahoo story which notes that the sponsoring organisation is ACT! for America which SPLC describes as a hate group. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit as said in WP:SOURCE? the reliability is affected by the author. And being quoted by an academic source is not an indication of reliability, as I have seen academic books use wikipedia as a source and we know that WP:UGC is definitely not reliable.VR _talk 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, huh? Which academic books use Wikipedia as a source? Just so I can make sure never to buy from that publisher... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit This book and this book, both by Springer Publishing, and this book by Routledge. I have also seen this done by books published by various University presses. Once I find them, I'll message on User talk:Girth Summit.VR _talk 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, jings. Bit of a red flag. I guess I won't be able to avoid Springer entirely, but seriously, that's pretty poor. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion of publishers is a red-herring; things are not automatically reliable when published by a particular corporation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron is correct, in the general sense - we don't just look at the publisher to determine reliability (I've seen some terrible rubbish published by otherwise respectable presses.) I've just looked into Thomas Nelson a bit further though, and it is giving me pause. The first sentence of their company profile runs thus: Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. Looking at their publications, they mostly appear to be bibles, bible study guides and the like, but they also have a non-fiction bookstore, which exclusively sells... well, I find it hard to describe. Let's call it Christian stuff. I'm starting to lean away from my earlier position - perhaps this is a piece of polemic, written by a campaigner, and published by a company given over almost exclusively to... Christian stuff. What we want is scholarship, and this is looking less like that to me now. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Would not her books be considered biased sources? Per Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate" Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break (Nonie Darwish)

Darwish's twitter account certainly is... something. "Is Corona the First (grand scale) Biological World War orchestrated by globalists and China? Sure looks like it" "Must read! Many white girls are seduced into transgender! Being a victim has become the only thing to aspire for in America today!!!!! White girls want the victimhood status so they choose to be transgender!" I would place about as much trust in her words as I would those of Alex Jones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A quote from Darwish this 2018 journal article

... in Cruel and Usual Punishment, Darwish avows that Muslims “are incapable of feeling compassion toward non-Muslims. Acknowledging compassion to non-Muslim oppressed minorities is grounds for apostasy. A Muslim must stay hardened and unyielding”

I think literally suggesting Muslims cannot feel emotion is quite beyond the pale, especially considering the quote is from the exact same book we are talking about. Kevin Parker (New York politician) in a 2011 letter to chair Greg Ball (politician) asking to disinvite Darwish, cited her describing Islam as "not a true religion" and Obama as a "political muslim". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Obama is a "political muslim" is from this article in Media Matters for America (RSP entry) by our old friend Max Blumenthal. While I have immense distaste for his current output, I think he is reliable in this instance as the article provides a audio log as well as a transcript. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This definitely convinces me that Darwish' political position are among the most horrible political positions one can have today. It does not convinces me though that this would make her an unreliable source, especially considering the fact that she seems saying the truth about Khomeini endorsing pedophilia. Dan Fincke (an atheist), reports a quotation of Khomeini given by Maryam Namazie:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

On the other hand Kaveh Mousavi, another atheist who lives in Iran, reports this other quotation, adding that Dan Fincke's translation “actually waters down what Khomeini has said” and Khomeini endorsing pedophilia “is quite public knowledge among Iranians”:

Whoever has a wife under nine years old cannot penetrate her, whether she is his permanent wife or his temporary wife. But other forms of sexual pleasure are allowed, such as lustful touching, embracing, or rubbing the penis on the thigh of the girl, even if she is an infant still. And if the baby’s vagina is so badly damaged that the bladder and urethra “become the same”.he penetrates her before she is nine year old, and her hymen is not broken, he has only sinned, and if he has only sinned, but if he has, then she will be forbidden to him forever, and [he has to pay for her her entire life (I summarized here)]

It seems that these are all quotation from a speech, not a written document. But even just by google-translating this original page from the series of documents (Tahrir al-Wasilah) posted by Stefka Bulgaria it appears something like: A woman who has not reached puberty yet (i.e., she is not yet nine years old) takes no decisions in divorcing from her husband – implying that she can already be married when she is nine years old. But of course we cannot rely on Google Translator and I cannot speak Farsi. --Grufo (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that all sources that are translating the Khomeini document are a. Ideologically opposed to Khomeini. and b. have no expertise on islamic jurisprudence. I think that her stating that "Muslims are incabable of feeling" (a statement that is obviously false to any rational human being) in the same book that the quote comes from means that an alternate source should be found, and regardless of the outcome of whether the text stays or is removed it should not be cited to the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health. In any case, if the pages posted by Stefka Bulgaria are really the original Tahrir al-Wasilah I think the question about Khomeini endorsing pedophilia is quite closed. I have nothing against finding different sources, but I am definitely against erasing the truth. --Grufo (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Patheos piece states that: "Khomeini was by no means a lone voice on this. Actually, these views are still quite dominant among the Shia clerics I know of." and "on many issues Khomeini was a progressive for his time, and the fact that he seems so ancient and fundamentalist now is a testament of the great progress of the mentality of certain parts of Iran." but Patheos is a really marginal source for claims like this as it is a self-published blog. I would really want an impartial academic scholarly source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

“Khomeini was by no means a lone voice on this. Actually, these views are still quite dominant among the Shia clerics I know of” sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator”. Pedophilia was already defined internationally at the time of Khomeini, so no, I would never agree that Khomeini “was a progressive for his time” – and let's not forget that he stopped an actual socialist revolution that was happening before him in that very same place that Patheos seems to describe as so backward. Italian neo-fascists still say to defend Mussolini “…But trains were always on time when there was him”. I am sure that with a little bit of research we can find something good that even Khomeini did. --Grufo (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Patheos considers Patheos "generally unreliable" and to be treated as WP:SELFPUB. I don't see any reason to consider either of the two pieces reliable.VR _talk 01:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep in mind this discussion is whether Nonie Darwish is a reliable source. If there are other sources they can be presented and discussed at Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Grufo's comment here hints at Grufo no longer defending Nonie Darwish as reliable. Grufo do you still consider Nonie Darwish to be a reliable source? If yes, what is your reason? VR _talk 01:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

“Grufo's comment here hints at Grufo not considering Nonie Darwish reliable”

Last time I checked I had a mouth to express my own opinions, I am quite sure I did not need to signal or “hint” them.

“Grufo do you still consider Nonie Darwish to be a reliable source? If yes, what is your reason?”

You might have missed it since it was an explicit statement and not a hint: So far yes, because she seems stating the truth and the only arguments used against her so far are her political opinions, or her positions against Islam's teachings, or what she believes the latter might provoke in people's empathy.

--Grufo (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo Per WP:RS, you need to demonstrate that Nonie Darwish has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", regardless of whether you think she is telling the WP:TRUTH. Do you believe Darwish is considered an expert in Islamic jurisprudence? Do you think Thomas Nelson (publisher) a reputable publisher on Islam related topics? VR _talk 02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If Khomeini really didn't write this in his book and Nonie Darwish is making it all up, then Darwish's source would indeed be a problem. Is that the case though? An author doesn't need to be an expert in Islamic jurisprudence to make a note about what Khomeini wrote in his book. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria There are a number of issues with using an unreliable source. The source may have fabricated part of the quote, omitted important qualifying information, or simply misunderstood Khomeini. In Islamic jurisprudence, clerics are asked if a certain action is forbidden. If they can't find a prohibition against the action in texts (Quran etc) they say "no". That doesn't mean they "approve" the action. Saying "Khomeini could not find any scriptural prohibition against sex with babies" is a lot different than "Khomeini approved of sex with babies." Yet another possibility could be that Khomeini was quoting opinions of more conservative clerics and not endorsing the position as his own (see this). A reliable source could be trusted to present Khomeini's objectively and accurately.

We keep making this discussion about Khomeini, when really it is about whether Darwish is a reliable source, at least on Islamic jurisprudence. You said earlier that your main reason for considering Darwish is a reliable source is because of the publisher Thomas Nelson (publisher). In light of this comment above, do you still think Thomas Nelson is a reliable source in the field of Islamic jurisprudence? VR _talk 15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In case any Iranian is present here, there is a video with (I presume) Khomeini's speech ([163], it starts at minute 3' 20''). Vice regent, all your comments seem aimed at raising suspicion that Darwish might be an unreliable source, but you constantly avoid to convince that she is. --Grufo (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion, and at first glance, thought my eyes were either playing tricks on me or I developed dyslexia because I could've sworn the title read User:Darwinbish.🐲 A few drops of Systane Ultra fixed me right up. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: there is a discussion at Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini#Darwish, where I went through a reference of Darwish and found that it wasn't saying what she claimed it was saying. Darwish either misquoted the text or made part of it up. I did a google search and found that text to be in random forums and anti-Islam websites, but not in any reliable sources. The possibility that she "copies and pastes randomly from the internet" was raised.VR _talk 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The claim of Khomeini permitting sex with babies is promoted by anti-Islam/Iran sources. A simple search in Farsi would bring multiple explanations [164] as to who and why these false accusations are spread against him. For clarification, I will list some of the points being discussed in this discussion (sorry if my translations are not so good):
  • Regarding the marriage of a young girl, Khomeini regards 'satisfaction' of the two sides of the marriage as a pre-condition. Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text:

    عقد ازدواج بین دو نفر باید با رضایت هر دو باشد، بنابراین اگر یک طرف را مجبور کنند و یا بدون رضایت او عقد ازدواج را جاری کنند، صحیح نمی باشد.

Translation by me: "The marriage between two should be accompanied by the satisfaction of the two sides. So, if one is enforced to marriage or the marriage is done without seeking the satisfaction them, the marriage is not correct."

Khomeini further clarifies the marriage. He explains that for a girl (or boy) to grant permission for marriage, they 1) should have reached 'puberty', 2) should be 'Rashid' - (This means, besides being matured, he/she should grown enough so that he/she recognizes good and bad). Again, Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text as such:

برای انجام رضایت به ازدواج، باید دو طرف عقد (مرد و زن) بالغ و رشید باشند، بنابراین اگر دختر دارای رشد نیست نمی توان او را به عقد دیگری درآورد

Translation by me: "For satisfaction of the marriage parties to be sought for doing marriage, the two sides should have reached puberty and should be Rashid. Thus, if the girl is not grown enough, she can't be married to a man."

I am ready for further keeping on this discussion, if its need. Finally, I suggest avoid basing this discussion on such a bogus source -just see the title- when we have access to more reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, thank you for your intervention! At these two links #1 and #2 this post appeared:

I have a personal copy of al-Khomeini's TaHreer al-Waseelah, and this fatwa is found in second volume.

(Taken from my personal copy of al-Khomeini's TaHreer al-Waseelah (Damascus: Sufaarah al-Majhooriyyah 1418 A.H.), vol. 2, pg. 221 - 222)

Click here for the Picture (file too big to upload) --> http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4414/khomeinitahreervol2pg22.jpg

مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شى‏ء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب .

Ruling #12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikkaaH (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing, there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant. If he does have sexual intercourse before nine years of age and does not penetrate, there is no penalty, but he has committed a sin. If he does penetrate causing the vagina and urethra openings to be one, she will become forever haram for him, but this is as a precaution. And it is more probable that her status as his wife is not removed. And the rulings of inheritance, and the prohibition of a fifth wife or marriage to her sister applies. And it is waajib upon him for her maintenance as long as she is alive, even if he divorces her and even if she marries after divorcing her as a precautionary measure. And it is waajib upon him for blood money for the penetration and the amount is equivalent to that of an individual. If she is a free-woman, the amount is half that of a man, plus the dowry that she became entitled to through the `aqd and penetration. If he penetrates his wife after the age of nine, she does not become haram to him and there is no evidence that blood money is liable, but as a precautionary measure, he should maintain her as long as she is alive, although it is more probable that this is not obligatory."

Source:
al-Khomeini, taHreer al-Waseelah, vol. 2, pg. 241, Kitaab al-Nikaah, Ruling # 12

Could you tell us what you think? --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Roscelese commented that Darwish is not a reliable source for this kind of statement. I'm only pointing it out cause the comment is buried deep in the discussion.VR _talk 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• I see no proof that Nonie Darwish is reliable, let alone objective, and the publisher doesn't even pretend to be neutral in these matters. They are "dedicated to acquiring, developing and promoting authors whose content inspires, informs, and transforms the lives of readers", which is fine--but not when you are using these books to write an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

China Daily

As far as I can tell a discussion of China Daily has never come up before on this noticeboard. China Daily is yet another state-owned chinese publication, owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China Despite its relative obscurity in comparison to Xinhua or Global Times, we have an awful lot of citations to it, over 5,500 in fact per chinadaily.com.cn  , significantly more than we have for the People's Daily (which is less than 900 per people.cn  ). Where do we think its reliablity among state chinese publications falls if Xinhua is the gold standard? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• If Xinhua is the gold standard and Global Times is the shit-tier standard then China Daily hovers a little above Global Times. One difference between China Daily and some of the other Chinese media is that its unambiguously propaganda and there is no obfuscation of ownership or role, it is explicitly part of the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China. I do not consider them to be generally reliable and would vote to deprecate them if such a chance ever presented itself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye Jack: @Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't mind pre-emptive RFCs on this, on CCTV/CTGN, and on the HK newspaper Ta Kung Pao (sister publication of Wen Wei Po). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

    See below for the RfC on China Global Television Network. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Adamant1: If you're interested in a Ta Kung Pao RFC please do one WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Basically per Horse Eye Jack: China Daily, like Global Times, is straight propaganda, though China Daily is written with a higher standard of language. Their reliability should be comparable. feminist (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think this should be added on the perennial sources list too, so a formal RFC would be desirable. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  An RfC is not required to add to the list. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Emir of Wikipedia: Ok! In that case, if this is OK: Whatever the result of this page is should be listed. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Religion News Service / religionnews.com

Is this page from Religion News Service...

• Martini Judaism: Imagine Anne Frank at 90

...a reliable source for any of the following claims?

• Anne Frank was a lesbian
• Anne Frank was bisexual
• Anne Frank had a same-sex attraction
• Anne Frank's Diary contains homoeroticism
• Anne Frank had bisexual longings

(I apologize for listing multiple claims, but as can be seen at Talk:Anne Frank the editors who wish to insert claims about Anne Frank's sexual preferences keep changing the wording, making those who oppose play Whac-A-Mole with each new way of phrasing the same claim.) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources which state some or all of these. Even if you don't accept it is true: WP:Verifiability, not truth. AFAIK RNS is a fairly reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of the reliable sources noticeboard. Arguments as to whether the claims are true or whether the claims are supported by other sources belong on the article talk page. RSN is for examining whether this source is reliable for this claim.

For example, I could ask "is the Dilbert comic strip a reliable source for the claim the Barack Obama was the 44th president of the United States?", and the answer from RSN would be "no" despite the fact that the claim is true and supported by multiple high quality sources. Please keep in mind that a source not being reliable only puts the associated claim at risk of removal if no other reliable sources support the claim (which again, would be an argument for the article talk page, not RSN). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think buidhe's confusion is understandable, considering that this seems to be yet another FORUMSHOP on an issue that really should be resolve-able through the Talk page RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reliability, In my opinion the specific page listed above is a lot more like a blog entry than it is like a news item, and should not be used to support a highly contentious claim about the sexual preferences of a historical figure who was only 15 years old when she was murdered by the Nazis for being Jewish. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Number one, this isn't a news item, it's an essay or opinion piece. Number two, the reliability, or otherwise, is neither here nor there for most of those assertions - the only one of the above claims that it makes is that she had bisexual longings. Surely more authoritative academic authors (academic historians) must have covered this stuff? It's a very weak source, we should be trying to reflect what real scholarship says on the subject. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Girth Summit, the passage in question states that Otto Frank edited out many passages: about Anne's conflicts with her mother, Edith; about her emerging sexuality, especially where she embraces her bisexual longings. This strikes me as a plausible interpretation well within Jeffrey Salkin's ambit as a writer, and that there should be no bar to its inclusion on WP at least as an attributed opinion. He is certainly not the only one who has advanced this interpretation of Otto Frank's redaction of the Diary, and there aren't really any reliable sources contradicting the claim, either. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece (the author is listed as an opinion writer) but I think, here, it fails WP:SOURCETYPES as not the kind of source usefully reliable for history. It does suggest that there are underlying sources with serious historical commentary for the redacted portions of the diary, but then those underlying sources are what Wikipedians should be looking at. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• This seems like a pretty weak source for the claims. I am very concerned that a small number of editors are dredging the dusty corners of the web for anything they can find to support the content they want to add, leading to substantially undue weight on something that is simply not considered important by most sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG, I believe the discussion here concerns the reliability of the source, rather than weight. And you have previously argued that unlike, e.g., exploration of her genitalia, which is sourced to HistoryExtra, that academic-level sourcing is required for same-sex attraction (the phrase used in HistoryExtra). This seems inconsistent and axe-grindey to me.
  • As I said at the article talk page last month, Religion News isn't a blog - it has editorial oversight. Jeffrey Salkin, the columnist who wrote the source in question, is recognized as one of the most thoughtful Jewish writers and teachers of his generation and is therefore an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" in the sense required by WP:RS. It should certainly be RS for an attribution of bisexual longings as one of the ways the diary was understood and as a reason that material was expurgated in earlier editions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Newimpartial, assumptions of ill-faith aside, this board routinely parses out the difference between reliabilitry and due weight. In this case the reliability is marginal and there is undue weight. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Surely per policy WEIGHT can only be determined in relation to all available RS, and not only in relation to a single source? Guy Macon appears to be playing Whac-A-Mole with sources - first PinkNews, then ReligionNews, then BBC HistoryExtra - which is not an approved use of the mallet AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

        Newimpartial, WEIGHT appears to be assessed by some editors according to "how many obscure pages can we find that support the content we desperately want to add to this article, but which is not supported by any of the dozens of heavyweight sources that are devoted to the subject". Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• As can be seen from the above, some editors really want to sexualize Anne Frank, but this is not the correct place to discuss that. I advise completely ignoring any comment that references some other source. The poster is free to open a new section about that other source if they want to discuss whether it is reliable for a particular claim.

The question before us is whether Martini Judaism: Imagine Anne Frank at 90 from Religion News Service is a reliable source for claims about Anne Frank's sexual preferences. All other unrelated material should be ignored as if it had never been added. If that doesn't do the trick, we can always apply Template:Hidden archive top. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• • That's some really great framing, Guy, but to answer that question accurately people really need to look at the context of your question, including the multiple discussions on Talk:Anne Frank as well as your FORUMSHOP expeditions. Whether the Religion News source is RS for a particular claim depends on what claim it is, and whether or not said claim is extraordinary. As to your assertion As can be seen from the above, some editors really want to sexualize Anne Frank, that is a personal attack and, I must say, quite beneath you as an editor.
  • If there were consensus to add material (meeting RS and DUE requirements) that Anne Frank's Diary was censored by Otto in part to keep material concerning bisexual longings or same-sex attraction out of the published work (the terms used in the two sources mentioned above), this would by no means be sexualizing its young author. However, your misapprehension, or perhaps simply unreflected opinion, on this point may go a long way to explain your desire to right great wrongs on this topic.
  • To be clear: I don't want to see anything inserted in any article that is poorly sourced or contrary to consensus. But a campaign of tireless FORUMSHOPping, personal attacks, exaggerated or misleading edit summaries and calls to arms was not how I understood that content disputes on WP were supposed to be handled. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I don't think I've seen the term sexual preference used in earnest since the 1990s. It's good to know how we react under stress, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Newimpartial—linguistic fashion aside, what difference would it make whether or not we've heard the term "sexual preference...since the 90s"? Are you making any point that is in any way relevant to this discussion? Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I will just leave this here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
        • We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Not my point, though. My point was that the use of the term is not just dated or "unfashionable"; it is demonstrably clueless. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
            • You say "it is demonstrably clueless". How? In what way? And don't link to an article. Explain in your own words how "it is demonstrably clueless". If you don't understand what someone else has said, ask for clarification. Don't just demand that they use language that suits your sensibilities. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Lynching of Wilbur Little

There's been disagreement over the quality of certain sources used in Lynching of Wilbur Little#A different victim, a different crime. Most specifically, is "The meanest little town…". earlycountynews.com. a reliable source to establish facts about Little's death? My view is that this is an editorial which makes unsupported statements about an event which happened 96 years prior. Gulbenk believes it is a WP:RS, and uses it to support the theory that Wilbur Little's lynching never occurred. See discussion at Talk:Lynching of Wilbur Little -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• For controversial issues I think that major established papers are better sources than small county newspapers. I'm sure a lynching has had writeups in more substantial publications. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's comment is on point. I would go farther than them and say I wouldn't use an editorial in a minor newspaper to support any claim about historical fact. (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WhisperToMe and Buidhe It should be pointed out that the Chicago Defender is the original source for this information. All others (with the exception of a paper by a history professor at FSU) are simply repeating the charges initially published in the Chicago Defender. The Defender did not print the Wilbur Little story based on their own information. Their April 5, 1919 article carries an attribution to a wire service. Except no one has ever found that wire service news item, and no other publication in the United States carried the sensational story, on April 5, 1919, of a black soldier lynched because he refused to take off his uniform. Not one other newspaper, black or white, mentions the story when it was supposedly on the wire for all to see. We do have two publications, the black newspaper (Emancipator), just a few miles away from the scene of the supposed lynching, and the Atlanta Constitution, which print a story (just coincidentally on that very same day - April 5th) about a black soldier who was killed in a robbery and (again, just coincidentally) dumped in the same Georgia community as the supposed lynching. Finally we have the Early County News (ECN), which user RoySmith would like to suppress. That publication is the only onsite reporting we have. It carries information which is confirmed by both the Emancipator and the Atlanta Constitution regarding the murder of the black soldier/taxicab driver. It's statements regarding the non-lynching are supported by an investigator sent to the scene by the NAACP (who recommended that the organization drop their allegation of a lynching). The ECN has not been shown, at any point, to have printed a falsehood about this event (unlike some of the "reliable" sources cited elsewhere in our article). The ECN is the legal organ for Early County, it is a reliable source for our encyclopedia. Suppression of this source is simply wrong in every sense, if one honors truth and the expression of opposing views. Oh, and that FSU history professor? He states that on occasion, when information was lacking, papers like the Defender "imagined" (that is to say made up) details to fill in stories. If we look at reliable sources, perhaps we should reconsider listing the Defender as reliable. Gulbenk (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: Do you have references for some of these details? It would be good to link to them within your statement, especially the "imagined" detail. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Absolutely. I'll get that FSU dissertation reference to you momentarily. Let me know all the other statements you want backup on. Gulbenk (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User WhisperToMe, here it is. "imagining" reference & NAACP Investigation Pages 139, at the top of the Wilbur Little discussion. "Discrepancies and a Lack of Information" and page 140 respectively. [165] Gulbenk (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Emancipator - April 5, 1919 issue [166]

The Atlanta Constitution - April 5, 1919 (page 9) [167]

The Early County News - May 15, 1919 [168]

The Early County News - March 25, 2015 [169]

BBC HistoryExtra / historyextra.com

Is Censoring Anne Frank: how her famous diary has been edited through history a reliable source for claims about Anne Franks's sexual orientation or preferences?

I don't think there is any question about it being a generally reliable source on history, or about it being a RS about Anne Franks's diary being censored, or about the fact that some of the censored material was about sex or poop (although for some strange reason nobody is fighting to include the poop material in the article).

I fully expect at least one reply asserting that nobody is trying to insert claims about Anne Franks's sexual orientation or preferences, but the history of the various attempts to sexualize Anne Frank shows otherwise. First there was the attempt to categorize her as a lesbian. When that didn't fly the claim morphed to bisexual, then to bisexual longings. When that got shot down the claim morphed to same-sex-attraction. The coatracking is pretty obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A related question: if this source a reliable source for claims about Anne Franks's sexual orientation or preferences, do claims about sexual orientation or preferences meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for stating that same-sex attraction is discussed in the Diary, but not for applying an LGBT label ("orientation or preferences", sic.).

For those disinclined to read the source, the relevant paragraph is as follows:

Revelations that Anne Frank wrote about sexual anatomy, masturbation, menstruation, same-sex attraction and scatology [the study of faeces] complicate readers’ image of the teenage author, who spent two formative years in hiding and whose journey to adulthood was cut tragically short. (They have also fuelled censorship attempts, as when a Michigan mother petitioned for the book’s removal from a seventh-grade classroom, and when a Virginia school district began assigning a version of the book that did not include the passage about Anne’s genitalia.)

It seems obvious to me that this paragraph documents the fact - that no RS contests AFAIK - that frank wrote about attraction to a girl as well as a boy. I don't see why the source would not be reliable for this claim; it is already used in Anne Frank with respect to the "genitalia" material, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per above. There has to be discussion of this in the article. I don't see anything untoward about the source. Discuss the wording of how the article will phrase the issue; to omit the whole question is wrong, but labels aren't necessary either. Claims of "sexualization" are not helpful. The article's subject is a real human being not some holy chaste martyr from fable. Remember. GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and lends some weight, along with other sources which make similar claims, per Newimpartial. It should not be used for applying an LGBT label or category to Frank herself, as that claim is not made in the source. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Anne Frank's diary should be reliable enough source for her sexual orientation. Okay for WP:LGBT to claim the article is within its perview. As for categorization, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Some deceased people are properly sourceable as having been openly LGBT during their lifetimes, in the same manner as still-living people, and do not pose any special difficulties — historically, however, LGBT people did not always come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification may, in some cases, be impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For such a person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• What kind of question is this? The source says: "Otto made his own cuts, too: he removed passages in which Anne was critical of her parents’ marriage, and expurgated sections about sexuality and her often brutal comments about friends, family members and acquaintances. . . . five “suppressed pages” became public [circa 2003]. . . And in 2016, conservators photographing the diary for preservation purposes realised that brown paper inside the diary was actually pasted over two pages of dirty jokes and information on sex education.[P] Revelations that Anne Frank wrote about sexual anatomy, masturbation, menstruation, same-sex attraction and scatology [the study of faeces] . . ."

In general, unless there is a dispute from other sources, the source says factual things that can be checked and has the indications of reliability for those statements. This source actually says nothing about her orientation. It says she wrote about, inter alia, sexuality. You are going to have to find other RS to discuss her orientation.

As for weight, the source also discusses a biography of Anne Frank, look to the biography, but in general there is no reason given here not to discuss whatever the biography says about sexuality. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You might want to look at the paragraph I quoted above, which is the one relevant to "same-sex attraction". You are right that "sexuality" can mean many things, but "same-sex attraction" means rather fewer and more relevant ones. Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I quoted the "same-sex attraction" language as it appears in source, so I already looked at it. Everyone of any orientation can write about same sex attraction (as they also do about sexual anatomy, masturbation, menstruation, and scatology) indeed people of all orientations do write and talk about it. To source what the diarist wrote about same sex attraction, this source does not give it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that at the tail end of what you cited (to be fair, you left it as a sentence fragment). No, this source does not suggest a sexual identity label for Frank, so it can't be used for that.

The piece of context you might understandably have missed, is this Noticeboard post was part of a large-scale FORUMSHOP by Guy Macon, where he keeps framing the questions in line with his Whac-a-mole stance. In this instance, the article talk page participants (and also the participants here) aren't generally sympathetic to the LGBT label idea, at least in Wikivoice, but Guy has insisted on that framing for whatever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the question is put differently, 'is this source reliable for a statement that the diarist covered same sex attraction, and does it lend weight to discussing that', my answer is yes, and yes (serous author, serious publication). But the details have to be found elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Probably reliable but still WP:UNDUE, because this has always and only been a POV-push. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: China Global Television Network

What is the reliability of China Global Television Network (cgtn.com  )?

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

(t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CGTN)

• Option 4 known for lies and propaganda: "It has a consistent record of blatantly and egregiously violating journalistic standards and encouraging or justifying hatred and violence against innocent people." The Diplomat, September 2019 Reporting things they know to be false is my benchmark for deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is an opinion piece, for what that's worth, much of the piece is dedicated to the reporting of CCTV in mainland China, not just CGTN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Sarah Cook is a subject matter expert, she’s Freedom House’s Senior Research Analyst for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and the author of their 2020 report Beijing's Global Megaphone [170] which features CGTN heavily. Also the 2019 report China Central Television: A Long-standing Weapon in Beijing’s Arsenal of Repression [171] which is what The Diplomat re-published. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (Contentious issues relating to China) Option 2 for Africa Bureau. I can understand why deprecating CGTN for stuff like Xinjiang is necessary, for stuff like this piece. CGTN has repeatedly aired forced confessions, see 1 2, which has been found to violate UK broadcasting rules 3 The Arabic language version of CGTN also ran a video pushing COVID 19 disinformation. 4. However, I think that it's coverage of issues unrelated to China like for instance its African Bureau are okay and can be probably treated in the same way Xinhua can. Over 1/8 of our entire references to CGTN are to its African Bureau per africa.cgtn.com  , there's not much reason to doubt their reporting that Singapore exploring feasibility for direct flights, as cited on Kenya–Singapore relations, is accurate, maybe these stories are be covered in other African outlets and therefore citing CGTN is redundant I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Re: your Xinjiang link, simply stating it as "deprecation-worthy" does not make it so; the only remotely objectionable quote begins with Can you believe your ears? "This is apparent"…Such sentences should never have been the language of a researcher!, which is clearly the opinionated voice of Liu Xin, not an attempt at "factual reporting". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: It's clearly an attempt at analysis, rather than just straight opinion. Stuff like Western media lies about China's Xinjiang is more blunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can overlook the "bias" and "negative media" soapboxing, Barrett is wholly correct about the metholodogy: Quartz admitted themselves that the common estimates of 1M+ detained first derived as follows: The estimate used most widely for over a year—of a million Uyghur Muslims held in Chinese camps—was arrived at using similar methods by a group called China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), and by Zenz. But how many CHRD interviewees actually provided estimates of detention ratios? Follow thru to the CHRD link, and navigate to The following table presents the data we have compiled based on interviews with eight ethnic Uyghurs. Their families reside in eight different villages in counties in the Kashgar Prefecture. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on Africa Bureau, per Hemiauchenia, on non-contentious issues in mainland China (snooker, opening of the Baoji–Lanzhou high-speed railway) and issues wholly unrelated to the PRC government, such as this piece on Fair Wayne Brant's life sentence in Louisiana, comparable to The Guardian. No opinion on contentious issues. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 due to a complete lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories like "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020 [172]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe. Cavalryman (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 1 Per CaradhrasAiguo. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for topics related to East Asian politics; Option 3 for other coverage. I don't think I need to rehash all the disinformation CGTN has purveyed in any topic related to the PRC/CCP. Beyond China and her neighbours, CGTN isn't much better either - for example CGTN Europe regularly cherry-picks and misinterprets evidence in order to present a narrative that unduly emphasises internal division within Europe, which fits CCP's strategic interests in the region, and often get their facts wrong in the process. Today CGTN churned out this sensationalist piece about the UK government's internal deliberations about refugees crossing the English channel, which tries to paint the UK's plan to deploy the military as more confirmed than it actually is, and France's response as more antagonistic than it really is (compare e.g. The Guardian (which is usually pro-refugee) and BBC (which is usually pro-UK gov't)), and seems to have misattributed Priti Patel's opinion to her colleague Chris Philp. Deryck C. 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

CGTN is effectively China's equivalent of the BBC foreign service and Voice of America. The BBC isn't exactly a reliable source to deprecate with here. One state funded news source shouldn't be used to deprecate another especially when they have a strong incentive to say that CGTN is unreliable. I would agree that CGTN has significant bias in favour of Chinese goals and opinions but that's only warranting option 3 and not full blown deprecation. There are many cases where CGTN can be used as a source, such as opinion pieces by Chinese writers, domestic Chinese news, or possibly its Africa bureau. For example this analysis piece on the China Basketball League [173] might be a good source and their coverage of Africa might be useful as well considering systemic bias in western sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. Well said: "lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories". No, this is not BBC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-4: CGTN's reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. CGTN inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think CGTN should be split into multiple entries in the perennial sources list when it gets added there:

Option 1 for all African topics. The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa; in these regions, CGTN has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, Option 2). CGTN does not touch much on Central/South America as compared to Xinhua, so it is not included here.

Option 2 for topics about China's allies, and CGTN documentaries. CGTN can be used for such topics but must have in-text attribution. Where other sources are available for the same topic, other sources should be used in lieu of or in conjunction with the CGTN source.

Option 4 for all topics where China is involved/has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and Western European topics, the politics of East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. At this point CGTN tends to go full-on propaganda mode and should not be used. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Buidhe and also per [174]. Per the NYT, It is controlled by the Communist Party and serves as part of what Mr. Xi has called Beijing’s "publicity front." We should not indulge such outlets by granting exceptions in certain areas. It is impossible to predict what might become important to lie about when, and our policies should recognize that. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CGTN)

• @Buidhe: Thank you for writing this! I notice Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn't include CCTV so I'm not sure if this RFC should cover CCTV too, or if that should be separate, or if it's worth doing? Also note CGTN was once CCTV's English operations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  WhisperToMe, I noticed that CCTV has dozens of stations so I was worried that it might become a WP:TRAINWRECK if one or two of them turned out to be not as bad. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe Ah, I see. I was thinking in regards to the internet presence (it's less likely people may use TV clips for sourcing). The foreign language CCTV pages are all now CGTN anyway and CCTV now only covers Chinese language content. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't actually true english.cctv.com   exists, some of the content is syndicated from Xinhua, but other stuff like this piece appears to be original reporting. We also appear to have a large number of chinese language citations to CCTV per CCTV.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have an RSN discussion on CGTN three months ago? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  That wasn't an RfC and doesn't appear to have settled the issue, with multiple users calling for an RFC above. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Usage of published books for reliable sources and fact checking

While reading Slate I encountered this:

• Graham, Ruth (2019-07-09). ""I Did Not Die. I Did Not Go to Heaven."". Slate. Book publishers don't normally fact-check books. They'll run sensitive material by lawyers, but otherwise it's on authors to make sure their work is accurate.

I wonder if this quote should be noted in regards to *published books* and the need for Wikipedians to assess their accuracy. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It depends a lot on the publisher. Some books are peer reviewed, others not fact checked at all. Books are not blanket reliable or unreliable any more than websites are. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Good point! Before I use a book off of Google Books I check the publisher. Academic publishers are typically the best. I avoid the book if I see it's self-published. I also like to use book reviews to write Wikipedia articles on the books themselves so other editors know the book's reputation. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I do. Once I even caught someone citing a Holocaust denial pamphlet because it was on Google books! (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

More than once, I've seen text cited to books that were just content taken from Wikipedia. I can think of a couple cases where the text in the book was actually the exact same text of the Wikipedia article it was being used to support. XOR'easter (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

fallingrain.com

• fallingrain.com  

There are nearly 6,000 articles that use fallingrain.com, but I am not convinced it is reliable. What do people think? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I am also skeptical since the website doesn't have much info on how it gets its content. However, it is UBO: CRC press[175], Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy [176], UN, UC Davis, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization [177], Harvard, and probably more. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I clicked the credits link at the bottom of one of their city pages and found details about their datasources here. It pulls from Geonet, Openstreetmap, Digital Chart of the World, National Weather Service/NOAA, and YouTube (?). So some open source content. Seems to be used in articles mostly for coords and latitude (just a spot check, could be totally off). From their main page, the site seems to be focused on the technical challenge of data scraping. The bulk of the information seems to come from GEOnet Names Server. As ugly as the fallingrain.com interface is, it's more usable than GEOnet and is easily citable, whereas getting the information directly from GEOnet gives me a bunch of pop-ups and no way to link someone else to them that I can figure out. I think GEOnet is reliable, and this just seems to be an alternative interface into a subset of its data, so I think it would be reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Lists of Bests website (URL pre-2017)

Questionable source link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110927140142/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/23429-movies-banned-in-malaysia?page=2

I came upon a questionable source which were heavily relied and used in one of the Wikipedia article, List of films banned in Malaysia. The lists were very questionable because almost every listing were uses the same source, yet I discovered that some films are actually not banned in Malaysia yet (example: The Dark Knight: [178], Watchmen: [179], they actually had screened in Malaysia before without any ban). The source itself is only accessible via Website Archive as the Lists of Bests website has been defunct long time ago (currently the same URL hosts an unrelated Estonian language website) and inside the website it says This is a community list. You can contribute, edit, or help maintain it by adding it to your lists. which means the website itself is actually a user-generated content instead and not the expertise website, as such it is likely not a reliable sources. Should I need to remove the whole list from the article in Wikipedia where it cite the questionable sources? WPSamson (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Headlines and perennial sources

@Newslinger:

Should our perennial sources list have an entry for headlines? They have been discussed a bunch of times.[180] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would think so, as well as for photo captions in newspapers, for the same reason these usually aren't given the same editorial oversight as the text body. --Masem (t) 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_294#Headlines already seemed to come to that conclusion. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if the perennial list is the right venue for it. I totally support having a clearer policy statement against using headlines as sources, but I think WP:V or WP:RS would be a better place to state it. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment & suggestion: Newslinger had expressed concern that such an entry might not fit the list format. But perhaps insert in How to use this list … after Even considering content sentence in Context Matters para: Similarly, article elements such as headlines and photo captions may not have been held to the same standards of fact-checking and accuracy as the text body, and so should be viewed cautiously regarding claims. Either there or on WP:V or WP:RS per Blueboar. I believe this addresses all concerns expressed in prior discussions: [181], [182], [183], [184], [185]. Humanengr (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINE is a thing, it might be worth trying to get it up to a guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm flexible on placement, but I think that wording (should be viewed cautiously) is too wishy-washy. It needs to be a clear-cut directive, as worded at WP:HEADLINE. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I included that phrase in view of objections from prior discussions, but am fine with deleting it if that's consensus. (At one point, I had it as a parenthetical.) Without it, it's effectively a shorter form of WP:HEADLINE. Humanengr (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This type of guideline, assuming you can get community support for it, should be incorporated into WP:RS. It would be out place in WP:RSN. - MrX 🖋 19:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support having a clearer policy about the use or non-use of headlines (and captions) as reliable source for content. I agree with some of the others that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is probably not the best article for it to be placed in. I think Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source is a good place to start for a lengthier explanation why headlines are inappropriate. I don't find a similar essay for captions. I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts is a good target location for a paragraph about headlines and one about captions. Normal Op (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, if we must - I'm still trying to wrap my head around why an editor would use a source's headline as content. I have listed sources in discussions and used the headline as a shortcut for ID purposes but never to use as material for inclusion. Editors shouldn't have to be reminded of WEIGHT & DUE - a headline qualifies as neither; the same applies to an image caption. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, I think WP:Headlines should be expanded to include captions as the issues seem identical. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusingly WP:Headlines redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Now goes to Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this page, and I've used it as the basis for suggested wording at WP:VPP § Workshop (Headlines). If the RfC passes, Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source could become an explanatory supplement. — Newslinger talk 01:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per others, I'd make the essay a guideline and draw attention to it where needed instead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support making WP:HEADLINE a guideline, either as a standalone page or as a subsection of WP:RS. Armadillopteryx^talk 13:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• This should be added into Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a guideline, since it applies to most news sources. The perennial sources list is not the most suitable place for this kind of guidance, since the headline is not a specific "source", but an element used by many sources. As an interim step, if it's too difficult or arduous to turn this into a guideline for some reason, a section in the list similar to the ones in WP:RSP § Categories could serve a temporary location for this guidance. — Newslinger talk 01:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have started an RfC in the village pump's policy section to add guidance on headlines into the reliable sources guideline. Please see WP:VPP § RfC: Reliability of headlines for details. — Newslinger talk 01:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

9/11truth.org

Can the publications of this organisation be used as reliable sources? There is some background in the discussion at Talk:List of unrecovered and unusable flight recorders#9/11 World Trade Center Black Boxes???. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

9/11 truth movement is considered by RS to be conspiracy theorists, so no, not reliable or usable for anything. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

https://911truth.org/ says that the purpose of the site is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth …" This looks like a problem with WP:TRUTH and WP:THETRUTH so it would be better to find more mainstream sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source, should not be used. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

At best it could be used as a source for statements like "and 9/11truth.org has said", but then the question becomes why would we want to?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. If someone (as in the linked thread) asks the question "A multi-year bi-partisan investigation said one thing, but a dedicated conspiracy website that uses the Daily Mail as a source says another. How do I know who to believe?" Then the answer is unfortunately "why is this a question that needs to be asked?"

If we're to be as generous as possible and drink enough hand sanitizer to shut off several important parts of our brain... Even if this didn't scream "tin foil" at every opportunity, it would still just be some website. It's not clear that they maintain offices or any full time staff. Names are hard to come by, but they do list James Hufferd as their "grassroots contact". Hufferd's qualifications seem to be that he taught at a community college and "was retired a bit early for activism". Show of hands for who can guess what that's a euphemism for. He...I guess has written a few pay-to-publish books.

If I had to guess I would venture that this is mostly just a personal website for Hufferd. It certainly looks at first glance that they have a diverse range of contributors, but many (most?) of these pieces appear to be merely copy/pasted from other sources (e.g., consensus911.org, The New York Times, Florida Bulldog). As it's not clear if, or for that matter why these blogs/other outlets would give permission to reprint stories in their entirety, the site may also likely be rife with copyright violations. GMG^talk 12:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, I also dont think there views have any weight so they should just never be used off of their own page if one exists. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Why is this even under discussion? O3000 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Because someone, over at List of unrecovered and unusable flight recorders thought it was a good source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• They can call themselves "911 truth" but everyone knows that THE TRUTH can only be found here:[186] BTW, "911 truth" would be a great name for a website for Porsche owners. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Seriously? No. Batshit insane, should not be used even for the primary sourcing of statements by Truthers, because that would be UNDUE unless they have been cited in RS (in which case we use the RS). Guy (help! - typo?) 10:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Ah yes, the truth. Groovy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Well, it has "truth" in the domain name, so I suppose. In all reality, this is as far away from an RS and you could possibly get, just blatant conspiracy theorizing. Goodposts (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• No way Absolute trash. Total and utter rubbish, nothing more than conspiracy theory crap. Bacondrum (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• In future cases where a user is aware of this discussion and understands that WP:FRINGE generally expects us to cite mainstream summaries of fringe sources (if only to establish noteworthiness), further attempts to cite 9/11truth.org should result in a DS topic ban, if not a non-DS WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR block. I'm not pretending this is some sort of policy to be given weasely arguments over but just common sense: one should remove their tinfoil hat before editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Quillette

Hello, previous discussions have marked Quillette as as generally unreliable and that opinions constitute undue weight. I think Quillette should be allowed, but require quote attribution. The simple fact that many prominent and mainstream academics like James Flynn (academic) write for Quillette make it a useful source. Do James Flynn or Steven Pinker really constitute undue weight? No one can argue that. Obviously caution should be taken with articles written by non academic / politically motivated "journalists" (as with any publication). Attribution required should fix this. I don't really think Quillette is all bad and the previous discussions about it seem hasty, especially when you consider that VICE and Salon have "no consensus". Perhaps a case-by-case clause should be added. Sxologist (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• The first thing I would say to that is "is there really anything that actual academics like Flynn or Pinker have said in Quillette that can't be sourced from anywhere else?". And you've got to be careful with attributing views, as Quillette has been known to very selectively quote from respectable sources to fit a narrative. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is simply another example of the unwritten rule that right-of-center publications get harsher scrutiny. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So anyone who disagrees with your view of this publication is biased? Seems like a broad and unfounded accusation of bad faith. Bacondrum (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• • I don't know that I would characterize Quillette as right-of-center, so much as politically schizophrenic. Someone like Pinker is certainly "right-of-far-left", but you'd have a hard time characterizing him as right-of-center. Pinker is a liberal modernist, as opposed to post-modernist. GMG^talk 16:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Quillette right-of-centre? I don't know that it is, actually. It has some writers that have "unusual" views and quite a few conspiracy-theorist type stuff, and it has published stories that have a right-wing bias, but it's also published stuff from writers of all policial hues. We should be looking at its reliability rather than its political compass, and its reliability is suspect. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: I'd be interested to see examples of this. I don't really read the publication regularly. I know of it. GMG^talk 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I’ve never though of Quillette as right-of-center, more like eccentric centrist with an emphasis on eccentric. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Quillette, compared other off-mainstream works like The Intercept, seems to be more focused on writing op-ed than news stores, and op-eds, inherently, are not reliable sources. Their essays, while they may start on factual published material, verve fast into analysis by the writer, which may be appropriate based on the expertise of the writer per UNDUE but that should be judged by consensus and clearly used with attribution. I wouldn't judge it by a viewpoint issue, simply that it is a work primarily based around essay and viewpoints, and not news reporting itself. --Masem (t) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I've always thought of Quilette as a less prestigious version of The Spectator, it's an opinion magazine that's full of hot takes and contrarian opinions on contemporary topics and something that shouldn't be cited as a source of fact, only attributed opinions when it constitutes due weight (which Quilette pieces often do not). For instance this piece on Margaret Mead vs Derek Freeman over Coming of Age in Samoa goes against the academic concensus on the controversy that Mead was for the most part correct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on the author for such a publication. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the instance cited above by Hemiauchenia, the author is said to be "a writer currently completing a BA in Economics and Anthropology at The University of Queensland", and is thus completely unqualified to be cited for anything whatsoever. GPinkerton (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• This misunderstands WP:RSOPINION. Typically (as RSOPINION says), an opinion piece that can be cited is from an otherwise reliable publication, ie. we still depend on the publication to perform a degree of fact-checking and to ensure that the opinion pieces cited there are not blatantly inaccurate. (A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable.) Opinion is not automatically citable simply because it's opinion. Yes, an expert, speaking within their field of expertise, is sometimes citable for their opinion even when not published in an WP:RS (though it will often be WP:UNDUE, but that depends on the restrictions of WP:RSSELF, which means they can't be cited for exceptional claims or anything about a third party, and even then it is sharply lower-quality than when they publish eg. a peer-reviewed paper. Publication in Quillette itself lends no reliability, since they lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - it is functionally a group blog for people who share particular idiosyncratic ideological views. More generally I would usually be extremely skeptical of any attempt to cite opinion to a lower-quality source like this, even from a subject-matter expert; in the modern world we are drowning in a surfeit of opinion, so my intuition when someone wants to cite one from a low-quality source is that it is marginal or even WP:FRINGE, since it isn't covered anywhere reputable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What Aquillion said; endorse 100%. Beyond that, interestingly, Quillette explicitly views its mission as providing a platform for minoritarian, heterodox, and non-mainstream viewpoints. Therefore, if an idea appears in Quillette, that is evidence that the idea is not mainstream and should not be accorded a ton of weight on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • RSOPINION can also be read to allow opinions from those from non-RS sources when those opinions can be considered DUE, as determined by consensus. (I have tried to bring to discussion at both WT:RS and WT:VPP this year, but discussions went nowhere)
  • But let's consider that Quillette has an editorial team, so I assume when facts are published, they are fact-checked (I have not heard or seen any major controversies over bad information out of the work) and other editorial stances that otherwise we expect, the same type of things that the paid writers for NYTimes op-ed page go through. It makes the work a "reliable source" but one with very few facts. So if you want to take the stance that RSOPINION starts that the work must be a reliable source, Quillette does apply though the works it publishes are nearly all essays and thus should be treated like RSOPINIONS just like everything published on the NYTimes op-eds. --Masem (t) 00:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:RS - Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). It doesn't say anything about what is or isn't an acceptable ideology reflected in the source or professed by the author, and we certainly should (Redacted) care if we are adhering to NPOV. It further states: If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. This is exactly why context is so important when determining what we can or cannot include in an article. Attempts to reject opinions because we don't agree with the politics is a form of censorship, or it could also be WP:PROMO, and we need to exercise caution to prevent that from happening. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ^{underlined is copy editing to fix fragmentation and word displacement - WTH? 03:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)}

Ideology is irrelevant; we should neither exclude sources nor seek to wedge them in based on their ideology (which includes, of course, never adding sources purely for WP:FALSEBALANCE.) What matters is, first, are they published in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; second, when discussing opinion, does the person expressing it they have any published expertise in the topic at hand; and third, is the opinion noteworthy or WP:DUE (generally reflected by WP:SECONDARY coverage.) The bit you quoted is an additional restriction or requirement for opinion pieces - it doesn't negate the basic requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, which all sources, with only very limited exceptions, must adhere to. "It's just an opinion, man" is not, itself, a broad exception from WP:RS. Beyond that, a major problem with opinion sourcing is that people tend to use their own personal beliefs as a roadmap for "what are the noteworthy opinions here, which we must cover?"; if they don't see an article representing an opinion they personally endorse (and which they therefore tend to overestimate in terms of its importance, impact, or academic acceptance, as most people do with opinions they hold), they think the article is biased and frantically Google for opinion pieces they can toss into it, regardless of quality or WP:DUE. What we need to do is to get people to stop and say "wait, if this opinion is only represented in low-quality / non-WP:RS sources or ones that do no fact-checking, perhaps it isn't as notable as I thought." --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Actually, Quillette has fallen for obvious hoaxes in the past [187][188] (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The first link is about an article that was retracted when its falsity became evident, which is a good thing. I've seen other sources here readily get forgiven for such retractions. The second link is an article about Andy Ngo, which says he no longer works for Quillette. I can't see where it mentions a specific hoax of his in Quillette. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not an RS: the status should continue as is, per previous discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Usable in some cases per WP:RSOPINION, with whether it is WP:Due being decided on a case by case basis. The WP:RSP listing for it claims, There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight. The first discussion listed says nothing of the sort. The second discussion only talks about Quillette in two comments, one of which is an assertion based on no evidence that it is unreliable, and another is a criticism of one line in a single article - hardly the sort of thing that gets a source listed as red and called generally WP:UNDUE. (Incidentally both of those comments are by users who are now indefinitely blocked.) By that standard every source would be in red and all RSOPINIONs would be undue. Certainly no consensus of unreliability or of undueness yet - so let's check the third discussion. Most negative comments there are just assertions, but addressing the evidence presented, we have an opening comment presenting a story where Quillette was hoaxed, and it was claimed to be embellished by Quillette prior to publication. However, the source for this is Quillette's enemies ideologically speaking, the socialist pundits at Jacobin, so I'm going to take the embellishment claim with a grain of salt. (Indeed, they claim Quillette suggested that DSA meetings "would drag on forever...", but then they say ""I included this as fish bait," Carter said." So did Quillette or Carter say it? Someone else above linked to Vox's good coverage of it. They don't mention embellishment, only editing out, and they had access to the original submission and the emails with Quillette.) Another editor noted that the piece was taken down and retracted, and that this is something we look for. Another opinion piece was mentioned, but again, this isn't enough to say Quillette is generally undue. The other negative comments in that discussion are just assertions. It's pretty common for notable and reputable figures to publish there, so such articles certainly could be used in article sections where other op-eds are being used. As editors we need to be careful not to confuse "has due weight" with "agrees with my political beliefs".
• I propose this RSP listing: [yellow] "Quillette should be handled in accord with WP:RSOPINION, and given in-text attribution. Whether an article from Quillette constitutes due weight should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Crossroads ^-talk- 04:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Crossroads here. Quillette has all the elements we want in a source (editorial review, a history of retractions when needed etc). It also is clearly a source based largely on Op-Eds so we generally will not use it as a source of fact, only a source of commentary. As such we have to ask if inclusion of the commentary in a Wikipedia article is DUE and much of the time it likely is not. Springee (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, what we want from a source is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't see any indication that Quillette has such a reputation. I don't even understand what Masem and others mean when they say that Quillette is "fact-checked"—it is purely an outlet for opinion pieces, which are rarely fact-checked even at more reputable publications. There is no indication of any formal pre-publication fact-checking process at Quillette. So, considering this as a source of opinion, it's clear that virtually all of what it publishes is heterodox & non-mainstream—that is in fact part of their explicitly stated mission—and thus very unlikely to warrant much weight in our articles, per basic site policy. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • They list an editorial board, which means, these people are double checking to make sure the opinion pieces posted are simply not flat out slanderous or making up false info, as I would expect the editor-in-chief of NYTimes or any other newspaper's op-ed department would do. They aren't going to be as rigorous as the fact-checking one would see if this was a newsroom piece, but they aren't going to let poorly-written opinion pieces seep through (and here, I've not seen any issue on Quillette with past work). The works produced should be seen to have the necessary editorial control and fact-checking to not be treated like unreliable sources broadly, but because it is focused mostly on opinions and essays, we have to classify it as an RSOPINION and use UNDUE to determine when appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 23:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, their editorial board credulously fell for and published a pretty obvious hoax (probably because it fit so neatly into their preconceived ideology), so you'll excuse me if I don't find their editorial control and "fact-checking" as robust as you do. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• I think Aquillion's comment above is essentially how I would put it. Opinions are cheap, and the world is drowning in the writing of them. Without further details of how their editorial review actually works, and without a terribly long history to judge from, I am hesitant to conclude that they have a reputation for high standards. That's not to say we should instinctively embrace the position that they have a reputation for low standards (retracting a story is probably good, while having to retract a story they should have caught before publication is probably bad, and if the only sources to report on the incident have a partisan lean, it's arguable that not enough people have cared for us to say they have a "reputation"). XOR'easter (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Quillette is not a mainstream or reliable source, it is pushing an agenda and opinions in Quillette that have not been substantially reported on elsewhere, are undue. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. When we cite attributed opinion, we should do so from reputable sources, not sources devoited primarily to opinion. Opinions in mainstream sources engaged in reporting on the hurly-burly are fine. Opinions in sources that are a deliberate part of the hurly-burly, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction, Most people have assholes. GMG^talk 11:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable in the extreme. First they are most widely known for publishing racist pseudoscience - Human Biodiversity - where they claim Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites. Second - they have fallen for multipul hoaxes and even expanded on one of them they also participated in another. Third their staff have been involved with extremist groups, one of which (disgraced journalist Andy Ngo) was caught out colluding with neo-nazi's attempting to stage a violent news story - it was a pure partisan farce. Third they are hyper-partisan. Fourth they publish nothing but opinion...and the occasional hoax and staged news stories etc (as already mentioned). Quillette is the very definition of a unreliable source. I'd accept a Youtube video as a citation before I'd accept Quillette. They're a better dressed version of a right-wing conspiracy outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of claim that would require citations. Springee (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bacondrum, please be sure to mark substantial edits to your comments. I don't want people thinking I just ignored your citations vs they were added after the fact [[189]] Springee (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Some editors really love this rag, lol. Bacondrum (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, will do. Sorry about that. Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Just going on your first link. So first off, have we reached the point where we can just call Steven Pinker a racist without a link or qualification? This is the same Pinker who is so polite and carefully spoken that he basically is a walking Canadian stereotype?

Second, the article it references that declared its support for Charles Murray’s 1994 book The Bell Curve. Umm...no actually. The conclusion the article actually reaches is that it is not irresponsible to forward reasonable, cautiously worded, and testable hypotheses. More so, the part The Nation piece quotes isn't actually making any original statement. It's a header trying to summarize what the book says.

This is, in my experience, fairly par-for-the-course for people who criticize Pinker. (And I'll be honest, I've been reading Pinker for the last 20 years.) Take something out of context, label it as racist or sexist, and no one actually bother to check the argument they were actually making. GMG^talk 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfamiliar (trendingsocial.com)

1. trendingsocial.com
2. To be used in Pachtaoge

3. Originally, the song was sung by Atif Aslam. However, due to ban on Pakistani artists, it was re-recorded by Arijit Singh. Later, original version was also released on public demand.

   . I don't know whether this source is reliable or not but I'm sure that the information, I want to add are perfectly (100%) true. And I can also prove the correctness of statement by arguments. Thank you. Tears. Empire AS ^Talk! 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Having taken a very cursory look, I would have to say no, it is not a reliable source. The website lists no formal editorial staff, and appears to simply compile trending posts from social media without any fact checking. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like a low quality source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Popular Science magazine

We currently have over 1,000 citations to Popular Science per popsci.com   but it has never come up on this noticeboard before. I think their health section, which makes up a large proportion of their content, comes under WP:MEDPOP and therefore doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. As far as their other magazine content goes, it seems much less in depth than coverage in other popular science magazines or the science sections of major newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Does not meet the requirements for WP:MEDRS. I just looked and the first two health articles I saw[190][191] are based on dodgy sources that would never pass Wikipedia's standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this magazine when I was younger, and it has a long and storied history. However, a lot of its content is fairly speculative or based on predictions about the future, which must be attributed to the people who made them, if experts in the field. Content quality may have also deteriorated in the last decade. I agree it doesn't meet MEDRS. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Gallery: The Flying Cars of Popular Science -Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Generally does not meet the WP:MEDRS standards - I think that popular science publications, while useful for digesting academic information to the general public, should not be used to establish medical facts. There are peer-reviewed journals that publish high-quality scientific papers for that. WP:MEDPOP is quite clear that popular science publications are generally not acceptible as sources for medical claims. They can, however, be used in addition to more serious scientific publications, to provide reading synthesized material for readers outside of academia. So that's the exception I'd say we should stick to. Goodposts (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Poker publications

We have many articles on poker players, but only a handful of the most famous ones have coverage in mainstream media (i.e. major newspapers). The rest are sourced exclusively to poker publications, which is fine as long as they are reliable. The following are sources I see being used most frequently:

• Bluff
• CardsChat News
• CardPlayer
• HighstakesDB
• Online Poker News
• PartTimePoker
• PocketFives
• Pokerfuse
• PokerNews
• Poker News Daily
• PokerTube
• The Hendon Mob
• WSOP player profiles

I'd like to ascertain the reliability of these and other sources so we can create a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker and add it under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Topic-specific pages. Note that this is solely an evaluation of whether the site is reliable, not whether it can be used to demonstrate notability; it's very possible for a website to be usable for a listing of facts such as tournament winnings but perhaps it doesn't include significant coverage of anyone. Feel free to add other common poker-related sources (whether reliable or unreliable) so we can evaluate them together. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we simply edit WP:NSPORTS so that it covers Poker players? If Snooker is a sport, then Poker certainly is. King of Hearts, could you please look over the criteria for other sport on that page and give us you opinion about what criteria we should use for poker? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That is orthogonal to the issue being discussed here; WP:NSPORTS is mostly a set of requirements that athletes need to meet to be presumed notable. Personally I am not in favor of adding yet another sports-related SNG. Instead, poker players should just be evaluated against the GNG, but perhaps with sources which are not mainstream but nonetheless reliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't place RfC tags on things that are not properly formatted RfCs. You are supposed to discuss the issue first and only post an RfC if editors cannot agree. See WP:RFCBEFORE.

Starting to look at your list of sources, is Bluff a printed magazine or something that looks like a magazine but is actually an app? It's a little concerning what happens when you click on "contact us". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Bluff is now defunct, but it used to be available in print (this looks like a cover, they wouldn't put a fake barcode on a virtual-only publication). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can say that Bluff is reliable for poker information, then. Moving on, CardsChat News has an editorial policy[192] that makes me inclined to say that they are reliable for poker information. More later, must sleep now. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Highstakesdb is reliable for most things. It appears to be a 3-person blog. I would consider it reliable for tournament results. Any website that got that sort of thing wrong wouldn't say in business very long. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Lai arrested, Apple Daily offices raided, major implications for Hong Kong news outlets

Per BBC News this is by far the biggest National Security law related story yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• FYI Apple Daily is a major paper with its viewpoint in opposition to the HKSAR government. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the implications are simple. Any China-based news source, Hong Kong or otherwise, that publishes anything the Chinese Communist Party doesn't like, is subject to this kind of treatment. We should adjust our policies accordingly. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

etymonline

• etymonline.com  

There are over 2,500 references to this site. The About page indicates it's a one-man psudonymous amateur project. Am I misreading this? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, its how it reads to me, an SPS if ever I saw one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think we should be citing it, it’s sometimes wrong. For example, it claims Hun is a Turkic word when this is not known or even the most common theory among specialists. It’s somewhat opaque in its sourcing too. It’s also definitely a one man project. (I use it as a convenient source in my private life, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good source for Wikipedia).—Ermenrich (talk)<

I don't think we should rely upon it, though I also have the sense that in any particular case, assuming that it's correct unless there's specific evidence to the contrary is a low-cost kind of error. In practical terms, I'd rather replace citations to it with {{cn}} tags than delete entirely the text sourced to it. (During the AfD for our article about it, I did a little work and !voted to keep, on the basis that it's wiki-notable even if not solidly reliable.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been known to use it for quick ref-desk answers and in my own private uses, but it does not have the provenance necessary for use in articles. There's literally nothing there that shouldn't instead be cited to better dictionaries (OED or Merriam-Webster) and it's only use seems to be "I'm too cheap to have an OED subscription to look this up in the actual source" (which is why I use it in less critical applications). In short, I like it, it's a cool project, but there's no way it's a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. --Jayron32 18:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe

What is the reliability of claims cited to the "Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe"? "about us" German Wikipedia article Apparently (not mentioned on their website) it is a project of Gudrun Kugler, a Roman Catholic Austrian anti-abortionist, theologian, and (far-)right-wing politician for the Österreichische Volkspartei. It seems to be cited on the listed as an external link on the Anti-Catholicism article, on Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era, and possibly elsewhere for statements of fact. Their neutrality and thus their reliability seems prima facie dubious. Should the external links remain in place? GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I just looked at it in respect of the current dispute on ANI. The lead item on the website was sourced to the mayor's facebook page. The site is attempting to weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians. It meets none of the reliable, verifiable, independent norms we expect. Cabayi (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi and GPinkerton, this is Wikipedia:Systemic bias, so reporting on church vandalism disqualifies it as reliable? Unfortunate, the "mainstream media" does not pick up those type of stories. Also, news sites regularly report on Facebook posts or Tweets from political figures and or celebrities. But, a local mayor documenting church vandalism is just a "narrative". Cabayi, I find you statement "weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended. I find numerous NGOs, charities, and issue specific news sites cited in Wikipedia, apparent this is where you draw the line. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: Church vandalism is a very long way from persecution of anyone. Wikipedia represents a global mainstream perspective, not that of an aggrieved(-feeling) minority. Your taking offence to a quite anodyne remark is completely irrelevant. GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

E-960, you're misrepresenting what I said. I don't accuse the local mayor of weaving - it's clearly intoleranceagainstchristians.eu weaving multiple minor incidents into a larger narrative. Only by aggregating trivia can the website make a supposed anti-Christian story.

If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy". It's an excellent piece on the value (and to whom) of exaggerating the importance of events. Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, I understand and I do not agree, one citation comes from a NGO the other form an established charity which also has a news website. They are not weaving a "narrative" how many time did I see a news blurbs about site vandalism (related to other groups), these are treated as a crime and statistics are documented by the police and often compiled and analyzed by NGOs. But, in this case when this NGO is compiling and analyzing stats on church vandalism it's a "narrative". Again, I don't agree with that view and its not a "conspiracy theory" when in 2019 you have 3000 reported cases of vandalism in churces. --E-960 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The question is actually about using it as a link in the list of "External links". The site is basically a curated database of cases which provides links to the sources of information like here. One should use these linked sources as RS. However, this in not "a link to avoid" because it maybe useful for a reader of this page. Hence I think this link might be restored. My very best wishes (talk)

  It's just a tiny little bit disingenuous to claim that what that actual sources say looks like a fire started by a short-circuit is an instance of a case of intolerance and discrimination against Christians. No, we should NOT link to that.Vexations (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about one news story about a short circuit or a graffiti, the sites document issues facing Christians. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should hold "External links" to a lower overall standard than inline sources; if the former can't in principle be promoted to the latter, there's often something wrong. A polemical aggregator with no established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking is not a WP:RS (and this would apply just as much to a random communist's website recording "instances of discrimination against atheists"). We shouldn't point readers to such things, whether by footnote, endnote or "External link" bullet point. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's because Wikipedia:External links and WP:RS are very different guidelines. Here is overall idea: some links in section "External links" may not be necessarily reliable sources, but they should be provided if they link to information that may helpful for a reader, even if it may not be sufficiently reliable. For example, providing a link to Uniprot (another curated database) from a page about a specific protein is fine, even if the reliability of Uniprot as a source can be debatable. But of course not all links are good. Hence WP:ELNO. "Random communist site" may or may not be OK, depending the site and specific WP page. That one? I am not so sure. If it would be a notable resource we have a page about, I would be sure. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between say Amnesty International and Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe? Both report on the issues they see fit, compile data form individuals as well as government sources. But a report by one would be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, while the other not. We should treat all NGOs the same, if both are registered and official NGOs. --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The legal status of an NGO is not what grants it credibility. You can be batshit crazy and still register an NGO. The quality of reporting is what makes the difference. Amnesty international also has its own problems, as it is very biased in terms of issues such as capital punishment. They should not all be treated the same by virtue of all being registered NGOs, in stead - their track record of publications should be analyzed for reliability and biases, with their acceptibility on wikipedia determined on account of how well they fare when judged by those factors. As for an NGO that hasn't made a name for itself - one should be careful and opt to find corroborating sources. If none exist, the validity of their claims becomes questionable. This has nothing to do as to wether or not they report on church vandalism, it has everything to do with establishing credibility. Of course, I would welcome any evidence you could provide that could prove this NGO's credibility as an RS. NGOs should be held to the same standards, but that standard shouldn't be "is it registered?". Goodposts (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Some NGOs are notable, recknowned, have an editorial staff, work with recknowned experts and other bodies, etc. Others are small propaganda advocacy orgs with dubious reliability. It really depends. As for external links, they have to be relevant to the topic and controversial links are usually not preserved. As aforementioned, some are usable as sources with WP:ATTRIBUTION despite doing advocacy. For both sources and external links, WP:CONSENSUS still matters on a per-article/per-topic basis. In this case it would be better to use a less partisan source; Wikipedia is also not for WP:PROMOTION. —PaleoNeonate – 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Open-access website-based opinion polls

Hey there, I would like to ask for fellow editors' opinions on the issue of website-based opinion polls. To be clear as to what I'm talking about - I'm referring to Open-access polls held entirely online, trough an internet website that is freely and readily accessible to the general public and of which no reputable polling agency has methodological control.

I am specifically not referring to polls conducted online when organized by a reputable polling agency, which has pre-selected the poll's participants offline beforehand according to proper methodological standards.

I've seen this type of polling used more and more and have now alarmingly found them used, sometimes even being given more prominence than other official sources in articles detailing opinion polls relating to national elections. The problems with open-access website-based opinion polls (which I'll reffer to as OAWBOPs for brevity from now on) are as follows:

- OAWBOPs are unrepresentative of demographic characteristics. Accessing a OAWBOP requires both access to and knowledge how to use a computer or other smart device, as well as the internet. This skews results in favour of the younger, more well-off and city dwelling demographics, to the exclusion of more elderly, poorer or rural demographics, which may not have the same access to technology and know-how.

- OAWBOPs are unrepresentative of the general population's political opinions, as a WBOP is held only among the visitors to a perticular website. This could mean, for example, that a poll on a far-right website could 'predict' a landslide victory for a far-right candidate in a general election for no reason other than the fact that the website attracts that specific voter bloc to itself. The same could be said about a leftist/centrist website, or a website that caters specifically to pro or anti-government viewpoints - the editorial viewpoints or caterings of the website in question create extreme sample biases.

- OAWBOPs are usually conducted by individuals or organizations with no knowledge of proper statistical methodology and as such, are prone to include many methodological errors - such as biased sampling, insufficient sample sizes, confirmation biases, etc.

- OAWBOPs allow for manipulation on the side of users, which can vote multiple times in one opinion poll by using tactics such as IP switching (either trough router resets, VPNs or other proxies, etc), cookie resets or internet brigading organized on online message boards.

- OAWBOPs allow for manipulation on the side of poll organizers and administrators, as when placed under no professional scrutiny, they could easily alter the results of the poll by specifically excluding certain answers, selectively enforcing voting criteria or just manually adjusting the results of the poll.

Even if both the administrators and participants of the poll are not actively trying to manipulate its results (which usually cannot be ascertained), there are many serious methodological pitfalls that can result in gross statistical misrepresentations simply due to the medium used and self-selection of study participants. As noted in the Open-access poll article, these types of polls are usually referred to as "Voodoo Polls" due to their serious methodological problems, ease of manipulation and general unreliability. You can read more about this here from Cambridge.

As such and after having made my position on the issue clear, I would like to ask for other editors to provide their own opinion and decide as to wether or not WBOPs deserve to be treated as RS. I offer the following options:

Option 1 - Treat WBOPs as generally reliable and allow their use in articles as factual statements of popular opinion

Option 2 - Treat WBOPs as generally unreliable and avoid their use in articles as factual statements of popular opinion, instead encouraging their replacement with polls conducted by reputable agencies

Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I just ran an online poll on this, and exactly 100,000 responses agreeing that we should allow online polls as sources came in in the first two minutes. Now, a week later, it is 100,003 to 47. If that doesn't convince everyone, I don't know what will. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In 2012 Mountain Dew had an online poll to name a new apple-flavored beverage. The top results were:

• Hitler Did Nothing Wrong
• Gushing Granny
• Fapple
• Diabetus
• Soylent Green
• Moist Nugget

Taylor Swift ran an online poll to choose a school she would perform at. The winner was Boston's Horace Mann School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

Britain's Natural Environment Research Council ran an online poll to name a polar research ship. The winning name? "Boaty McBoatface"

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. I think what you are asking is whether or not we use the results of such polls uncritically and to present data in Wikipedia's voice. I would be opposed to doing so with the caveat that where such polls have become themselves the commentary of reliable sources in a widespread and frequently reported way, i.e. Boaty McBoatface, then we should of course reflect the well-covered nature of such items in due course, but those will be exceptional cases and as a matter of practice, uncontrolled internet polling done outside of the confines of well-respected public polling firms should not be given any weight at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Famous Birthdays (again)

Should we depreciate Famous Birthdays website? it is unreliable because of the severe violations of biographies of living persons policy. It also had been blacklisted from Wikipedia since 2019. --122.2.98.48 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)