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

Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?

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 applicability of the Daily Mail ban to the Mail on Sunday has bee raised multiple times, and yet many editors are labouring under the impression that it does. These are the facts (briefly):

1. The Daily Mail (including its website) was proscribed in 2017 in an RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC. There was no mention of Mail on Sunday being subject to this ban.
2. This ban was reaffirmed the following year: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail. Again, there is no mention of the Mail on Sunday.
3. The examples brought forward that led to the ban came from The Daily Mail or Mailonline, not the Mail on Sunday from what I can see.
4. Mail on Sunday is not just a sunday edition of The Daily Mail, it is editorially independent i.e. different editors, different writers. Occasionally they even adopt opposing positions (such as on Brexit). They are different newspapers but with a common ownership.
5. Mailonline publishes content from The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and its own stuff.

The question of the Mail on Sunday has been raised on several occasions:

1. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday the prevailing opinion (summarised by Andy Dingley) is that the ban does not cover the Mail on Sunday namely because it is not stated to apply.
2. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Daily_Mail_(sigh,_yes,_again) Newslinger also notes that Mail on Sunday is unaffected by the ban.
3. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday? we have a discussion that explicitly tackles this question, but does not explicitly answer it. Mazca observes that the two publications are editorially independent. He also comments that there is an argument that MoS shares many of the same reliability issues as its sister publication, and that the ban that applies to the online platform acts as a "de facto barrier" to MoS.
4. We now have a situation with David Gerard purging Mail on Sunday references from Wikipedia: see [1], [2], [3] just for a few examples. There are dozens more.

I certainly don't dispute that an argument exists that the Mail on Sunday shares the same reliability issues as its sister publication, as noted by Mazca, but the key word here is argument. The case has not been successfully prosecuted, which must surely mean that the ban does not apply to the MoS if we accept the prevailing opinion they are editorially independent publications. I also don't dispute Mazca's statement that the proscription of the online platform (that houses some MoS content) acts as a de facto barrier. It is statement of fact. If we can't cite Mailonline then the print version of the newspaper must be consulted directly. But Mazca does not state whether the Daily Mail ban explicitly applies to the Mail on Sunday or not. It is certainly being interpreted as such by David Gerard.

I am pinging in all the editors who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: @Yunshui, Primefac, Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, Vanamonde93, and Ymblanter:.

I appreciate everybody is tired of debating these damn newspapers but can we PLEASE reach a point where the Daily Mail ban either explicitly states it applies to the Mail on Sunday or explicitly states that it does NOT apply to the Mail on Sunday?? If the ban is to encompass the Mail on Sunday then we should proceed with replacing the sources in an orderly fashion. Ripping out content (which is probably 99% good) is not constructive and detrimental to building an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As the asker of the clarification request, I understood the result of the discussion as: “MOS is not included in the DM RfCs, but may suffer from the same issues. A new RfC will be required to come to a determination on its status.” Obvious question is: what until then? If it’s got the same reliability issues, we wouldn’t want it being used on wiki, and I doubt there’s much community energy for an RfC on this niche case. I think it’s thus appropriate to treat it with questionable reliability, but not as explicitly deprecated. But I don’t care enough either way. Someone like Newslinger may be better placed to answer the procedural issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I have seen David Gerard's newest approach to the Daily Mail topic. He has now proceeded to strip anything published by the DMG Media company in the past two week. He his now removing the Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, and Irish Mail on Sunday. The reliable source noticeboard needs to deal with this topic, since numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process. Since, the reliable source noticeboard is what is providing the cover for these actions, the board needs to be very precise about the decisions it is taking. And as far as the Mail on Sunday, no it is not included under the Daily Mail deprecation. Many of us editors who create the content obviously have access to outside newspaper databases and do not need to use the website www.dailymail.co.uk --Guest2625 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems like an overly procedural argument. If they have the same reliability, why the need for endless debates on it? According to WP:RS, part of the core content policy, unreliable sources should not be used (with narrow exceptions, but that's not what we're dealing with here). (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note that there is no assumption that a source is reliable, the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to restore disputed content is to show that the source is reliable. So I ask, what is the evidence that Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, etc. are reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have we not just had this very discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source is what the last discussion said, and your laughable content (which is probably 99% good) flies in the face of reality.

numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process I'd say that the Wikipedia readers are being insulted by the numerous long-term editors using shitty sources, and I know whose side I'm on. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing dailymail.co.uk is indeed a barrier to citing the Mail on Sunday. But it is a technical barrier. In the same way if Wikipedia were only to insist on hardcopy citations. It is misguided to suggest that the MoS is not reliable purely because some of its content is reproduced at MailOnline. On the other hand, it may be reasonable to suggest that it is not reliable because it is plagued by the same problems as Daily Mail. In fairness I am putting a simple question to the administrators who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: does the consensus also apply to the Mail on Sunday? Some of you may consider this overly procedural. Maybe it is, but I wouldn't be asking if an editor were not deleting vast amounts of content on entirely procedural grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If anybody in that discussion had made that "barrier" argument, it would have been countered, just as Betty Logan has done, by saying there is a print edition. But nobody did make that argument, or anything remotely similar to it, so "barrier" is not a reflection of consensus, it is merely the closer's opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the MoS is a reliable source for anything? Reassuringly, the Sunday Mail doesn't seem to be subject to the restrictions, but as it's a tabloid I wouldn't tend to think of it as a RS. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan has neglected to link the cause of the present discussion: she used this unreliable tabloid source to reinsert controversial claims about living people, sourced only to this unreliable tabloid, at List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing - apparently in the belief that using this trash source is acceptable as long as it isn't specifically deprecated.

I mentioned this in talk, Betty Logan blindly put the content back after without responding to the material having been challenged (thus not meeting WP:BURDEN, and then claimed the question I raised in talk was about WP:DAILYMAIL rather than her deliberately edit-warring in a reference to an unreliable source when making claims about living people.

I would suggest that even if the MoS is not covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - and not a word of either RFC's conclusion supports it being excluded, and nor does the result of the discussion, which concluded a carve-out would likely need a fresh RFC - that this is WP:POINTy behaviour, and material concerning living persons is absolutely not the place to be doing that - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My primary concern is your interpretation of the RFC consensus. I have raised this same issue with you prior to this latest incident: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_299#dailymail.co.uk_reversion:_eyes_wanted. Your contribution history shows you were engaged in a purge of the Mail on Sunday and justifying it using the Daily Mail RFC. I don't see any attempts to locate an alternative source or raise the issue on the talk page. Removing content in this manner is destructive. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you ever think unreliable tabloids are a suitable source for material about living people, you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing, and what constitutes "destructive". You appear both unable and unwilling to back up the content you want to edit-war back in, under WP:BURDEN - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You keep calling it "unreliable" but I have not seen any evidence for that position. During the Daily Mail RFC examples were presented of The Daily Mail or its website fabricating stories. Are you able to provide such examples of the MoS doing so? THis IPSI report (page 18) shows that in terms of upheld complaints it is comparable to other other publications in its category. The Sunday Times had more complaints upheld than MoS but I don't see you objecting to that title. It is fairly obvious to me that your actions are motiviated by an agenda against The Daily Mail rather than any objective assessment of MoS's reliability. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as a closer rather than someone who had an a priori opinion on the source; no, the DM RfCs do not extend to the Mail on Sunday, and citing the DM proscription as a reason to remove the Mail on Sunday source isn't appropriate. Conversely, just because it isn't proscribed by the DM RfC does not make the Mail on Sunday a reliable source by default, and the spirit of WP:BURDEN still applies to any content that it is used for, in that the person seeking to include that content needs to demonstrate verifiability. To be honest, for contentious material sourced to the news media, I would want multiple corroborating sources always, unless the first source is of unimpeachable quality. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've already spoken (and answered) this exact question, but to (again) reiterate, I'm with Vanamonde on this: the RFC related to the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail only. The fact that they share a website is problematic, but if a reference is for the Mail on Sunday then it is inherently not a reference for the Daily Mail. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with Vanamonde and Primefac above - The Mail on Sunday was not covered in the RFCs, and it can be argued seriously (and probably correctly) that it is a fundamentally different source. Therefore the DM RFC does not cover the Mail on Sunday. If you think that the Mail on Sunday is a bad source that should be deprecated or otherwise restricted, you are free to open a fresh RFC to find consensus on that. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I still stand by my comment at User talk:Primefac/Archive 29#The Daily Mail RfC, Again, i.e no unless MoS is part of DM the RfC on the latter does not apply. That's a separate question than whether it's a good idea to use MoS as a reference for something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I also agree with Primefac, Vanamonde and Jo-Jo, and will add that this bulk rating of entire sources without any context to use editorial judgement needs to stop. News sources are not medical journals, or academic sources - they are instantaneous news on the internet with clickbait headlines, and they are all vying for the same ad $$$ using clickbait. Judging entire sources without specifics or context directly conflicts with NPOV, V and RS. Atsme 💬 📧 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Mail on Sunday

What is the reliability of The Mail on Sunday?

• 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

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Mail on Sunday)

• Option 4 The content on mailonline (at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html) seems to be no different and inseparable from the rest of the outlet, Peter Hitchens has reported favourably on the Douma chemical attack leaks, which are discredited by most mainstream sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Even for news stories, there's no separate subdomain for MoS stories and the bylines say "for Mailonline", the only way you'd be able to definitively know whether it was a MoS story would be by checking the actual physical newspaper, which wikipedians aren't going to be citing anyway. The TV&Showbiz section which editors find to be the most problematic is displayed right with the news on the MoS section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The MoS has its own separate domain, https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/, but it's only been cited 11 times per mailonsunday.co.uk  , and provides no separation from the TV&Showbiz section https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/index.html, which appears to be the same as the rest of the mailonline, and the website functions as more of a mirror than anything else. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As I write this on a weekday, The content of mailonsunday.co.uk is identical to that of dailymail.co.uk, making it for all intents and purposes a mirror of MailOnline, and so therefore mailonsunday.co.uk should be added to the deprecated domains list regardless of the outcome of the RfC. If the Mail on Sunday is not deprecated, it should be allowed to be cited as a print reference only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 I regard Mail on Sunday reliable for the following reasons:

1. It has editorial oversight. independent from The Daily Mail and the website.
2. It has been established that the DM ban does not apply to MoS.
3. During the Daily Mail RFC, examples of the DM fabricating stories were presented. I do not recall any from the MoS.
4. Other reliable sources reference it.
5. The number of complaints upheld by IPSI report (page 18) is comparable to other publications in its category that are generally regarded as reliable sources. The Sunday Times, for example, had more complaints upheld than MoS.
6. MailOnline (which is already proscribed) is a separate entity. It houses content from The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday but also publishes its own content. This does not confer unreliability on the MoS. This is nothing more than a technical barrier and the print edition can be cited directly.

It may get things wrong occasionally but no more than other comparable titles. No evidence of it fabricating stories has been presented and an objective measure shows that its level of accurate reporting is comparable to other titles deemed reliable. The arguments presented in the above discussion invariably boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Sunday and daily editions and the website. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple of lists now of egregious fabrication - please address these (with more case by case specifics than "I feel like it's no worse than others"), even a little bit of this sort of thing seems a massive red flag that would rule it out as being treated as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no lists of fabricated stories, just lists of stories that were proven to be factually inaccurate. For example, the story about a "Muslim" gang attacking a van was not fabricated. The incident happened! The MOS was forced to adjust the article because the religion of the perpetrators was based on conjecture. The story about climate change that was prcolaimed "fake news" wasn't fabricated if you look at the article, it was simply inaccurate. Again, the level of complaints upheld against it is not significantly different to other titles, such as The Sunday Times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

They've been provided right here in this discussion - fabrication of claims, extensive fabrication of quotes, etc - but if you want to pretend they don't exist and think "lalala I can't hear you" and "but whatabout that other paper we're not discussing" is a refutation, you can certainly stay with that. If you want to discuss the Sunday Times, you should start an RFC on that. (And if you didn't actually want to discuss the Sunday Times, then your discussion of it so far is indistinguishable from throwing up chaff.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the meat of Betty's argument isn't so much that there isn't any incorrect information, just that there isn't any more incorrect information than papers we tend to consider reliable. They aren't saying they 'feel like it's no worse than others' but that there's empirical evidence that it isn't. Bringing up other papers we consider reliable isn't irrelevant. The problem is that the empirical evidence presented is extremely flimsy: the IPSO report is on the number of articles which received complaints, not how accurate they are. The report itself says "newspapers with the highest circulation [...] received the most complaints." It doesn't tell us anything. I was unable to find any empirical reports on the reliability of the Mail on Sunday specifically (if there were any I imagine there'd be no discussion), and all fact-checking websites treat it alongside the Daily Mail. Wikipedia seems to be alone in considering it separately. I think the false information already presented is egregious enough to warrant Option 4 and if other sources we consider reliable have done the same we should stop considering them reliable too. Iesbian (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You're making this seem a lot more reasonable than it is. An outlet that bases significant information on conjecture is not reliable. Other outlets we consider reliable don't do that. Iesbian (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - it's the same trash from the same sewer, and it always has been - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Obviously. Examples of false stories published specifically in the Mail on Sunday: In all cases, they only ever published corrections months later when forced to by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

These are not fabricated stories. They are stories containing inaccuracies. Statistically speaking, the MOS on average contains no more inaccuracies than something like The Sunday Times. It had two complaints upheld in 2018: https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10. Should we proscribe The Sunday Times as well because five complaints were upheld over the same period? Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The false claims are central to the story in every example I've given. IPSO only deals with cases that get referred to them by members of the public and the inaccuracies they investigate can vary in severity which is why we're looking at specific examples. If you can find similarly many examples of egregious journalism in The Times, we can have a discussion about them as well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

False or misrepresentative claims usually are central to inaccurate stories. I am not defending these articles. I am pleased the beautician won her case! But are any of your examples more egregious than this sequence of Times stories: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43887481. It is worth noting that of the 69 stories that received complaints only two were ultimately upheld. The remainder were either not taken up, resolved through other means, or IPSO found in favor of the MoS. I take on board your point that the IPSO cases are just a sample and not a comprehensive vetting of MoS's output, but that is true of the other publications they have ranked too. I think these examples would carry more weight if this were a discussion about a class of sources i.e. a discussion about raising the bar on what constitutes a reliable source. But this is not about raising the bar; it is about purging one particular source that sampled evidence shows is not disproportionately worse than rival titles in the market. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 The above is enough for me to say 4, rather then 2 or 3.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Complete trash, per ReconditeRodent and others. This is lipstick on the Daily Mail. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 – these are not just "stories containing inaccuracies", on the global warming "pause" it made allegations of malpractice while ignoring evidence, and as noted above was eventually forced to publish online the IPSO finding that instead it had based the article on misrepresenting a blog post. Similar misreporting appeared in the MoS in 2012. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: There are dozens of examples of Mail on Sunday fabrications, but I will list just one, featured in Vogue: Meghan Markle Responds to a Set of Tabloid Rumors --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017. The list from David Gerard below is over-the-top with its accusations, e.g. being in fifth place for complaints just ahead of The Guardian doesn't show anything as others have already indicated, and there were no "fabricated claims of anti-Semitism" (the Mail on Sunday did not say Mr Livingstone was anti-Semitic), etc. But the lists do show that Mail on Sunday publishes corrections, and (see WP:RS) "publication of corrections" is a good signal. They are sometimes forced by IPSO but that is a good thing too, the British newspapers that refuse to join IPSO are the contemptible ones if that's what matters. Mail on Sunday is a "well-established news outlet" so WP:NEWSORG tells us it "is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", so voting to censor it is a demand to violate WP:RS. Option 4 should not have been proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is the article Peter Gulutzan is referring to: Ken Livingstone stokes new Labour anti-Semitism row after dismissing problem as 'lies and smears peddled by ghastly Blairites'. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad counting. Peter Gulutzan at 01:22, 13 September 2020 wrote "The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017" The list was started with 7 items by ReconditeRodent at 10:56, 12 September 2020, and I added four items, two of which were articles covering the same incorrect article by David Rose already covered in item 3 on the list, and mentioned along with other incorrect articles of his in item 4 on the list. I'd already researched it independently, so added my items and tried to indicate two were on the same topic, but evidently not clear enough. In total, the list of 11 items covers 12 transgressions, that is 12 separate articles published by the MoS, some of them repeating false claims by David Rose. Appreciate it's a bit complicated, so miscounting is understandable if rather careless. Hope the following list helps to clarify things. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

list for clarification:

1. 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.

2. MoS accusation "Muslim" gangs 25 July 2015, corrected to just a "gang of youths" 18 September 2015

3. 4–5 February 2017 MoS alleged "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data", 18 September 2017 MoS forced to publish IPSO correction

4. as 3., plus two subsequent articles on February 12 and February 19 repeated the claims, 22 April 2018 page 2 of MoS print edition concede incorrect, "Corrections to these articles have been published online."
Article also noted IPSO complaints upheld against two other articles.

5. MoS 29 September 2018 "Number 10 probes Remain MPs’ ‘foreign collusion'"

6. MoS June 2019 false claim about "Labour's tax plans", IPSO ruled inaccurate in November, publication of the correction delayed until after the election.

7. MoS December 2017 "rogue beauticians" story, IPSO upheld complaint but correction on wrong page, June 2019, Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damages.

8 article and correction as 3

9 article and correction as 3

10 MoS 29 January 2012 "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

11 MoS 14 October 2012 second article claiming "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2 - depends on context and whether the discussion is conflating items. The article says this the largest WEIGHT such publication so seems a bit much to exclude it, and seems in the category of popular press so I’m thinking it reasonable to cite for that context and folks are trying to consider it outside the context it would/should be used. Seems obviously “Generally” reliable in the sense of usually having the criteria of editorial control and publication norms and accessibility, and the bulk of stories factual correctness is not in particular question. I don’t think anyone here has put it as the category of 3 generally self-published or blog or sponsored pieces. Category 4 seems excessive - false or fabricated doesn’t seem a correct characterization if people are having to go back to 2012 and 2014 for cases to discuss. Also, much of the discussion above seems to be confusing https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/ with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ or that none of these are actually The Mail on Sunday. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Categorise the same as the Daily Mail: there's no substantial difference between the two paper's journalistic values and fact-checking processes, and hence this RfC should not be able to override the stronger, more global consensus to deprecate the Daily Mail. As a second resort, if we are to categorise the Mail on Sunday differently then we must categorise it as option 4 per the compelling evidence presented by ReconditeRodent and David Gerard that it is established practice at the paper to lie and suppress corrections wherever legally possible. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – 2 - Requires scrutiny but a respected paper that has done much serious reporting unavailable elsewhere. The majority of advocates for "deprecating" the MoS are the same "it's the Daily Mail" line even though it in fact has its own website i.e. Mail on Sunday and a totally separate editorial staff. Ownership by the same company has little if any relevance. Basing your vote on carefully ignoring the facts seems unreasonable to me. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, same or substantially the same editorial policy and authors. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an incorrect statement. It has been stated multiple times that the Mail on Sunday is its own independent newspaper. This means it has its own staff, journalists, and editorial board. Please read the Mail on Sunday wikipedia article to inform yourself about the newspaper. These are the "authors" as you call them of the Mail on Sunday:

Peter Hitchens

Rachel Johnson

Olly Smith

James Forsyth

Robert Waugh

Piers Morgan

Craig Brown

Tom Parker Bowles

Chris Evans

Ruth Sunderland

Sebastian O Kelly

Liz Jones

Sally Brompton

Sarah Stacey

Mimi Spencer

Jeff Prestridge

John Rees

Ellie Cannon

Jane Clarke

Katie Nicholl

Oliver Holt

Stuart Broad

Patrick Collins

Glenn Hoddle

Michael Owen

Nick Harris

Andrew Pierce

You have also chosen option 4, which means that you are stating that these journalists as a group are involved in writing "false or fabricated information". You have provided no proof of your statement. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The Mail on Sunday has a completely separate editorial oversight, staff, office and so on. They are completely different newspapers that compete with each other, but simply have a similar name. I do, however, see the risk of their content being hosted on the MailOnline/DailyMail.com, as they do not have their own website. In which situation I would endorse Option 2 with the condition that the Mail on Sunday remains a reliable source but that the print edition must be the one cited, with online links unacceptable. Ortolan57 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's hard to see how it's an option 1 given its cited record of fabrication - surely this should be addressed in an opinion worth taking into consideration - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, just as completely divorced from the truth as the regular Daily Mail, despite being nominally seperate. They clearly have the exact same record of lying constantly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 No evidence that this source is any more reliable than the regular DM, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Remember, the onus is on those who are arguing the source can be used to demonstrate that it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Although the MoS may not be in Breitbart/National Enquirer territory it is clearly generally unreliable as per above comments. A note on comparisons of complaints: if we look at the nature and scale of the inaccuracies in the MoS presented in the lists above and below, and not just how many there were in a given year, it is clear that most of them are serious and relate to central news stories not just marginal human interest stories (major inaccuracies about electoral candidates not corrected until after election, major mischaracterisations of data about climate change) and also that they fit into a pattern of repeating false allegations as part of an ideological campaign (e.g. around climate change, where false statements were repeated despite earlier corrections) or systematically misrepresenting religion/ethnicity (e.g. to generate clickbait buzz by plugging into anti-Muslim panic), and not simple mistakes such as mistyping the number of arrests at the Appleby fair. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 since not proof has been offered to show the Sunday edition of the mail any more reliable than the daily --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 I wouldn't want anything on Wikipedia based solely on a MoS article, it is too unreliable. If it is valid information it will also appear in more reliable papers like the the Guardian or the Telegraph. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Putting aside the paper's politics, all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. Large parts of what the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) content are reliable and well-written and were the same content published elsewhere we wouldn't even question it - such as this for example [4]. This pogrom of Daily Mail content has already seen sources being blindly removed even when for our purposes they would be reliably sourced and well-written and it's often to the detriment of articles - and anyone who questions this is shouted down. Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis, I am firmly opposed to blanket pronouncements such as this related to mainstream media. WCM_email 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So you're fine with the list of blatant fabrications? - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you're fine with the "fabrications" of the newspapers you judge to be reliable? Please quit this obviously disingenuous and facetious line of argument - the output of a media outlet should be judged as a whole and not based on cherry-picked examples. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The argument "but whatabout these other newspapers that aren't the topic here" isn't regarded as a useful argument on RSN. If you want to discuss those, you should start an RFC about them, listing their fabrications. This discussion is about the Mail on Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to "but the MoS is not less reliable than the Sunday Times according to the metric that you've chosen to ban it" with "then you should start an RFC on banning the Sunday Times" is clearly not an argument made in good faith. We all know that the outcome of such an RFC would be a snow-close for "Option 1" and a possible trip to ANI for whoever chose to waste everyone's time by proposing it. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

David you clearly chose not to read my comment, so I will reply to your strawman with emphasis added. "all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. .... Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis. You appear obsessed by the Daily Mail and removing any reference to it, often to the detriment of article quality and blind to the reliability of the article. You would remove this for example and are you suggesting that an opinion sourced to David Attenborough becomes unreliable simply because it is published in the DM? WCM_email 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 As per Curry above and the fact that MOS has a separate editor. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  @The C of E: Seeing as you were opposed to the deprecation of the Daily Mail itself (arguing that there was "no need to blacklist a whole publication because of a few opinion pieces that may not be to some tastes") and then argued just two years later that the ban should be lifted because they had "changed", what possible relevance could The Mail on Sunday's editorial independence have? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This argument essentially boils down to trying to exclude anyone who was in the (substantial) minority in the DM Ban RFC from ever having a say in any future issue related to banning media. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I question who this IP is @FOARP: given he seems to have only started editing this year so how can he know about whom said what back when? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall having participated in a previous RfC on the use of the Daily Mail as a source. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm merely questioning the particular argument being used here. Given what The C of E has said in the past, supporting option 1 is consistent, but given their premises, I can't see what relevance the publication's editorial independence could have. Perhaps The C of E can clarify.

But I don't see how what I'm saying would exclude anyone who participated in the past RfCs from having a say here. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a clear attempt to daisy-chain RFCs. "But you didn't agree with the concept of these RFCs so you can't vote Option 1 in this RFC" the argument goes, resulting in a more extreme and less balanced result. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (preferred) because it shares DM staff, history of fabrications, and has the same website as the Daily Mail, complete with "sidebar of shame" and its obsession with objectifying (see also "all grown up"). Failing that, then go with print edition only as no worse than the average tabloid, but still best not to use because tabloid. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, not really seeing why the print edition should be presumed less deprecable than the online version - is there a convincing reason? - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, convincing? Not sure: depends who you're trying to convince (and obviously here I exclude Brian K Horton and his hosiery drawer). The bar to inclusion means that most of the churnalism on the website doesn't make it into print. The print edition is exactly as biased, and has undoubtedly printed some egregious bollocks, but the level of oversight is at least marginally higher. But you'll note that is my second choice, because my strong preference is to exclude altogether. You cannot trust anything you read on the Mail websites, and that fatally undermines any claim to journalistic integrity for any of its output IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

fair - I'll certainly agree that if there was an Option 4½, Mail Online would warrant it - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bad RFC (or Option 1 if the RFC still goes ahead) - These "let's ban media outlets we don't like" have no link to any actual issue in an article on Wikipedia. They always turn into a forum-style discussion on the perceived good-ness or not of the source itself rather than its reliability in relation to any subject matter. Editors should be free to decide what sources they use through consensus on a case-by-case basis, rather than these pointless blanket bans. Comparisons to reliable sources with exactly the same failings that the news outlet to be deprecated displays are always batted away with "why don't you start an RFC on banning the New York Times then?" (or similar facetiousness). The outcome is pre-determined as soon as the typically right-wing nature of the publication to be banned is highlighted. Rampant double-standards abound especially between UK and US publications. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Seeing as your issue is with the writ-large deprecation of sources generally, isn't that an argument better suited to WT:RS to have Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Deprecated sources amended? I don't see how it's relevant here when we're trying to apply the existing guidelines. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I oppose these blanket bans of regulated media with well-established editorial teams based in countries with robust freedom of speech, then I also oppose banning the MoS and hence am voting on those grounds. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

hence am voting on those grounds These discussions are not votes; so you appear to be declaring that your statement here is explicitly not about the MoS as a source, and hence meaningless in the discussion. The process of deprecation was itself ratified in an RFC; if you want to remove it, then you would need to run an RFC to do so - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to make any opposition to this steady banning of sources invalid ab initio. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I note you haven't answered my point below about your deletion campaign deleting even WP:ABOUTSELF statements by the MoS (explicitly allowed even under the DM 2017 RFC close) which is a prime example of how this isn't about content, or what has been specifically decided in RFCs, but about getting something you can use to justify a mass-deletion campaign against a publication you dislike. FOARP (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your other question is you whatabouting the issue - this is a discussion of the Mail On Sunday, not of me. If you have a point to make about the Mail On Sunday, it needs to be a point about the Mail On Sunday. If you can't make a point about the quality of the Mail On Sunday as a source - and you've just said above that you're not making a point about the Mail On Sunday, you're trying to reverse the idea of deprecation of sources, which is an action that's been ratified at RFC. You can keep on trying to flail about to distract from the point, but if you're not addressing the question then you're just making noise. You don't even understand that this isn't a vote, so I can't say that you are even proceeding in bad faith, but you don't appear to be proceeding competently - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

1. It's not 'whatabouting' the issue. You're trying to referee the discussion, which given the magnitude of your involvement is totally inappropriate. If you fail to understand this, then that would render you patently unqualified to have any weight be given to your statements regarding reliability (since that would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding of what reliability even is).

2. Comparisons with other sources are NOT irrelevant to this discussion, and telling editors to 'go start an RFC about The Times' or whatever is flat out disruptive. GENERAL RELIABILITY is RELATIVE. We should not be applying different sets of standards to sources we don't like than the sources we like. Furthermore, your 'suggestion' is a non sequitur, and is clearly in bad faith, because every one of us knows that will NEVER happen. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with FOARP. It's unfortunate because blanket bans will come back to haunt us in the future for a number of reasons. This is not to say there are not problems with sources, but every source article should be evaluated and never site banned. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 As per ReconditeRodent. Autarch (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per others, they make corrections and the volume of problems is not severe. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - generally reliable newspaper. The Mail on Sunday had a relatively low number of complaints based on the ipso statistics. The number of complaints was similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. It’s a respected newspaper that has a number of notable contributors. Other newspapers quote it. The paper is conservative leaning so care is required on political topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, prefer 4 I kept being surprised that this was still being employed as a source following the Daily Mail deprecation. Tabloids are bad sources, and this is on the bottom layer of tabloids, sharing staff and large amounts of content (and apparently its philosophy and veracity) with the Daily Mail. The above examples of fabrication and evasion require some pretty dedicated scampering to ignore. We are an encyclopedia and must be able to exclude material that has a high chance of being misrepresented or made up. If an item is of wider impact, we can use one of many other sources; if it is MoS exclusive, we run the risk of it having been blown up into some chimaera in order to add another five points to the headline size. Do not need. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. The list of issues above is persuasive. The reason why full depreciation rather than unreliability is called is twofold. First, the "errors" highlighted above are all in one direction and all reflect the biases of the Mail's owners (its "errors" are inevitably stuff that eg. downplays global warming, paints Muslims or Labour in a bad light, bolsters the Tories, and so on); this, combined with the tendency to slow-walk corrections or neglect them entirely, suggests that, regardless of the (still uncited?) claims of editorial independence, it is subject to the same forces, in the same way, that make the Daily Mail itself unreliable. Bias is acceptable in a source, and occasional errors are not an issue; but repeated errors, in the same direction, which consistently reflect the biases of the owner suggest a systematic problem that makes it hard to justify using them as a source - there is simply every reason to think that their overriding goal is to advance their owners' political agenda at the expense of fact-checking or accuracy. Second, they fit the same criteria that made depreciation of the original Daily Mail necessary in that they are clearly not reliable due to the above, yet a vocal minority of editors insists that it can be used - and not merely that it can be used, but that it is somehow an exemplary source (note how the opinions here split between overwhelming numbers of people favoring depreciation and people saying it is generally reliable, with so little in-between.) That is the sort of situation that requires a decisive conclusion, since it is plain some people will continue to try and use it as a source everywhere unless there is an unambiguous decision saying they can't. Finally, in case it comes up - given that this discussion focuses on the parallels between the Mail and the Mail on Sunday and how those seem to stem from its ownership, I would suggest that whatever decision we reach here ought to apply to any outlets owned by Daily Mail and General Trust, at least by default (Metro, the other major paper they own, is already listed as generally unreliable.) It is clear from these discussions and the examples above that the root problem is the owners and not the individual editorial boards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To deprecate a whole media publishing group is very problematic. It's merely indicative of the slippery slope that Wikipedia is heading down with its whole deprecation process. The next thing to appear on this board will be an attempt to ban the Rupert Murdoch publishing group. The problem with this board and its perennial sources list is that it has a legitimacy problem. Were all the editors individually notified on their talk page who will be directly affected by this upcoming Mail on Sunday decision? If not, this local group decision has a legitimacy problem. And a vague RFC advert in the wiki-jungle doesn't cut it. Those editors who used the source have a right to defend their decision. And, the only way to defend your decision is to be notified. I know for a fact that a group of editors who are in the middle of a content dispute over the Mail on Sunday have not been notified. This is very problematic.

It's not complicated for me. The complaint statistics of the the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday are the same. The Sunday Times has also made a number of significant corrections. All this information was provided below. What the Sunday Times does better is that it has a more sophisticated writing style, since it targets the professional upper class. The Mail on Sunday is targeted towards the middle class. Option 2 I certainly can understand, since this is similar to how many American editors view Fox (which has some parallels to the politics and biases of the Mail on Sunday). Even option 3 would be understandable for people who cannot bear any publication which makes an error. But option 4 would mean the newspaper is worse than a self-published source. It would mean the highest selling Sunday newspaper, which won newspaper of the year in 2019 and has a number of notable writers, cannot be even used for its review of a theatre play which is gross and absurd. Fortunately, what is happening with the British media market on this board cannot be done to the American media market which has a much larger and more diverse pool of Wikipedia editors who use it. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agree with this view. That the editors who have actually used the MoS as a source have not been notified is a legitimacy issue with this RFC. That they are excluded is an inevitable product of this RFC being completely divorced from actual content issues with articles. Engaging with the actual use of the MoS on Wiki would mean acknowledging that a lot of the present use (which is not high) is simply WP:ABOUTSELF (e.g., the edit by David Gerard linked above where he deleted even the mere mention that a book had been MoS book of the week, claiming that this was justified by the DM ban which explicitly allows "about-self" use), or completely uncontroversial. The double standard between UK and US media outlets, let alone between UK outlets and those of China or Iran, is as palpable as it is absurd. Responding to clear evidence that the MoS has had no more complaints upheld against it than the Sunday Times with "well then you should start an RFC to ban the Sunday Times" is not arguing in good faith. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I would think that because The Mail on Sunday is just the weekend branding of Daily Mail that it'd fall under the existing restrictions there, but nonetheless, they still seem to have a desperate use of trigger words, sensationalism, low-quality fact checking and having been the source most sanctioned by UK regulators (source which says "The Daily Mail is used here to include the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday...") three years in a row (source). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times that the Mail on Sunday, Metro, i (originally a sister newspaper of The Independent), and also Daily Mail are all separate newspapers. This means that the newspapers have separate staff, journalists, and editorial boards. These different newspapers are published by DMG Media which itself is owned by the media company DMGT. It is normal for media companies to own multiple titles. See for instance Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns Dow Jones & Company (publisher of 'of the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch and Barron's), News UK (publisher of The Sun and The Times), and book publisher HarperCollins.

Also it is not clear why you provided links to two blogs about the IPSO statistics, when below is the complete IPSO table for 2018. The table clearly shows that the Mail on Sunday did not rank poorly. Please uncollapse the green bar below that says table and trust your own eyes. The only thing I do want to quote from one of your blogs is the following:"Sunday Times Forced to Admit to Fake Antisemitism Smears". That sounds like a major faux pas that the Mail on Sunday's competitor made, just like that little faux pas that the New Statesman made in regards to the Roger Scruton interview that we just discussed on this reliable source board. It is unfortunate that generally reliable sources sometimes make faux pas. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Would you be able to link to the discussion that ended in a consensus that the staff etc are different and that there's absolutely no commonality between the two? I think you'll also notice that the source I provided is from 2019, not 2018. Associated Newspapers Limited, which owns Metro, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online, even says in their annual report that Mail Online shares editorial content, lawyers, and replies to complaints to IPSO on behalf of Mail on Sunday. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Mail on Sunday explains that it is its own newspaper. It is stated there that the newspaper has its own staff and editor. The blog you provided is from 2019; however, it's referencing the IPSO complaint statistics from 2018. This is a quote from the blog:[5] "In terms of total number of sanctions, the top seven reached 90 between them across 2018. This is slightly better than 2017’s total of 115, but up on the 62 offences committed in 2016." As you'll note the blog's most recent numbers are the 2018 IPSO statistics, which are provided in clear detail in the table below from the 2018 IPSO report on page 18. So for clarification again, the chief editor of the Mail on Sunday, as stated in the Wikipedia article, is Ted Verity and these are the current writers for the newspaper:

Peter Hitchens

Rachel Johnson

Olly Smith

James Forsyth

Robert Waugh

Piers Morgan

Craig Brown

Tom Parker Bowles

Chris Evans

Ruth Sunderland

Sebastian O Kelly

Liz Jones

Sally Brompton

Sarah Stacey

Mimi Spencer

Jeff Prestridge

John Rees

Ellie Cannon

Jane Clarke

Katie Nicholl

Oliver Holt

Stuart Broad

Patrick Collins

Glenn Hoddle

Michael Owen

Nick Harris

Andrew Pierce

Since the owners of the Mail on Sunday have multiple papers, it would not be surprising, if they used the same legal staff for the different papers. I read the Associated Newspapers Limited 2019 annual report hereand here, but I wasn't able to find your statement about sharing editorial content and complaint reply in the report. Could you provide me with a link to the annual report that you read and the relevant page number. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 How much confidence can really be taken from a debate where even basic pertinent details, such as whether or not the Sunday edition has a separate editorial staf , cannot seemingly be settled a priori? I note too, the complete lack of impeccable sources like the Columbia Journalism Review. These have been used when debating the reliability of Fox and the New York Post in this foraaa , so their absence here, given the claims that basically cast the MoS as a step change worse, rings alarm bells as far as the potential for bias goes. Jack B Williamson (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Jack B Williamson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  The Columbia Journalism Review is a US based outlet and generally doesn't cover the UK press so the lack of coverage by that outlet is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  I have struck the contribution from the boring sockpuppet. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 I think generally news media shouldn’t be considered reliable by it self. Citing facts from news is not how it works in the real world. You need to also consider other sources. A body of news sources together give weight, but it is still in the news. I read newspapers and enjoy, but that is mostly because I think. The narrative that we need to fact check the media is a construction. This RfC I think is created to ease some admin work, and that is perfectly OK. They already banned publications that can easily be mistaken, because of the architecture of the web address. I understand it’s a mess. I don’t like the options. I think option 1 and 4 are divisive provocations for the trenches. And option 2 and 3 are vague. What does even option 3 mean? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If, as you say, you don't in fact understand the question, it's not clear this helps form an informed consensus - David Gerard (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 It is clear that the Mail on Sunday, while technically independent editorially, shares ownership and agenda with the Daily Mail. While this alone is not enough to deprecate the paper, it is relevant because the Mail on Sunday also appears to share the bad habits of fabricating claims about living people and publishing lies, bad information and untrustworthy speculation. I am sure that they often publish good and true information, but I am also sure that they publish outright false information which, I believe, they often know to be untrue. For the use of the MoS as a source on Wikipedia, they surely therefore have to be considered unreliable and deprecated. It would be inconsistent to come to any other conclusion. I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Daily Mail as well as the MoS make their 'mistakes' in a very particular direction, which is aimed propping up the Conservative party (and perhaps occasionally offshoots of it) and putting down Labour as well as any right-wing movement which may become a threat to the Conservative party. Downfall Vision (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion and others. Glee^anon 06:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 – Notwithstanding ReconditeRodent's links, which would be reason enough by themselves, the Mail on Sunday should still be excluded due to its association with the Daily Mail. Even if it were more reliable than its parent newsletter, the fact that it's owned by the same company will inherently detract from its credibility as a source. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This argument about deprecating a source because of company ownership makes no sense. Rupert Murdoch's News UK owns The Sun and The Times. Do you feel that The Times should be deprecated because Wikipedia has deprecated The Sun? This is the argument that you are making. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This argument actually makes complete sense in my opinion. Perhaps an unconventional view, but I would argue that indeed The Times should be viewed with suspicion given its shared ownership with a deprecated source and perhaps should be seen as unreliable based on that fact alone. It is not that The Times should be deprecated because The Sun has been deprecated, but that The Times should be viewed with suspicion based entirely on its strong association with a deprecated source. I think we should set the precedent that when media outlets share ownership, they should be viewed to share reputation. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire obviously do not take issue with their papers printing falsehoods, so why should we trust them? In the same vein, the MoS shouldn't be deprecated only because of its association with the Daily Mail, but it should be viewed as unreliable based on that fact alone. Separately, the MoS should be deprecated because it has be shown to have published multiple falsehoods and lies. I think Wikipedia could benefit from a more suspicious outlook on news media in general. Downfall Vision (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, this is the argument under which the MoS is basically getting taken down: guilt by association. Stating that THE newspaper of record - The Times - should be banned, basically just because it's British and leans to the right politically. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I probably should have made this clear from the start, but I was referring more to the fact that there is significant overlap between the editorial control over the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Murdoch does own the Times, but he makes it clear that he has no control over the stories they print. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 There is nothing in there that you can't find through a more reliable source in the UK. There is no loss to wikipedia to not having this as "source". Albertaont (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, it is the same publisher as the Daily Mail. There are better sources in the UK. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3; pushing 4 Daily Mail and MoS may share the same publisher but IIRC editorial staff are different Nightfury 10:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 the Mail on Sunday may technically have different editorial staff but clearly has very similar outlooks on how a paper should behave. The editorial oversight does not appear to be 'meaningful' and the opinions often seem to be on the fringes of British politics. On the other hand, where it is worth citing viewpoints from columnists especially where they are part of a significant minority it should be considered reliable for their opinions. For example, Hitchens is a experienced foreign commentator who has won the Orwell Prize and as such his views on Syria may be worth mentioning. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 I agree with most of the other voters. It's owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. Although their editorial stuff is different, it looks like it has the same quality and the tendentious writing Daily Mail has.Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: This needs to be the end of it. No more Daily Mail discussions. It's not an acceptable source, ever, and anything in its domain is unreliable as well. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That people keep raising this topic is not, at all, a logical reason to block a source that is not the Daily Mail nor managed by the same people. It will also not end the discussion because the people who keep raising this topic can not stop raising it - they simply move the goal-posts. Hence the recent discussion on the DM in the past being an RS because banning the DM of recent decades wasn't enough for them. Additionally, saying "we should ban this source to stop discussions about banning it" is essentially a WP:BLACKMAIL position.

The only thing that will end these discussion is requiring an actual link to an actual issue with the actual content of an actual article that is actually on Wiki, since none of these discussion are related to article-content and none would go forward if it were a requirement. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not even remotely a blackmail position, for starters, it isn't threat and it isn't tied to the outcome of the RFC. It is perfectly fair for editors to be left with a bad taste in their mouth from past Daily Mail discussions, not least because it published an article slamming the editors that !voted for its removal the first time. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with FOARP. No argument has been provided in this opinion for deprecation. In this request for comment, two flawed arguments have been presented for deprecation: the mutual ownership argument and the cherry-picked complaint argument.

The mutual ownership argument states that because the Mail on Sunday is owned by DMGT, which also publishes a deprecated newspaper, that the Mail on Sunday should be similarly deprecated. This argument is flawed when it is realized that the Mail on Sunday's competitor the Sunday Times faces this same issue. The Sunday Times is owned by News UK, which also publishes the deprecated newspaper The Sun. No one is proposing to use the mutual ownership argument to deprecate the Sunday Times.

The cherry-picked complaint argument presents a few complained about articles from the newspaper (in the past ten years the Mail on Sunday has published over 400,000 articles) and then concludes that the newspaper should be deprecated. This argument is flawed given that the full IPSO complaint statistics have been presented below. The full set of complaint statistics indicate that the Mail on Sunday had few complaints and ranked similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. No one is proposing to use the cherry-picked complaint argument to deprecate the Sunday Times even though a number of cherry-picked complaints against it were presented below.

Just to re-emphasize the flawed nature of the second argument, let's use the argument to cherry-pick the IPSO complaint database on another competitor the Daily Telegraph. Here's is a set of serious article complaints against the Daily Telegraph: multiple cases of falsification to inflame hatred towards Muslims, falsification to inflame racial hatred, multiple cases of falsification to label others as antisemitic, falsification to smear environmentalists, distortion to harm the Labour Party, multiple cases of falsification to support Brexit, blatant antisemitism (article stated: “Only three countries on the planet don’t have a central bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild family”, and listed: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.), numerous cases of bad science. Does this board really plan on deprecating the Telegraph. We should avoid bad science (i.e. the cherry-picking argument) and use the full IPSO complaint statistics that have been presented below. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources
References

• Option 2 This is a bad/malformed RfC. Judge each reference on its own merits seems to be the best option of those presented. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Same as the Daily Mail. Currently, this means option 4. Substantially similar content. The "sidebar of shame" on the Mail on Sunday (named "Don't Miss") includes the same articles as the "sidebar of shame" in the Daily Mail (titled "Femail Today"), except in a different order. The articles listed in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday link to other subdirectories on dailymail.co.uk; none of the ones I checked had any identifier that would distinguish them from Daily Mail articles. The community has already deprecated the Daily Mail in the high-participation 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the high-participation 2019 RfC. As the Mail on Sunday publishes substantially the same content, and even reuses articles (e.g. the sidebar articles) from the Daily Mail, it should be treated the same way. — Newslinger talk 09:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The reliable source noticeboard is supposed to be frequented by individuals who are specialists in investigating sources. Surfing briefly around the Mail Online website is not called investigating a source. Go to the corner newsstand if you live in the UK and pick up the Mail on Sunday and see for yourself that it is its own newspaper. A list of the writers and editor of the Mail on Sunday has been presented now twice, what other proof do you need. If you do not live in the UK, go to your library and get access to microfiche of the Mail on Sunday or one of the numerous online databases that has it. The Gale database for instance has access to the Mail on Sunday. The online website provides access to only some of the articles. If you want to know if an article is by the Mail on Sunday, read the byline, that's why they are there. An example of an article that is by the Mail on Sunday is this one "My defence of Julian Assange - a man I abhor. It ended badly the time they met yet Peter Hitchens argues extraditing the WikiLeaks boss to the US violates British sovereignty, threatens press freedom and is nothing less than a politically motivated kidnap". Note the byline where it says "by Peter Hitchens for the Mail on Sunday". --Guest2625 (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Insulting the many editors who have carefully weighed the evidence and who disagree with you isn't exactly productive. There is a strong consensus that The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday are substantively the same and should be treated the same way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, do you have an explanation for this?[6] Or this?[7] Or this?[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not criticising the "editors who have carefully weighed the evidence and who disagree" on the reliability of the source. Carefully weighing the different arguments is important so we can get to a consensus. If this was not a consensus building process that involved evidence and reason, we could save time and just have a straight vote. As far as your belief that the Mail on Sunday is not its own newspaper, you are wrong. The Mail on Sunday has its own writing staff and editor, newspaper databases archive it as its own newspaper, ipso regulates it as its own newspaper, and its wiki article indicates that it is its own newspaper.

As concerns your btw, I was wondering when this board was going to have a request for comment on the Daily Telegraph. The cherry pickings from the ipso complaint database are concerning. In fact, the cherry picking argument can be done with all the newspapers that are regulated and have their complaints stored in the ipso database. That is why any scientifically literate person knows to look at the full set of statistics.

The Guardian was wise not to have itself regulated by ipso, so it could more easily hide article complaints. However, it's well known that the Guardian is a falsifier. Once again we come to Julian Assange the darling of the 2000s, of the open information movement, and the left that is until he betrayed them. And this is how the left got back at him: The Guardian’s summary of Julian Assange’s interview went viral and was completely false Those who want to combat Fake News should stop aggressively spreading it when it suits their agenda. I think I would like to be able to quote Peter Hitchen's and the Mail on Sunday and not have to depend on the Guardian as being the sole gatekeeper to the supermax prison cell. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of citations of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are not referencing physical issues. In almost all cases, editors are not going to the library and using microfiche before citing the source. Instead, nearly all citations to the Mail on Sunday include a link to an article that was originally linked from the official websites of the Mail on Sunday: https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday. Those websites mostly host and/or link to other Daily Mail content. The 2017 and 2019 RfCs took place over multiple months, and were closed by panels – the RfCs show that the community consensus is to deprecate the Daily Mail, which differs from your opinion. As the Daily Mail has already been identified as a generally unreliable source, there is no reason to trust a website that mostly uses Daily Mail content. Any website that republishes such a large quantity of Daily Mail content inherits the general unreliability of the Daily Mail. Edit filters work through URL matching, and when the articles on https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk or https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday mostly duplicate content from the Daily Mail, that means the edit filter that applies to the Daily Mail should also apply to these websites. If, in some rare situation, an editor is citing an old physical/microfiche edition of Mail on Sunday that is not available online, that citation is not affected by edit filters, and is partially covered by "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically" from the 2017 RfC.

Finally, the volume of your 16+ comments in this discussion has the effect of bludgeoning the process. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and repeating your arguments so many times does not improve the strength of your position. — Newslinger talk 22:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger - WP:BLUD is seemingly being used as a bludgeon here. Guest2625 is not even nearly the most prolific commenter on this board - that's more likely to be David Gerard (20+ comments in total on the MoS discussion). WP:BLUD is, anyway, just an essay (Guy Macon tried to upgrade it to supplementary guideline but that was - very correctly in my view - reversed). It has also recently been updated to highlight that repetition, and not mere volume of comments, is typically the heart of WP:BLUD. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger - It seems like the main concern with the source is its url and technical issues regarding an edit filter. Verifiability does not require an online link. They are provided as a convenience to the reader. In fact most citations on wikipedia do not have them. When editors create content, they generally use books, magazines, journals, and newspapers, which they either access through the library or paywalled online databases. It is only for current affairs material that editors use online search engines like google news that provides urls for online newspapers to do their research. Current affairs being news happening in the past month or so. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Mail on Sunday should generally be considered reliable for all articles ~9 months or older. Such articles have had time for complaints to make their way through the system and be fixed. Articles younger than 9 months should receive extra caution in BLP situations where controversy could be involved. With respect to Hunter Biden stuff just coming out it would be best to wait and see if the material they publish proves reliable or is disproved in the coming months.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 It's just another newspaper. The details have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not with a draconian, one-size-fits-all blanket rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't think it's fair to judge Mail on Sunday's reliability based on the owner of Daily Mail. Their editorials and articles have been overseen by experienced people. It's a reputable newspaper, not to be confused with Daily Mail.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Spare me the WP:IDONTHEARIT ("No evidence of it fabricating stories"?), the false equivalencies (if you want to talk about another source, start an RFC for THAAT), the weird accusation Wikipedia editors are being "blackmailed" into voting for deprecation, and and, as well, the above content-free "It's just another newspaper": no, it isn't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Put a stake through the heart of this thing so we all can start using better sources. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Deprecate it the same as the Daily Mail. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Mail on Sunday)

• I am tired of discussing the Daily Mail as much as anyone else, so hopefully after this there will be no more need for any RfC's on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Please specify that this covers all editions at all URLs for all purposes - otherwise someone will be along making excuses as they already do with the DM: "oh, the Shetlands edition has some different staff", "but you didn't specifically mention articles on trainspotting", "but I like this guy", "but exceptions exist so I'm claiming this as an exception", etc., etc., etc - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If the Mos and Daily Mail are both deprecated, it automatically covers all DM domains. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Including This is Money? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This Is Money is in its own words the "financial website and money section of the MailOnline", so is covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I see that you already asked this precise question before, and that was the answer then too, so it's entirely unclear why you're asking again - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That was one response from you that was not mentioned in the closing statement. I am open to hearing from other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Here's about half an hour's quickest casual search. I'm sure if I put actual effort in, the list would be far longer. If anyone has their own lists of the MoS's mission to spread nonsense that we absolutely cannot trust as a source for encyclopedic content, please post them.

• A pile of distorted and fabricated claims about the EU: [9]
• Fabricated front-page claims of "foreign collusion" by Remain MPs [10]
• Fifth in the list for PCC complaints, 2013 [11]
• Fabrication about claimed BMA guidelines for doctors [12]
• Capital gains tax fabrication, IPSO rules as "serious breach" [13]
• Fabricated claims of anti-Semitism [14]
• Defamatory attack on individual [15]
• IPSO: "significantly misleading" [16]
• Fabrication of quotes in interview (the MoS cannot be trusted for quotes any more than the DM) [17]

The MoS is lying rubbish just as much as the DM is, it just pretends not to be. A trash-tier tabloid that tells gullible readers it's a newspaper of record - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of those are not the best sources but I find (5) and (8) to be particularly alarming at a glance. Would you/someone mind digging up if the paper version, ie not MailOnline, has the same issues? And can we clarify if we’ve got this issue just in politics-related reporting or in other topics as well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No idea if it's in the paper version, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't distinguish on that - some of the above are paper version specifically. Nor on politics, e.g. the irresponsible lies about the beautician - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

David observe how I presented the errors made by the Sunday Times. Now look at the way you presented the errors made by the Mail on Sunday. I have used completely neutral language. I merely stated these are some errors made by the Sunday Times. And then quoted the completely neutral ruling of the IPSO committe. You on the other hand have used completely loaded language. Do you think that me or anyone else could not also use such loaded and over-the-top language that you are using? Your language is reaching for the reader's senses, my language is intended to reach for the reader's mind. I believe it is better when we are trying to find the truth through debate that we use the language of reason. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't studied yet the different sources that David Gerard has provided for his case, but I did look at Betty Logan's table which is quite rigorous and not prone to cherry picked examples. I provided a copy of the IPSO table below.

Table

IPSO Annual Report 2018 No. of articles complained about No. of Rejected complaints in remit Rejected Not pursued by complainant Resolved by IPSO mediation Resolved directly with publication Upheld Not upheld 1 MailOnline 503 213 135 5 16 34 9 14 2 Daily Mail 313 129 112 2 4 6 1 4 3 thesun.co.uk 178 88 53 1 6 22 2 4 4 The Sun 155 96 59 3 3 17 6 8 5 The Times 124 92 68 3 5 6 2 8 6 mirror.co.uk 102 48 25 1 2 13 4 3 7 The Daily Telegraph 78 58 37 7 2 4 1 7 8 Metro.co.uk 75 37 27 1 2 7 0 0 9 express.co.uk 71 50 28 1 4 12 5 0 10 The Mail on Sunday 69 37 27 2 2 2 2 2 11 The Sunday Times 58 52 33 2 5 2 5 5 12 Daily Express 48 30 21 2 0 1 3 3 13 Daily Mirror 40 20 13 0 1 2 2 2 14 dailyrecord.co.uk 36 22 16 0 1 1 0 4 15 Daily Record 34 22 15 1 1 2 2 1 16 The Argus (Brighton) 29 7 5 0 0 1 0 1 17 Metro 28 16 13 1 0 1 1 0 18 The Spectator 25 18 15 0 0 0 2 1 19 walesonline.co.uk 25 10 7 0 0 2 0 1 20 Telegraph.co.uk 24 9 9 0 0 0 0 0

The results are quite informative. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but MailOnline includes the MoS's online content, and we aren't citing the physical newspapers. Using single digit "Upheld" is a weak metric for reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We have in fact cited the physical newspapers quite a lot - most content before 2000 isn't on dailymail.co.uk, for example - and I'd have expected the RFCs covered those - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's getting into "was the Mail more reliable historically" territory, which was discussed in the last RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for table, but I don’t get it. There’s plenty of reliably sourced examples above of unreliable reporting by MOS, so why are numbers relative in table (which should be quite complete) so low? Are reports in MailOnline including problems with MOS (“paper edition”)? To clarify (as I don’t get their structure personally), is MailOnline actually the digital version (ie, word for word) of the paper newspapers? Or is it separate reporting? Further, are all stories in the MOS available word for word on MailOnline, and all MOS stories on MailOnline word for word the ones in the paper edition? And there’s no stories on MailOnline credited to MOS which don’t appear in the paper edition? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated in Wikipedia, and IPSO is widely regarded as a captured regulator. I don't know how many stories from MoS make it into one of print and paper but not the other, but either would count as MoS - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure but I just expected the number to be higher, or at least the number of filed complaints to be higher (in table, it's comparable to The Sunday Times, which doesn't seem right). I think any reliability of the paper copy is relevant though. If it's just MailOnline (which is covered under existing RfCs anyway) it shouldn't be a big issue and this RfC is moot. If the paper copy has reliability issues too, then the RfC is important. So if there's a distinction of content, really this RfC should be focused on if the paper version is equally as crappy. I've never read a copy of the MOS (tabloids with gossip covers aren't quite my thing) so I'm not saying if it's reliable or not, just that the focus should be on the paper component (if it differs). At a skim, looks like a couple of the links by dave souza above are content also included in the paper copy, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm confused David. In your above critique, two of your points use IPSO to criticize the Mail on Sunday. Now after the IPSO table for 2018 is presented, you state that "IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated". This is truly some ironman logic. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since, some people are advocating for deprecating/banning the Mail on Sunday, I thought it would be useful to provide a sampling of some notable journalists and writers who write or have written for the Mail on Sunday.
Some notable Mail on Sunday writers:

• Peter Hitchens
• Liz Jones
• Piers Morgan
• Tom Parker Bowles
• Chris Evans
• David Mellor
• Dan Hodges
• Anna Mikhailova
• Derek Draper
• John Junor
• Julie Burchill
• Austin Mitchell
• Norman Tebbit
• Suzanne Moore
• Rachel Johnson
• Frank Barrett

It would be a loss to the neutrality of Wikipedia if editors were not able to mention the opinion of some of these notable writers from the right-leaning Mail on Sunday, which is the highest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain. It's hard for me to believe that the Quillete or Iranian Press TV, which both received option 3 from this board, are of better quality than the Mail on Sunday. I cannot see how the Mail on Sunday is equivalent to Breitbart News or the National Enquirer, which received option 4 from this board. Wikipedia which is neutral does its readers a disservice by not allowing the opinions of conservative British commentators to be voiced. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

These are opinion pieces, not quality journalism about facts, and as such are subject to the care needed when using any opinion pieces. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources states that "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." If the viewpoint of these commentators is valuable, they can be "voiced" subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not a blanket ban. . . dave souza, talk 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note: it is not ok to cherry pick corrections to build one's case, when there is a very clean and precise comparative table available with complaint and accuracy data. I believe many of the above editors are not aware at how problematic their method of analysis is. I believe the best way for me to show the problem with cherry picking reported errors is to provide cherry picked counter examples of how its competitor the Sunday Times has made similar reporting errors. This is a counter list of reporting errors by the Sunday Times. The table above is the proper way to compare the complaints and accuracy of the different newspapers supervised by the IPSO committee. I'll note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world is incorrect. See Independent Press Standards Organisation#Membership: "Several of the broadsheet newspapers, including the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, have declined to take part in IPSO. The Financial Times and The Guardian have established their own independent complaints systems instead." The latter has long had a "readers’ editor – who is appointed, and can only be dismissed, by the Scott Trust – [and] can comment on issues and concerns raised by the public. There has also been an external ombudsman to whom the readers’ editor can refer substantial grievances, or matters concerning the Guardian’s journalistic integrity." That includes a feature of corrections and clarifications, not waiting for months or a year for IPSO judgment on public complaints.[18][19] . . dave souza, talk 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You are correct. I made a slight mistake. I meant to say that no other set of English-speaking newspapers is monitored by an outside regulatory agency. Most newspapers have procedures in place to deal with corrections, and many bigger newspapers have a newspaper ombudsman who deals with questions of journalism ethics and standards. The position is independent of the control of the newspapers's chief-editor and perhaps owner. Frankly, I think wikipedia should think about getting a centralized corrections "ombudsmen" who the reader could easily deal with in order to ask for corrections. For many wikipedia readers the talk page and how to ask for corrections is a mystery. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Fox RFC was also full of people going "but whatabout this other paper that isn't the subject of discussion". If you and Betty Logan want to start an RFC on the Sunday Times, that should be its own discussion. If you don't, then you need to discuss the MoS - whataboutery about other papers really isn't an argument. And nor is going "this is numbers, therefore they are the end of the discussion" - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point David. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad point. Clearly the number of corrections/complaints are relevant if you're using them in this RFC as a ban-rationale. Clearly it's relevant if the MoS receives no more complaints/corrections than sources that are recognised as reliable sources. It is simply facile logic to say "but those reliable newspapers aren't under discussion - you should open an RFC on blocking those reliable sources" because everyone knows that an RFC on the reliability of the Sunday Times would be snow-closed and the nominator would be at risk of a ban for wasting everyone's time. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources
References

Most of the information appears to be anecdotal. The New York Times and other mainstream media pushed the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, deliberately helping to start a war that foreseeably would kill hundreds of thousands of people, displace millions and cost trillions of dollars. That is more serious than the MOS publishing defamatory information about a beautician that they retracted after an IPSO complaint. The fact that IPSO upheld 9 complaints against them in one year is not statistically significant considering that they publish 52-53 issues each year. That works out to 1 error every six weeks, which is subsequently retracted. We don't expect that news media is 100% correct in reporting. We expect a small error rate and that the most significant errors will be corrected on a timely basis. The New York Times for example publishes error corrections every day. The MOS of course is not in the same league, but its accuracy rate is close to 100%. TFD (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, this RfC conflates the Mail's website and the printed Mail on Sunday newspaper.

While I have no time for the company's owners, nor their outlets' politics, I recognise that, like most newspapers, the reliability of its coverage varies. Large parts of the content of the Mail on Sunday - especially outside the spin of its political columnists - are both reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) and well-written; some of it by guest contributors whose relatability we would not doubt if published in another newspaper (most recently, for example, David Attenborough). Sadly, I've seen too many cases of the DM being blindly removed as a source even where its coverage is both reliable and unique, leaving statements unsupported or, worse, substituting source which do not support the valid statements made. This RfC, if it passes, will see the same happen to the Mail on Sunday. Wikipedia editors should - and should be allowed to - exercise judgment on a case by case basis, just like other adults. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to respond to the point that the proposers "are tired" of arguing about the Daily Mail and newspapers related to it in some way: there was absolutely no reason at all given here to propose this ban now. The reason why people keep arguing about the Mail is because you keep opening these RFCs - there is no other reason, especially no actual content-related reason, why it is still being discussed. In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. The impression is of a group of people for whom the DM ban was their greatest moment and as such they wish to revisit it again and again. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. If you read the discussion above -probably a useful step if you're going to weigh in on a discussion - you will see that your statement here is trivially incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

David, where is an actual issue with an actual article actually referenced in this entire farago? You deleting MoS references from articles is not an "issue with an article". You need to show that people are relying on MoS as a source and that this is causing actual problems (eg., it is being used to push fringe or incorrect views above and beyond what may happen with reliable sources), not "people are occasionally relying on MoS as a source and the problem is I keep deleting it because this is what I choose to prioritise". FOARP (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

PS - David, whilst we're at it, please explain this edit. Even if you think the DM ban applies to MoS why are you deleting statements from the MoS about what the MoS book of the week is - i.e., a situation where the MoS is talking about itself, a scenario which is explicitly allowed for by the DM 2017 RFC close ("the Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion")? To me it doesn't look like the problem is with people citing the MoS here. FOARP (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure?

Is there any particular reason that this specific debate is lingering on this board, stale to the point of mouldy, and long overdue a summation? HangTenBangTen (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the traditional thing to do is go to the admin's notice board and make a request. If someone does this can they please make it just a request for closure without all the palaver about how this is a contentious subject and how the closing Admin will need a "thick skin" or to be "flame proof" that some people like to put in? Admins don't need to be told how to do their job. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is the place to list this. Woody (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Put in a closure request. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, uh there has been exactly 3 edits to the page in the last 10 days which consist of a 2 sentence not vote, a comment about how WP:RSP shouldn't exist and one that simply reads (...Sound of Crickets...). I don't understand the internal workings of the Wikipedia Adminstariat but this does seem like a prime example of an RFC for closure. Thank-you El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Just posted a note to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Are_there_three_trusted_admins_who_can_close_a_contentious_dispute? asking for three brave admins to close this eternal dispute - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

New York Times article on paid reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanity Fair partisanship

I question if Vanity Fair is unbiased when it comes to politics. The article https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000 is a heavily used source on Bush v. Gore.

Vanity Fair is listed as "generally reliable for popular culture" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Is this legal case popular culture? Previous Noticeboard discussions were about Lindsey Lohan and model Manushi Chhillar. For politics I believe the site should be labeled as WP:PARTISAN as is Mother Jones and Vox. If relevant, here are the most popular articles on Vanity Fair's sidebar: "Joe Biden Is Closing In On the Electoral College and All Donald Trump Can Do Is Angrily Tweet About It", "Fox News Is at War With Itself Over 2020 Election Results", and "Bill Barr, Trump Henchman, Is Sending Armed Agents to Ballot-Counting Locations". In particular the Florida election Vanity Fair article makes frequent claims from unattributed law clerks which end up in the Bush v Gore article. The article is written more like an essay to push a particular political viewpoint instead of as news.

I'd love to hear the community's thoughts on this. Wqwt (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't care if it's biased, but we do care about accuracy and factuality. Extreme bias tends to affect that, but a source can be somewhat biased and still accurate, hence the difference between how we tend to rate right- and left-leaning sources. At this time in history, in the USA, left-wing sources tend not to lose their accuracy as much as right-wing sources. So accuracy, not bias, is how we judge sources. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"At this time in history, in the USA, left-wing sources tend not to lose their accuracy as much as right-wing sources." I have no idea where you got this from and whether it is blatantly false or not (you didn't cite anything), and I don't know who you're speaking for when you say "we" for "rating sources". Anyway my point is to ask whether the site should be considered generally reliable or biased. Rfc if necessary. Wqwt (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Stating that Vanity Fair is “generally reliable for popular culture” doesn't imply that they aren't reliable on other subjects, Wqwt: as you yourself point out, the previous discussions were about celebrity BLPs, which is probably why conclusions weren't reached outside of popular culture coverage.

Which stories Vanity Fair chooses to advertise on their web site sidebar, and their titles, has nothing whatsoever to do with the publication's reliability as a source. As our headline article notes even of major front-page titles, It is generally written by a copy editor, but may also be written by the writer, the page layout designer, or other editors.

The 2004 article you refer to, cited in our Bush v. Gore SCOTUS case article, is in no way written like an essay. Its author is David Margolick, a law school graduate and legal affairs reporter at The New York Times before joining Vanity Fair in the late twentieth century, where he is now a contributing editor, not just a reporter. He is also the author of multiple published books about Supreme Court cases.

So, thanks to this discussion, IMO we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it “generally reliable”. By all means, RfC away, though I think the fact that after Valjean's explanation you still seem to regard “generally reliable” and “biased” as antonyms, or something, may indicate you're not prepared to present such a question in the context of Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Stating that Vanity Fair is “generally reliable for popular culture” doesn't imply that they aren't reliable on other subjects" - nor does it imply it is reliable for other subjects. Thus the point of me posting here to gather consensus. "we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it “generally reliable”." Again, who is 'we"? Is your view automatically editor consensus? Wqwt (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Even as far as the bulleted opinions at the bottom of this discussion, note at the top of the page it says, While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.

If you go to delete cited material at this article, you can make any argument you want; but of course, since you opened up this discussion and linked to it from the article talk page, by that point an absolutely mountainous pile of evidence supporting the reliability of VF will probably have accumulated, which anyone disagreeing with you can simply cut and paste (though linking here again is probably better) if you still take the position that VF is not a reliable source. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If the claims in the Vanity Fair article about Bush v. Gore are accurate, there probably should be other, more scholarly sources to support them. If you can find better sources, please use them; as this was one of the most famous Supreme Court cases of recent years, plenty of sources should be available. As for what interviewees may have said about the internal disputes among Supreme Court justices, please consider that if the VF article is the only source for those comments, including those comments may be undue emphasis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd certainly concur that more, better sources is always better; but if other sources have not also pursued the question of internal disputes among Supreme Court justices, that doesn't make the information reported by VF a WP:UNDUE minority viewpoint like the flat Earth concept: a majority of sources would need to be arguing the opposite, that there was great harmony among SCOTUS justices with no internal disputes, (edit: and specifically in this case, which was 5–4 in the final opinion against the remedy) for VF to be an insignificant minority viewpoint in that case.

Similarly, under the WP:PROPORTION subsection, you'd need to have an effective argument that the overall significance to the article topic, the significance of disputes among SCOTUS justices about a particular case to the article about that particular case, was so insignificant as to support exclusion, to justify a deletion of the cited facts under WP:UNDUE. “Undue emphasis” is often used in quite the underpants gnomes fashion but it has a very specific meaning in the WP:NPOV policy. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for news. Vanity Fair has won multiple National Magazine Awards for topics outside of popular culture, including politics. See "Rules of Engagement", its report on the Haditha massacre that won the 2007 National Magazine Award for public interest reporting. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Their fact-checking is thorough IME - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's reliability depends on other factors that usually change over time such as authors, timing, source quality, independence. Although it seems reliable more often than not, I think its reliablity cannot be generalized, especially nowadays.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for news.Vanity Fair is the only paper magazine I subscribe to, and only for the political articles, they are that good. My wife enjoys the fashion stuff. They are like Playboy, which has always had very high quality articles on political and social justice subjects. Both magazines do not leave such topics to amateurs but use only very good authors.

How is this an argument for its reliability? Wqwt (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with Struthious Bandersnatch that "we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it 'generally reliable'." -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, bias is not disqualifying and never has been. Nor am I sure that Vanity Fair’s bias rises to the point of us labelling it partisan. What matters is editorial independence and a reputation for accuracy/fact checking which Vanity Fair has. On the specific issue of the Bush/Gore Florida article I agree with Struthious Bandersnatch that its not an essay in the slightest... Thats a piece of top tier journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply, Vanity Fair is more focussed on opinions and backgrounds than news reporting and unlike at e.g. The New York Times, there is no clear distinction between the two. As such, WP:RSOPINION should apply to all content. According to Glenn Greenwald writing for The Guardian, Vanity Fair has engaged in 'journalistically corrupt practices'. In any case, attribution should be required. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing about that Greenwald opinion says that the Vanity Fair article was not accurate (rather the opposite, the actual quotes used were double checked although the approval process was problematic), and it would make no sense to make our decision on a single Greenwald opinion column. But contrary what your argument seems to imply, sources are not limited to journalism and don't have to be journalism to be incidentally accurate. Greenwald's other opinion in which he was even more critical was about Rolling Stone and he objected to a historian doing an interview Greenwald deemed soft, well what an historian does in asking questions are not necessarily going to be the same purpose as journalism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  The Greenwald article is an illustration of their partisanship and that their standards of journalistic integrity and level of independence from the topic are not as high as those of other news sources. The reason I crossed out two statements above is that, in my impression, Vanity Fair does contain quality investigative journalism that can be used for obtaining statements of fact (the article used in Bush v. Gore seems to fall into that category). But a large proportion of their content is opinion pieces that should not be used for that purpose and do fall under WP:RSOPINION. In my opinion, for a source to be labeled generally reliable, there should be a clear distinction between the two and that is not the case with Vanity Fair. Editors should evaluate this on a case-by-case basis and exercise more caution when citing Vanity Fair than when citing sources such as New York Times news articles. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  You’re citing an opinion piece from one source (notice the “commentisfree” in this URL?) to argue that we shouldn't use opinion pieces from another source? You’re confusing me ExcitedEngineer, RSOPINION applies to all reliable sources already... Its not an additional consideration. They do clearly label which pieces are opinion and which aren’t, what exactly are you arguing here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  'You’re citing an opinion piece from one source (notice the “commentisfree” in this URL?) to argue that we shouldn't use opinion pieces from another source?' That is not my intention. Opinion pieces are very valuable to Wikipedia, but we have to be aware of their limitations. The essence of RSOPINION is that they should not be used for statements of fact. 'RSOPINION applies to all reliable sources already.' It doesn't apply to scholarly sources and most news articles and reports. These can be used for statements of fact. 'They do clearly label which pieces are opinion and which aren’t, what exactly are you arguing here?' That they don't, at least not online. Notice how most newspaper websites have columns and tabs that say 'opinion'? Vanity Fair doesn't, which is why it is not immediately obvious whether what you are reading is investigative journalism, which can be used for statements of fact and where attribution may not be needed, a news report, or an opinion piece. Assessment on a case-by-case basis is needed to determine this. I hope this answers your questions. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  It answers most of it, I’m still not sure why you used opinion piece to make your point but thats immaterial. Can you post an example of a Vanity Fair opinion piece that is indistinguishable from quality in-depth reporting? That would be rather troubling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  For example, I would consider this article an example of journalism that describes the current state of affairs, while this one is mostly the authors' opinion. These are not two extreme examples but simply the first two articles on the politics page right now. There is no clear difference in respect to lay-out, presentation, or labeling as there would be in most respectable news sources. Before using VF for statements of fact, be sure to determine what you're working with. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  The opinion piece says “Levin Report” across the top, thats a clear difference in labelling. In fact Lavin produces the exact same sort of content (regular opinion column) for Vanity Fair as Greenwald does for The Guardian, they are substantially equivalent. Off the top of my head I cant think of a news source that uses a different layout and presentation for its opinion pieces, what exactly are you expecting here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Didn't even notice the small print. There are also plenty of opinion pieces that don't have such a tag, like this one. As for lay-out, the Guardian opinion pages have a different background color, are presented on a specific section of their web site with a different URL, have a highlighted bar on the opinion tab and present the author's name in large print right below the title to emphasise that it is their personal work and opinion. VF does none of that. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Highly respected magazine. We mainly use it for cultural commentary, features and interviews. It isn't a daily newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Who is "we"? Wqwt (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  We at Wikipedia. At least that's how it should normally be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, with considerations - I would add the tag Some editors believe that Vanity Fair is biased or opinionated for politics to give guidance that attribution would be nessicary.[20][21] Similar to The Daily Telegraph, Reason, or The Register. PackMecEng (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see such a claim being evidenced first, which it hasn't been really. Particularly not using MediaBiasFactCheck to back your claim - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The claim is they are a biased and opinionated source. The two sources I gave are both respected sites that rate sources for just that. Though your claim of fact checking is unsupported and odd given they have been sued and lost the case for fabricating information.[22] Then their is their editorial staff protecting Jeffrey Epstein.[23] Oh and their copyright infringment.[24] PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • MediaBiasFactCheck is not a "respected site", per WP:MBFC - in fact, it is specifically listed on WP:RSP as generally unreliable - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
        • WP:NOR applies to articlespace only, consensus of bias or being opinionated among editors does not require a WP:RS. For some more illustration of VF being opinionated, compare coverage of the 'Doctors make money out of COVID diagnoses' claim by CNN, the Washington Post and Vanity Fair ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• TTo me the source looks to be generally reliable. From what I have seen of their reporting, their articles appear to be well researched, full of details and have yet to contain a single case of fake news. Fortliberty (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanity Fair fabricating a headline with no retraction. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-my-crimes-investigated/ Wqwt (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • You should perhaps read an article before attempting to use it to prove a point. Suffice to say it doesn't say what you want it to say. I would explain in detail but if you don't understand from reading it, you won't understand any explanation either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Incredible, you spent 3 sentences without actually arguing anything, only a vague insult. Wqwt (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Basically it is an example of why WP:RSHEADLINES is a thing. A misleading headline that was not supported by the article. Incidentally the VF article explains and clarifies who said what and how but yeah bad headline. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the proper media bias fact checking site (Ad Fontes Media):

• https://www.adfontesmedia.com/vanity-fair-bias-and-reliability/

Valjean (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valjean. Please take a look at the Ad Fontes entry at WP:RSP. You'll see that consensus does not view it as typically useful for these discussions. Jlevi (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That chart makes for some interesting reading. First it says any source that has an accuracy score over 32 is generally good, over 24 is acceptable. VF is about 35 so it clears the generally good line. However, Newsmax is 31.76 which all but rounds up into the "generally good" category and the Epoch Times is 37. Quillette is 36.80. The Daily Mail is interestingly 31 but just about centered in terms of bias. I can see why editors argue against following the site too closely, it certainly doesn't align with how we choose to treat sources here. Springee (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Vanity Fair (topics other than popular culture) is a hyperpartisan source. The main problems with using VF are that a) it does not label opinions or analysis as such (see e.g. ExcitedEngineer's explanation above) and b) it has some lapses in fact-checking and corrections. Almost every time I've seen VF cited in Wikipedia, the source has been some kind of opinion piece, news analysis, or perhaps a [[WP:NEWSBLOG]news blog], which is not so surprising; it is a magazine after all. Politrukki (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  You would need to provide some evidence and sources for your claim that it is a, quote, "hyperpartisan source". There's also a difference between "opinion pieces" and articles which are in-depth analysis of a subject (this is a common source of confusion). Volunteer Marek 21:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for news etc. Volunteer Marek 21:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The article is by David Margolick who has a law degree from Stanford and was a legal affairs reporter at the New York Times, with a weekly column "At the Bar." He's also an adjunct professor teaching journalism at NYU and the NYT has submitted his work four times for a Pulitzer Prize. His book about the 1957 school desegregation crisis was published by the Yale University Press. So indeed he is qualified to write about the Florida recount. The fact that he may have an opinion on the people involved is irrelevant. Only news reporting and textbooks are expected not to have one. TFD (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for this, and inclined towards generally reliable. As others have noted above the author of the election-2000 article in the question (David Margolick) has impressively high qualifications for such a piece. This is representative of how Vanity Fair has defied the "pop culture" stereotypes, building an international reputation as a serious magazine with high professional standards. The original question refers to several Vanity Fair articles, but significantly it doesn't identify any errors in them. Judging a source as Reliable (or unreliable) based on whether information is favorable (or unfavorable) to a particular side is a common and fundamental error. That's not how we evaluate Reliability. Alsee (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQ used in various -ism articles.

Such as Socialism, Federalism, Anarcho-capitalism, Libertarian socialism, Anti-capitalism.

Source: These are all the same thing as far as I know. Is An Anarchist FAQ explains what this book is.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171006003544/http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQIntro
https://www.worldcat.org/title/anarchist-faq/oclc/182529204 by AK Press

Is this a reliable source that should be used? Graywalls (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement of opinion about a philosophy, so it's not more or less reliable than other opinons. In the articles I looked it it was appropriately attributed. Spudlace (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a dearth of good sources on anarchism, and the Anarchist FAQ is pretty highly regarded. It has a wikipedia page: An Anarchist FAQ, which has a section showing how it is seen as reliable by anarchists. The frequently cited version here is now offline, but it is available here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-08-17 BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's fine for "about self" purposes but if there is a disagreement on some issue then this source needs to be weighted against the quality of other sources. In general if there's a high quality source that disagrees with An Anarchist FAQ, the other source takes precedence. Volunteer Marek 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source

MetalReviews.com was used in part to defend the notability of Torn (Evergrey album). I would like to know if others consider it a reliable source.

Please choose one of the below:

• Option 1 - MetalReviews is a generally reliable source.
• Option 2 - MetalReviews is a questionable source, or should be used with considerations.
• Option 3 - MetalReviews is a generally unreliable source.
• Option 4 - MetalReviews needs to be deprecated due to providing false or fabricated information.

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• 2. It looks like a fan website filled with amateur reviews of music. It does not impart notability. They don't explain what they're about either. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 at least at the time of the review the website seems to have had a fair number of regular contributors. However, I will also note that this is irrelevant given that the album meets at least two notability standards per WP:NALBUM including coverage in the RSes Blabbermouth and AllMusic and having reached 4th place in the Swedish charts. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't know much about the site or their editorial process as they don't really explain, sooo without being able to be certain about identity of authorship and those authors expertise being independently verifiable, it would follow the same path as WP:FORBESCON. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a Heavy Metal site, not a business or politics news source. I'd be happy to say don't use for anything controversial. That aside, the reviewer in question has written just over a thousand reviews and is one of at least half a dozen regular contributors from that time. I think that the volume suggests some degree of reliability. But as per the question of whether the album is reliable or not, which is why I really ended up adding my opinion here, it's a perfect example of an album that was mentioned in multiple known RSes and was 4th place on the national album chart. El komodos drago (talk to me) 22:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. Reviews are opinion statements. We don't reference some random dude that runs his website unless it says who he is, and there are reliable and independent sources regarding him as expert on this matter. Otherwise, it's the same as some random dude's opinion statement on wordpress. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that the number in the URL is sequential, Alex is the 19th and therefore not the guy running the website. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but who is running the site, and what are their credentials? And what are their editorial policies? Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to further add to my comment that consulting the wisdom of Wikipedian's past, several dozen articles use it as a source, on the same order of magnitude as other Heavy Metal dedicated MUSIC RSes. Further looking at this specific case it would indicate that the album is notable which would also be the verdict that we would come to even if it was deemed unreliable suggesting that for notability purposes at least it should be seen as reliable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - unreliable - I see no evidence of anything we look for in reliable sources on Wikipedia. No evidence of editorial policy or writers with any sort of professional credentials. Even it’s most basic design characteristics makes it look like an amateur fansite. I find it concerning that very little of the above addresses any of this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This website is a WP:MUSICRS, I think it's fairly conclusive that we generally don't determine what an RS is based on its design team. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That was merely one, and the least important, of my reasons. You’ve haven’t addressed the others. Any thoughts on that or no? When I say I’m concerned about the trajectory of this discussion, I’m pretty much talking about your comments. Nothing you’ve said is a valid reason within the bounds of what Wikipedia considers in reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: unreliable. Just another fan site; I could easily make one just like it with different info. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

And then place several thousand reviews on it? El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop badgering people on irrelevant points. How prolific they are has no bearing on if we consider them reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax

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

RfC: Newsmax

Which option best describes the reliability of Newsmax?

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

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

Survey: Newsmax

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

1. "their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc." - That would be because Newsmax is a propaganda outlet unconcerned with factual accuracy.
2. "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources." - Your belief is your belief, but Newsmax as an outlet produces and promotes falsehoods with shocking regularity and disdain for human life and the consequences of spreading false information, such as their promotion of anti-vaccination propaganda. [25]
3. "and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" - Ahh, now we're getting to it. It's the spreading of disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election that you're wanting?
4. "they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints." - They may repeat what other parts of the extreme right-wing WP:FRINGE of American politics repeat, but that does not make their false claims, propaganda, or disinformation WP:RELIABLE.

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

NewsGuard's analysis is not positive. [26] Schazjmd (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@PackMecEng: the poster of this (who moved it over from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) does not appear to understand wikipedia policy on sourcing, but there is a larger problem in that Newsmax - despite sharing similarities in both lack of credibility and a pattern of propagating falsehoods - is sitting at "no consensus" level and looking at the last discussion [27], @JzG: made the excellent observation that this status is because "what that means is that it's a crappy source but conservatives like it, basically." Even in 2013, it was looked at as unreliable [28] and I think at this point it would serve Wikipedia well to settle this status with the other sources it is so highly similar to that are already deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@PackMecEng: you may want to read The Guardian's coverage of Newsmax as part of "The misinformation media machine amplifying Trump's election lies" [29]

Also, Daily Beast: "An even more overt suggestion of a deep-state plot to infect the president, however, came from Greg Kelly, a former Fox News personality who now hosts a show on Newsmax TV, the little-watched right-wing cable network run by longtime Trump pal Chris Ruddy." [30] The issue is that Newsmax is an unreliable source, that promotes conspiracy theories and other falsehoods. The fact that it's flown under the radar with few discussions until now is probably, as JzG suggested, because it was already listed as a crappy source and most reasonable editors stayed away from it, but simply leaving it there isn't wise given what it does and its lack of journalistic integrity. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BlackBird1008: No, you're pretty transparently trying to argue that Newsmax should somehow be considered "reliable" merely because it is rising in ratings, which is an illegitimate argument. Further, Newsmax is currently (and has a history of) blatantly trying to spread falsehoods [31]. It appears that when you say "the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election", the "other side" you are referring to is simply false information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pay to display is a pretty audacious thing for a newspaper that was paid $20,000 a month to run propaganda for the Chinese government to complain about. Though don't think that is exclusive to the Wall Street Journal, the other two big broadsheets do the same.[32] And while we are on the subject of Russian propaganda supplements, The Daily Telegraph still seems to carry Russia: Beyond the Headlines. None of them are unreliable because of it, just the content inside. I'm not saying that NewsMax is reliable, I'm just saying that 'source X republished source Y which is unreliable' is generally a reason to have another look at source Y and is very rarely a problem with source X. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BlackBird1008:, your wordings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Jlevi: I think I understand but can you please verify this is what you mean? Aquillion's provided academic sources are from 2015 [33], 2011 [34], 2018 [35], 2018 [36], and 2019 [37] respectively, all of which would definitionally have to be arguments "prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election"? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Discussion: Newsmax

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

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

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

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

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

Unproductive personalized comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you are sourcing to a newsletter opinion article for all that? You used to be really good at trying to use the best RS. Now it's partisan things like this and sourcing things to Twitter.[39] PackMecEng (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Please focus on content, not contributor. Politrukki (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I think you are starting to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. It is not necessary to reply personally to every single point you disagree with; if the arguments are flawed in the way you say, someone else will see it and say something. (And if you are the only one who does, it is likely that your points are not as strong as you believe them to be.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I don't think that is true actually on the bludgeoning claim. Also yes someone else could call out bad arguments, or I could take a second and do it myself. There is nothing wrong with that. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC) It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own. That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) OMG! You know perfectly well that the tweet itself is not the RS. It contained the RS quote. Sheesh. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) No it did not. You cannot use as unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC) BS. That was a talk page comment not intended to be used as is in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC) BLP applies everywhere. Using unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP, even on a talk page is not acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC) There was zero BLP violation in that comment with the tweet. Look at the tweet. For article content I could have used many RS, such as this one. -- Valjean (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC) How about here where you just post a bunch of twitter links. You really should stop doing that, again Twitter is not a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I clearly stated in that thread that they were not the RS, but they pointed to them. (Any editor with a collaborative mindset would be able to figure out what to do, if they were so inclined.) At the time I couldn't elaborate and had to run. -- Valjean (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC) If you did not have time to post actual RS it probably could of waited. That is especially true since all the tweets appear to go to the same article. Finally we all have a collaborative mindset here right? Who does not? PackMecEng (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I don't need you to act like my babysitter. Not everyone has a collaborative mindset. Some try to understand (and stay quiet if they don't) and some just complain and criticize, without any attempt to be flexible. Their criticism is not constructive. They create more heat than light. -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. A source gaining a sizable increase in viewership is a reason to reconsider its reliability.
2. Wikipedia should generally consider the reliability of a source in the context of other sources that share its opinions as well as in the abstract to determine whether it is reliable.
3. It does not follow from either of these things, or from a viewership of 287,000 that a source is reliable. 30 million Americans don't believe in the moon landings[40] and yet we still report them as fact because that is what is verifiable.

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

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

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

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

Okay, so my apologies on the first point, NewsGuard isn't actually run by the Atlantic Council just run by ex-Atlantic Council and US government communication strategist types. For instance Richard Stengel, self-described chief propagandist [41] and Atlantic Council distinguished fellow [42], is on its advisory board. [43] While I know we have deprecated it, if you want a good rundown of some of the rest of its links backed up by references to NewsGuard's own website MintPress News did a good rundown of it. [44] Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red. As such if we are looking for an independent or neutral source for media reliability basically anyone other than NewsGuard such as either Ad Fontes or Media Bias/Fact Check would be better.

As for paid propaganda supplements, the Wall Stree Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph have all run Russia: Beyond The Headlines (paid for by the Russian government) and China Watch (paid for by the Chinese government). [45] If we applied the idea that running paid propaganda made a source automatically unreliable then we would have to deprecate a bunch of top tier RSes globally. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

The biggest problem I can find real, reliable sources having with Newsguard is that if anything their bar to give a website a green label is too low [46][47]; noting that they still manage to give Fox News a green label DESPITE falling to a 69.5 rating, failing to issue corrections, failing to gather and present information responsibly, and failing to handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly. [48] IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason the bar is set so low for Fox News and the Daily Mail is because they toe the line, report, say, that a reporter from a commercial Russian news channel with a minority Russian government stake doing a piece to camera outside the base of a... controversial British army unit is a "spy". [49] It may sound like conspiracy theorism but if you have a look at where it places the bar for different sources it seems pretty evident that they differ depending on whether the source is friendly to US interests or not. As I said, I think the view that MintPress News is unreliable is wrong. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I see nothing here [50] that matches your claim that "we deprecated Mintpress partly because it republished from AlterNet". I do see one mention that they republished no less than 340 articles from ZeroHedge, one of the worst disinformation sites available online and furthermore, a blog, which demonstrated that Mintpress had no reliability standards and was not bothering to fact-check what they republished? IHateAccounts (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies would seem to apply, especially for low-reliability sites such as TAC that purvey ridiculous nonsense stories like this that start out by misrepresenting a photo and get LESS factual as they go on: [51]. But this discussion isn't about TAC, which is rated "for attributed opinions" only. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

NewsMax: Close?

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

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

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

To help out here is a quick count:

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

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

1. 6 responses for Option 3 (Generally Unreliable)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic TV

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

• The network has been identified as a source of false or misleading claims about Islam[52] and "fake news" 10.1109/CSPA48992.2020.9068673 Obviously it is known for right-wing, pro-BJP and Hindutva stance[53] (t · c) buidhe 11:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am unconcerned about bias, it is not a reason to reject a source, but if more evidence can me made for falsification that would render it unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

It should be considered unreliable in most other cases as well. It's reporting around Sushant Singh Rajput would be one major instance of it. There is also a thin line between what's political and what is not. A channel which wouldn't even refrain from fabricating quotes (see [54]) is not usable for anything, imv. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [55] Fabricated story about Lara Worthington accusing Imran Khan of sexual harrassment.
• [56] Fabricated story about non-payment of dues by Jama Masjid, Delhi.
• [57] [58] Misinformation related to Covid-19 pandemic.
• [59] Editing tweets to sanitisize the image of another fake news site (see Postcard.news)
• [60] Fabricated quote, attributed to the journalist Rana Ayyub.
• [61] Hosting an entire debate on the basis of a fabricated quote.

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

The misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic were on Republic Bharat TV, which is another channel, though they are the same brand. Also the rest are all either political, or about famous people in different field, who have a strong political career. For example- check out Arundathi Roy and also the fact that Rana Ayyub has been critical of the illegal encounters in Gujarat, which was ruled by BJP. Also see [62] on BBC doing fake news. Yet, they are considered to be politically reliable, as they generally are. That is by considering the general case. The same should go for Republic as they are generally reliablr for non-political matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: More reviews please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities and sources

This list still needs a big cleanup and is very difficult to maintain. A lot of the problems are because people ignore the criteria, ie continuously inhabited city, and either add towns , ignore habitation breaks, or just date a city to the first Neolithic habitation, not understanding that the dates stated need to be when the village/town whatever became a city. This is often difficult to establish, but it's either established or the list is just a list of continuously inhabited geographical areas. Recently an IP has been trying to add[63] Sayram as 2nd century BC with this source[64], Kashgar with , and Derbent with .

They date Sayram to 2000 BC with the comment "The city of Sayram was believed to have been mentioned in the Avesta, with Sairima possibly meaning Sayram. Evidence of an early plumbing system has been found around Sayram and Transoxiana." But this is all discussed at Sayram (city)#Earliest history and is an untenable date.

Kashgar at 2nd c BC perhaps, but not on the basis of the image of a 1617 source. Its article says, without a citation, that the Book of Han "which covers the period between 125 BCE and 23 CE, it is recorded that there were 1,510 households, 18,647 people and 2,000 persons able to bear arms." So maybe with a proper citation.

As for Derbent, its article uses what despite the url is a Russia Today source saying "RT travels to the country’s southernmost and oldest city." The article also says "the first intensive settlement in the Derbent area dates from the 8th century BC" - not city, although I can't see a source. The listing uses "Šahrestānīhā Ī Ērānšahr: A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History." as a source, but the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr was written a thousand years later, thus not really a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

List criteria that rely on literal interpretations of a word ("city") are pointless and irritating because who cares if it's a large town vs. city - suggest change to "population centers". The word "continuously" is another irritation, if there was a war and people fled the city for 6 months back in 2000 BC, does that disqualify it? It raises questions as to what this list is really trying to achieve ie. a trivia game on who can treasure hunt for items that fit a literal set of criteria. And what use is that. How do we say "List of the oldest population centers that have been inhabited nearly continuously". This could be the first sentence, clarifying the title which is merely a placeholder and not the list criteria. -- GreenC 02:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Added to watchlist. I immediately noticed the early date claimed for Genoa, on the basis of a short paragraph on a museum website, which just says that an excavation found Neolithic remains (hearths, food remains and tools). It's the same problem with most cities, that a small settlement eventually grew into something recognisable as a city. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESPN

I wished to discuss on the reliability of ESPN with my fellow editors. I believe that it is generally reliable for sports content. Please comment.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've generally treated it as GR for sports content. Where did the question of its sports reliability come up? - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admit I haven't given their reliability much thought in the past as I don't frequent sports articles, but I have never seen anything to indicate they wouldn't be reliable.. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I consider ESPN reliable for factual reporting. Is someone challenging its use? Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for not making myself clear. But, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and you can't find ESPN or any other sports websites, while Entertainment Weekly is on the list. It's the fact that sports is considered more important, when compared to the entertainment sector. Soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo has the most followers in Instagram, and most likes in Facebook. This shows the impact of sports in the world. But there is not even 1 source related to source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So I thought that it should begin with the prestigious ESPN--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing to say that are not reliable for sports news. Nor am I aware this has ever been questioned. As such I am ot sure we need to include them in RSP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven when Entertainment Weekly is present there, then why isn't ESPN--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, I was not asked about putting it there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it has been regularlyy raised here [[65]]?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, thank you so much for joining the discussion. I would like to state that Entertainment Weekly is not the only source, I would like to mention. Gamasutra is in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for video games, Playboy for entertainment and lifestyle and The Hollywood Reporter is also there for entertainment. Websites like IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are also there. Then why can't ESPN be there.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven please continue in the discussion. I also request other editors to join in this discussion.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not a right or a privilege, its a necessity, so we can go whenever its raised "look at RSP"). I see no need for it to be there, its not being challenged. That really is all I have to say on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Atlantis77177 I think you are confused about what RSP is for. RSP is not for commonly used sources, it's for controversial and commonly discussed sources. So Oxford University Press for instance is widely cited but not in RSP because almost no one doubts it's generally a RS for the topics it covers. Since there's little controversy that ESPN is generally reliable for sports news, it may not need to be in RSP. (t · c) buidhe 15:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• As others have suggested, this isn't a matter of "Why isn't ESPN on this list?" so much as "Why does it need to be on the list?" I can see why Playboy is listed, for instance, from challenges from the puritanical "OMG bare boobies so it can't be RS!!!" brigade. But who is challenging ESPN? Anyone? Anywhere? This sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Ravenswing 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@buidhe @Ravenswing @Slatersteven I apologize for my error and thank you for correcting my mistake. But, Couldn't ESPN added as generally reliable to let all editors be sure that it is reliable.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• No objections, granted. (And certainly no need for apologies; you had a question, you posed it.) Ravenswing 22:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I thank @Ravenswing for his response, but I request other editors to present their views. Could I add ESPN as 'Generally Reliable' in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to assure that all editors are able to assert its reliability by viewing the page.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If the decision was mine to make I would say "no". RSP is for commonly discussed and often challenged sources. ESPN is neither. In fact, I don't see anyone challenging it being reliable for sports news. You can easily link to a discussion in the RSNB archives if you need a link to establish reliability. No need for an RSP entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Train Collectors Association website?

In Carlisle & Finch, I've used http://www.tcawestern.org/ to support several historical statements about defunct companies. Would this be considered a RS? It seems like it meets the requirements of an expert source under WP:RSSELF, but I'm not sure. This is headed towards WP:GAN; if the sources are dubious, I'd rather be shot down here than at GAN. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an SPS (A club page) so I doubt it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So, this one requires a little bit of inside knowledge about the model train world, but my vote would be generally reliable for non-BLP type information. That web site looks like condensed 1997, but the organization is most definitely a group of experts with regard to toy trains. All that said, I am of course but one insignificant voice among many. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say they are very reliable for information on trains and toy trains. They run the Toy Train Museum and Library in Strasburg PA.[66] IMO that makes them an expert source. Also see[67]. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how we define it. We need reputable sources to acknowledge them as experts on this matter. Also, toy train knowledge doesn't infer authoritative source of information on real deal. Would you take advise on automotive concerns on experts of matchbox cars? Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. (Full disclosure: I worked at Mattel as a project engineer and know many of the said experts on matchbox cars personally). Mattel hires world-class experts on automobiles to design Matchbox and Hot Wheels. That's one of the ways they manage to pull in over a billion dollars a year in revenue. They also hire world-class experts on fashion to design Barbie's clothes. You don't see these experts used as references because Mattel pays them top dollar to not publish the results of their research, but they are indeed experts, and if they did publish they would get it right.

Unlike the case of Mattel, where they pretty much know everything about the vehicles that become matchbox cars but then have to compromise to meet cost, durability and safety (no small parts that can come loose, for example) requirements, toy train collectors make authenticity a much higher priority, and the people who make the toy cars and engines really are experts. And their museum is a big deal in the toy industry. See National Toy Train Museum and Toy Train Reference Library --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian (Nigeria)

Reading a spammy draft, I came across this reference to an article ("article") in The Guardian (Nigeria) (which has nothing to do with the UK Guardian). I was pretty shocked to find such an incredibly poorly written and promotional piece--does anyone else have experience with that paper? Is this one of those cases where the paper as a whole is acceptable, and there's just a couple of crappy sub-sections? Drmies (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've run across it a few times, and their article quality seems to vary greatly. Their lack of linking the author's name to further information about the person/source is a serious hindrance to determining the reliability of individual articles.

I'd consider the ref you link as promotional human-interest piece with little encyclopedic value alone that demonstrates little if any weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Their articles seem to vary, some are of acceptable quality in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In 1988 The New York Times described it as "Nigeria's most respected newspaper" [68] though that was more than 3 decades ago and I don't know what the status of it is now. It's Wikipedia page seems to suggest that it is a broadsheet style paper but that isn't necessarily an indication of reliability. Really this warrants attention from someone who knows more about the Nigerian media landscape than me. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

According to Reporters Without Borders, Nigeria ranks in the lower half of countries for press freedom[69] (worse than 114 other countries), considerably worse than nearby Ghana (30). This impacts the accuracy that Nigerian journalists are able to provide. (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. I think it's safe to say we have a consensus that this source needs to be used only with care. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've definitely looked at The Guardian (Nigeria) in many drafts as a RS, as I would for Vanguard and other Nigerian dailies. However, if there is concern about its reliability, I can definitely hold back. El komodos drago, you asked for someone who knows the Nigerian media landscape better, let me bring in Celestina007, AfC's resident Nigeria expert. I respect their opinion on this topic. Bkissin (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to this @Bkissin, I’d like to say without an iota of doubt that the Guardian Nigeria is definitely a reliable source as they possess a reputation for fact checking and possess editorial oversight and also state clearly when an article is written by a guest editor or a sponsored post. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC at China–United States trade war

There is a RFC about the background section of the China-United States trade war article that may be of interest. Talk:China–United States trade war#RfC on the background section Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the use of court documents

User:Gingerbreadhouse97 has been working hard on this article and in good faith. My concern is the use of court documents as I'm not sure when they can be user. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Doug Weller Ok thanks. I have been planning to work on this article for a while. Before, it was not very organized and left out a lot of information. I have been organizing and adding to it. I will look for secondary sources to back up the info I added. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It is best not to use court documents. This was is a famous case, there should be secondary sources.--Hippeus (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Using the perennial sources page and the reliable sources archives correctly

(Moved here from my talk page). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC))

I thank you for joining the discussion. It is my opinion that ESPN should be in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. When I joined Wikipedia, I used to refer this list for every source I use, just to make sure that it is reliable. In the case of sports articles, many new editors might question the reliability of ESPN, as they could be new to the topic. In such cases, the addition of ESPN would be useful. I request to tag me in your reply, so that I am notified.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources incorrectly. Nobody is going to add ESPN to WP:RSP just so you can use RSP correctly.

Here is the right way to do it.

Example one: I needed to see if Lucien Merlet is a reliable source. I checked RSN and there is no entry. So I went to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, used the Search the noticeboard archives box, and found

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#Lucien Merlet

That entry in the archives is all you need. It tells you whether it is reliable, and you can link to it ("Reliable. See RSN discussion.") if someone questions the reliability of the source. No need for an RSN entry.)

Example two: I needed to see if Hindenburg Research is a reliable source. This time it wasn't found at RSN or in the search box. So I posted a question, got my answer, and now it is something you find in the search box:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Hindenburg Research ( hindenburgresearch.com )

Please note how I titled my question so that searching the archives for "Hindenburg Research" or "hindenburgresearch.com" finds the section.

Example three:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#Andrew Left and Citron Research (formerly StockLemon.com)

Example four:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Boom! ( www.boomlive.in )

So, as you can see, you don't need what you think you need (you think you need ESPN in RSP). You need what you actually do need (you need to change how you use the reliable sources noticeboard to check whether a source is reliable).

Example five:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ESPN ( www.espn.com )

In this case I found a bunch of places where it was discussed, often as an example of a reliable source. So I pulled them all together and posted a summary so you can link to one previous discussion instead of eight. See section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, why not create a subpage in your userspace so that you can store links to previous discussions here? That way if anyone challenges your use of a source you can quickly refer them to said discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN ( www.espn.com )

This is a summary of past RSN discussions regarding ESPN.

Summary: Generally reliable for all information, very reliable high-quality source for sports information, often used as an example of a reliable source when discussing other sources.

Past discussions (oldest first)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 90#ssherdog.com as a reliable source for mixed martial arts BLPs "[Sherdog] is considered reliable, as has been stated above, because it is partnered with ESPN.com".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#idebate.org "It's true that iDebate is a specialized source for a certain value of specialized, but then so is ESPN".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 144#ESPN as source for ongoing NCAA conference realignment "With in-text attribution (i.e. "ESPN reported..."), I don't see why these wouldn't be OK".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185#Suitability of a source sponsoring its subjects "A news site about a sort sponsors teams and drivers involved in the sport. This would be akin to claiming ESPN is biased because they give money to sports teams, leagues, and colleges".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#Mayweather–Pacquiao / PPV figures "ESPN is a top tier source for sports info, and it explicitly updates the figure from 4.4 to 4.6".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 208#Jayski's Silly Season Site as a source for NASCAR races "OK; I think the link from the ESPN site mentioned by NASCAR1996 above also makes this a reliable site".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics? "He is a New York Times bestselling author and written for ESPN The Magazine and Golf Digest in addition to Paste".
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sherdog.com "Some of those reputable sources that I mentioned are ESPN, Fox, UFC, BoxRec, Independent, NSAC, BT sport, CBS, Independent".

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If it has been discussed multiple times, wouldn't it merit a RSP entry? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No. If it had been discussed multiple times in the sense that one editor said it was reliable and another editor said it isn't, it might merit an entry in WP:RSP, but in the case of ESPN most of the discussion has been in the sense of it being used as an example of a source that everyone agrees is reliable.

The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is "This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." Literally nobody has disputed the reliability of ESPN, much less discussed its reliability and use on Wikipedia.

A source can be left off of RSP because it is so bad that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of RSP because it is so good that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable -- https://www.nejm.org/ --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'discussed' and 'disputed', I'd interpret it as not requiring anyone to dispute it but for the question to regularly be asked. We have Reuters on WP:RSP just because it is a really common and good source despite the fact that its reliability as a whole have never been specifically discussed. That said, I don't know whether ESPN merits and RSP, and I agree with your remarks in the above section. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, Guy Macon, I don't see in your OP what the request for action is? I see a list of discussions, but no context provided for why you started this discussion and what change to Wikipedia you would like to see as the outcome of this discussion? Can you clarify? What do you hope to see as the outcome of this discussion right now? --Jayron32 15:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You appears to have confused article talk pages, where discussions are supposed to be about changes to Wikipedia, with the reliable sources noticeboard, where discussions are supposed to be about the reliability of sources. (Just to be complete, there are other pages with other goals, such as ANI, where discussions are supposed to be about user behavior). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Presumably, you created this thread for a reason. Would you please articulate what that reason is? --JBL (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

      JayBeeEll, I assume it is for the section above, as that OP appears to be using RSP incorrectly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, having all of the discussions about the reliability of ESPN summarized in one place with one link is superior to having the various discussions about the reliability of ESPN in eight places that take 15 minutes of searching to find and half a page to link to. An unintended and happy side effect is annoying the Noticeboard Police who just got out of Noticeboard Police Academy and started telling veteran editors what they are allowed to talk about and not allowed to talk about. :) -Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

An unintended ... Um, ok -- but that's a frankly assholish attitude to have towards someone who asked a simple, polite, and genuine question. --JBL (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

www.hisutton.com

[ http://www.hisutton.com ] Is this site a reliable source? I came about this site when going through Tench-class submarine. I raised question about it here[70] Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The website does not appear to have any sort of about page and the apparent author seems to have self published a few books - He does seem to have some articles publised by the United States Naval Institute -[71] and navalnews.com [72]. UNSI is a reliable source and naval News is also probably a RS, so what he writes for those sites is probably OKNigel Ish (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Seems to be one person's blog so no editorial oversight. Author may be a subject matter expert given their publishing record and writing for other sources but I don't know enough about it to make a judgement. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case he has reached the conclusion by adding the number of torpedo tubes and torpedo racks so if reliable sources could be found for those then it could be changed to highest number of torpedo tubes and racks combined. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable And @Now wiki: I would have appreciated a Ping... Author is a subject matter expert, actually *the* subject matter expert if we’re talking about whats in the open source. In addition to USNI News they’ve written for Naval News, Real Clear Defense, Forbes, and a dozen more. He’s also been quoted as an expert or had his research reported on in National Interest, LA Times, NYT, Yahoo, and The Guardian plus more. Here he is in The Diplomat being given a feature interview [73], according to the intro to the interview "H.I. is a defense analyst and one of the world’s leading experts on underwater warfare and submarine technology.” What more do we need than a WP:RS calling someone one of the world’s leading experts in a field to consider them an expert in that field? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

100-year-old sources for current debates

Is a source that is over 100 years old ever a reliable source for framing contemporary debates? My contention is that a source that is 100 years old cannot tell us anything about contemporary debates and using such sources would be highly misleading. The text in question is as follows: "There is some debate among interpreters as to whether this verse was originally intended to signify that the Philistines themselves were the offspring of the Casluhim or the Caphtorim. While the Casluhim or the Caphtorim origin is widely followed by biblical scholars, other scholars such as Bernhard Stade, and Cornelis Tiele argued for a Semitic origin." I think the "is" word is incompatible with 100-year-old sources.

To clarify what this discussion is about: Can a 100 year old source be a reliable source for the quoted text in green? The answer to this question ought to be either yes or no. Please advice. ImTheIP (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It depends on is it still a standard work.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Negative, the sources are not standard works. Even if they were I don't see how they have anything to do with contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

OK a source from 1920 says that the moon in made of rock, published by the world astronomical society, the modern source says its made of a collection of small dancing midgets (published by the astronomical society of my ate bedroom). Does the modern source trump the older source? We need to know who said what to make a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how your example is relevant. The question is specifically about framing contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you go over our archives you can see plenty of attempts to use "contemporary debates" from extremist or nationalist sources to try and overturn long term accepted scholarship. My example was a rift on that, using dodgy sources that frame "A debate" as if its a real debate and not the promotion of a fringe theory. So with out seeing that you are talking about we cannot judge the veracity of your claim that this is "contemporary debate" or just the pushing of some fringe theory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, Could you give us more details? What article link to the source? Does any other sources contradict it? Shrike (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think secondary sources would take care of the the "framing" part. There is no blanket prohibition on older sources but my view is similar to Slatersteven's, they should not be used to overturn or undermine the current consensus or scholars, nor to broaden or narrow the contours of the debate beyond what framing has been done by secondary sources. Spudlace (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In general, I would think that if a 100 year old source asserts X and that assertion is accepted by scholars, then it ought to be possible to find X referred to as part of modern day material on the subject and I would replace it with that. If modern material cannot be found, one needs to consider whether the assertion remains a part of the scholarly consensus or if it has been replaced with a different consensus. Perhaps tag it for better sources, maybe someone is au fait? Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that "is" is the wrong tense to use when referring to 100-year old scholars. Current sources would be needed to claim the present tense, especially when coupled with "widely followed by biblical scholars". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment without a LOT more specifics this is impossible. What article is involved? What's the source's link so it can be read, or at least the citation so it can be looked up? Are we discussing a 100-year source in the context of religious history, or is it something else? I tried to google the text you provided and landed on Philistines, and in the article context (scholarly works on the Torah in relation to who the "Philistines" referenced in ancient Hebrew texts are), 100 years is a relatively short timespan; scholars of the Torah and Talmud will regularly reference writers from hundreds of years ago. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add any specifics because the question is about the general principle; can 100-year-old sources be used to support statements on the form There is some debate ...? Precluding the existence of time machines, I don't see how that question can be answered in the affirmative. ImTheIP (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

General principle: the topic area matters. 100 years would be an incredible and probably absurd amount of time for the history of Hip hop music and debates about whether a specific artist qualifies. 100 years, in the span of of studies of the Hebrew Bible and associated Jewish religious texts, is an eyeblink. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, right, if we're discussing nuclear power then perhaps we should try to use modern sources, but we're talking about something that is thousands of years old, and the source in question is 100 years old. No reason to throw out sources primarily based on age in all cases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Rabbinic Judaism is "only" about 1 800 years old, so 100 years is quite a bit more than just a blink of an eye. If 100-year-old sources are acceptable for framing current religious debates, then when is a source too old? Is a 200-year-old source fine? A 500-year-old one? What if the source describes the proper punishments for homosexuals and apostasy? ImTheIP (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: can you help?

Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box.

Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, and possible removal.

In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all.

Even WP:ABOUTSELF usage should be minimised where reasonable - e.g., sufficient RS coverage.

(Tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.)

As I write this:

• The Daily Mail is down to 150 uses - a lot of these are on WP:BLPs, where the Mail, and the claim it's citing, should pretty much always just be removed. Some of what remains are WP:ABOUTSELF, but we already know we literally can't trust dailymail.co.uk as a record of what was in the Daily Mail, amazing as that statement might seem.
• The Mail on Sunday's home URL has 11 uses - some are ABOUTSELF, some really aren't.
• The Daily Star has 1,489 uses, and far too many of those are BLPs.
• FrontPage Magazine has 212 uses, again many BLPs.
• Global Times has 21 on globaltimes.cn.
• Lenta.ru has 1,475 uses, though this source is only deprecated from 2014 on.
• News of the World still has 154 uses.
• Peerage websites still have thousands of uses, many of those making detailed claims about BLPs.
• RT has 3,286 uses.
• Sputnik has 1,387 uses.
• The Epoch Times is at 444 uses.
• Crunchbase has 2,814 uses, though that includes "External links" where it's allowed. This one is going up, and may need an edit filter to warn people.
• NNDB has 1,871 uses.
• Voltaire Network has 139 uses.

If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy (WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines (WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As noted by WP:DEPRECATED, any effort for this must be carefully done. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. There's been problems with flat out removal of deprecated sources and the information linked to them in bulk (eg when implemented as bot-like actions), but review and ultimate removal if no replacement source can be found by human hand is fine. --Masem (t) 17:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As I noted above, they all need human review. You've been asked repeatedly to back up your insinuations of bot-like actions, and consistently failed to do so. I know you don't like the idea of deprecation - even though you've yet to gather consensus for your views - but please stop making claims you've consistently failed to back up, unless you can in fact back them up - diffs, and so on - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

David, here is an example of what I think it a bad removal based on a source being deprecated [[74]]. The fact in question is not controversial. The fact that at one point this model was offered as a 16 gauge is a reasonably significant part of the gun's history. The fact was cited to a review of the gun published by The Daily Caller. So the question we need to ask is if the DC is reliable for the specific fact in question. I think one can be reasonably certain the 16 gauge version of the firearm existed since forum posts and various for sale listing offer 16 gauge versions of the shotgun. However, forum posts and "for sale" listings are going to be hard to use as sourcing. This may have been added before The Daily Caller was deprecated so at the time I don't see why we wouldn't consider it a RS for the uncontroversial claim in question. The the DC gets deprecated and now we have to pull this citation. Why? Do we really think this sort of claim is going to be inaccurate because it came from a review published in the DC vs if the same author had published that review in Ballistic Mag (another place the author publishes based on my web search). This is an example of why I'm generally opposed to deprecation. I'm happy to admit any source that gets deprecated is probably questionable for many claims (certainly for controversial ones) but some like this are so uncontroversial that we should accept and move on rather than seek out and remove. Springee (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: I think that's a GREAT example for removal of crappy sourcing. It wasn't really even a "Daily Caller" article, it was a "contributor" article crossposted from some guy at "Personal Defense World", which means it should have fallen under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources the same as "Contributor" articles from sites like Forbes or The Hill. Further, neither the current website version nor the archive.org version linked say anything about a supposed 16-gauge version of the gun. Maybe you should have fact-checked before complaining? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your argument fails in one critical area, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The information does enhance the quality of the article in question. While the sourcing isn't strong, it's not nothing and certainly it can be verified through other means that the 16 gauge model did exist. We don't need to treat every article as if we are making controversial political claims. Now, your claim that the material is not in the source (which wasn't given as the reason for removal) is valid but then the removal should have used the failed verification tag. Springee (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you can verify it in a reliable source, that'd be ideal. If all you have is a deprecated source, you don't have a source for Wikipedia. Maybe find an example that convinces people? - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since IHateAccounts rightly noted that the source failed WP:V this moves from a practical discussion to a hypothetical one. Your argument illustrates the problem with wide spread deprecation. If an uncontroversial fact appears in a deprecated source we need to ask if deprecation was appropriate. Again, it's easy to prove via pictures of old adds, listings of used models for sale etc that the 16 gauge did exist. That such a variant existed is of interest to people who come to the article looking to read about the history of this shotgun. Can you reasonably claim that the article is better for removing that fact? (and again since it turns out the source fails WP:V this is a hypothetical question). Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee:"While the sourcing isn't strong, it's not nothing" - the words "16 gauge" literally never appear in the purported source. That's not just "not strong sourcing", that's false sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that. Note that the reason for removal the first time was not due to failed WP:V, rather due to the claim that the source can't be used because it was deprecated. Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We're back to lots of words supported by zero examples that check out, and your only example being a case that doesn't check out and was literally false sourcing that absolutely needed removal. At this point, please just assume the message giving a list of deprecated sources to review is for people who understand how Wikipedia sourcing works - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know it failed V when you removed it or did you just do a source search? How about this example. This is actually the one I was thinking of when I found the other one. This one doesn't fail V [[75]] (though it is a contributed article which is a problem IHA mentioned). Springee (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation of RS is that if information is not covered by reliable sources, it is UNDUE on wiki, regardless of whether unreliable sources mention it. I think one exemption people were discussing (in the Daily Mail RFC) was instances where sports scores (that would otherwise automatically be included in sport articles) were maybe only regularly provided by the DM, although I don't know what the consensus was for that edge case. Even so, I don't think there are very many examples of items that are essentially inherently notable enough for inclusion that are also only reported by non-RS. Or are my interpretations completely off? JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have two concerns about that. First, the source may not have been considered deprecated at the time. Second, will leaving that material out make a better article? WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. WP:V is policy but WP:RS, while widely accepted isn't a policy and it also doesn't say lesser sources can't be used, only that they should be used judiciously and the nature of the claim and source need to be balanced (ie an uncontroversial claim doesn't require the same sourcing as a controversial one). When dealing with high profile topics it's pretty easy to find robust sources. However, when we start diving into more esoteric subjects it can be harder. That doesn't mean readers aren't interested in the material. In the case of the shotguns I certainly can see that a reader may want to know sales volumes or common variants. One of the big values of a site like Wikipedia is people might come here and learn about the Swift Engineering DB1 (perhaps the second most significant Formula Ford racecars of all time [[76]]). Some information is available in books and articles but other details may not be available on these sites. In the case of uncontroversial facts I don't see an issue with using sources that otherwise might be considered less robust. I understand really being careful about RS when we are dealing with current political topics. However, when dealing with more esoteric topics and uncontroversial claims I think we need to be less dogmatic. One of the values of Wikipedia is that we can have articles on less significant topics. Springee (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your statements are incoherent. may not have been considered deprecated at the time has never meant it was ever a good source, deprecation just formalises it. WP:RS is a guideline, not policy it is, however, included directly by reference in WP:V as the definer of reliable sources. Thus, a deprecated source is, by strong general consensus, not a reliable source, and thus fails WP:V.

But you've been told this repeatedly - so either you're pretending not to hear it, or (to assume good faith) you literally don't understand it - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't throw out disrespectful claims like I'm pretending not to hear. That can be reversed just as easily. You aren't hearing the concerns of others. My arguments are just fine. The core problem is the deprecation process is being used too liberally and the result is that content for articles that have more limited sourcing options. Editors are saying we should exclude references not because we fear the facts may be wrong (the best reason to exclude any source) but simply because we don't like the source in general terms. That is a fundamental problem. You have no reasonable argument against this so you just say, "well this is how it is" rather than saying why this makes for a better encyclopedia (ie WP:IAR... which is policy). Springee (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If "the result is that content for articles that have more limited sourcing options" means that wikipedia isn't treating outlets that traffic in false information, conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism, and worse as if they were somehow legitimate sources of information, I'm 100% ok with that. There are only 34 pages listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated, and based on what I am seeing in discussions here that's too FEW not too many. For the love of sanity, someone tried to nominate NEWSMAX of all things as "generally reliable" above by virtue of having rising viewership, said viewership coming specifically because it's openly trafficking in falsehoods and conspiracy theories supported by the extreme conservative fringe in the USA. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And you entirely miss a key part of the discussion while creating a straw man. If you have views on Newsmax please add them to that topic. Springee (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the discussions, you would see I already have. But do, please, elaborate on what sort of "key part of the discussion" you think I missed, and the "straw man" you claim I've created, since your comment is so nonspecific as to be meaningless. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What straw man? Their argument seems very reasonable to me, much more reasonable than your argument that deprecating a fraction of 1% of the sources used here will somehow limit sourcing options. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The strawman is IHA's suggestion that I'm arguing a controversial source could be used for controversial claims (false information, conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism etc). Springee (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be doing just that, thats an unavoidable consequence of using deprecated sources at all for non-about self. If there is something you would like to clarify from your earlier argument please do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I specifically said uncontroversial claims. Which comments of mine made you think I was suggesting allowing deprecated sources for controversial, non-about self claims? Springee (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the claim is controversial, because it's probably false information. Just to be sure, I did some more looking. Every mention I find for a "Mossberg 500" in a 16-gauge size traces back to people either trying to make eBay sales, looking for parts to convert a different Mossberg, or posting to forums claiming they found one. Some of the postings claim they were only made from 1961-1962, some claim to have serial-numbered ones made in the 1970s. Other listings for the "Mossberg 500B" come out at 20-gauge, not 16-gauge. [77][78] Until I see ACTUAL coverage in a reliable source - or even a product catalog - I think this is an urban legend or a prank, and something that absolutely should not have gotten into Wikipedia in the first place. And that makes it a great example of why leaving deprecated sources in wikipedia is a bad idea because of the likelihood that material sourced to them was bad (as in untrue) information. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Here are pictures of the markings on the firearm and some old add copy [[79]], [[80]], [[81]]. Yes, it is possible all of these images are a hoax but that seems unlikely. Springee (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you could locate the precise magazine information that'd be a good start on that sourcing. Something that could be put in as an actual citation. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this non-sequitur even if I don’t entirely understand what you guys are arguing over. Mossberg did briefly make the 500 in 16 gauge, they were uncommon when new and genuine collectors items now (most were sold overseas in places where 12 was illegal due to it being a “military” round). That being said I don’t know of any internet accessible reliable sources which can corroborate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: To catch you up, Springee produced an "example" of what they claimed was a bad use of the Deprecation process, where a Daily Caller "contributor" article sourced to the claim that the 16-gauge Mossberg 500 had been a thing, was removed and replaced with a citation-needed tag. There were MASSIVE source problems, both with it being a "contributor" article (read: WP:SELFPUB) and with it not mentioning a 16-gauge anywhere in the text anyways. At that point Springee started trying to turn it into a "theoretical" argument that there was somehow harm to Wikipedia for removing a source that had so completely failed verifiability from the start and that hadn't supported the text claim in the first place. :(

But just for good faith, I continued to try to find any replacement source, and as of yet I can't find anything definitive that was remotely usable for Wikipedia's standards, which brings us to here. Those page images are at least a starting point to trying to find something but I think wikipedia would need the publishing information for the magazine, year of production, month if possible, in order to produce a citation? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we can say with confidence that the 500 existed in 16 gauge and that it is now discontinued. Here is an add in Field and Stream, 1971 for the Mossberg 500, it shows the 16 gauge as an option [[82]]. Here is a firearms blue book with references [[83]] and another book that says the 16 gauge was discontinued [[84]]. I guess we can attempt to use these sources though I hate to use Google Book references as they often don't allow citing specific pages so future verification can be difficult. Springee (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's clear that some sources should be questioned when we start getting down to details like this on lesser discussed topics I think we need to use a bit more editorial judgement. It's not like this information is unpublished, it's just that the sources are ones that we normally don't consider reliable for general use (enthusiast blogs, web forums, etc). However, this is the sort of information that is of interest to those who find the specific topic area of interest. If RSs don't cover the larger topic at all then I agree. When we are talking details that are often of interest then I think inclusion makes sense even if that means we are using lesser sources. Consider for example an automotive article where details that may be of interest to a reader are harder to come by. The general topic is notable but the interesting details may be sourced to sites that are . Readers of an article about the Sports 2000 race car class may find the article to be better if we include information that is from lesser sites but is also non-controversial (say which make won various races).

WP:FAIT is the relevant information page. And all I'm cautioning is that this is not "run through and just delete the references" job as there is no DEADLINE given per DEPRECATION, though yes, the sooner we've stripped these, the better WP comes across. Editors that want to undertake this should make a good faith effort to see if the information can be sourced otherwise - probably a whole minute or two check - and then proceed to delete if nothing comes up. Removing refs at a pace of one every 5 or 10 seconds is definitely going to trigger bot-like concerns as that's disruptive. As DEPRECATION says, these are not blacklisted sources so some use may be appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You keep invoking this, and it keeps not convincing people. Perhaps if you supplied diffs that you considered clear and convincing evidence - that is, that would convince others - of bot-like actions.

I note you haven't backed up your claim of bot-like actions. Do you have anything to back this claim? Diffs, for example? - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That recently issue over the two China-state papers and their mass remove was clearly where FAIT would be applied, if it were taken to an AN/AE-type action (it didn't) The actions were rapid - too fast to be reasonably human checking each for a replacement or alternative action - and they were considered disruptive by a number of editors.

I'm mentioning this because its criteria that fixing this issue (removing deprecated sources) should not be disruptive and thus human care needs to be in place rather than a bot-like removal process. --Masem (t) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus wasn't with you in your example case either. You're back to casting aspersions on other editors, and consistently being unwilling, unable or both to make a convincing case against them, when consensus has repeatedly been against you on the issue of removing deprecated sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems to come across as what is popular vs what stands on principle. Masem's views are very principled but often opposed because they go against what is popular. How often have these removals done anything to objectively improve the article other than "getting rid bad sources"? Springee (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your own argument betrays you, the objective improvement of removing a deprecated source is enough (it is after all as you say an objective improvement). Anything else is just a bonus. I also don’t think you and Masem are on the right side of this argument vis-a-vis principles, improving wikipedia is the highest principle per WP:IAR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your argument takes on faith that any and all content that is sourced to a source that has been voted down is somehow a negative to any article. It seems like would be better to treat that on a more case by case basis rather than assume we are always right. Springee (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A case by case evaluation of deprecated sources is what you’re disagreeing with, thats what the OP is asking for help doing. 99% of case by case evaluations of deprecated sources are going to end in the removal of the source, there are almost no cases in which a page is better off with a deprecated source and *none* that fall outside about self. Also the content itself generally won't be removed unless theres a BLP concern it will just be tagged with CN, a wholesale removal of non-BLP content isn't occurring and appears to be a straw man of your own devising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There are the 5 guiding principles and while IAR to improve WP follows WP:5P5, avoiding disruption and editing collaboratively is in WP:5P4, so they are equally highest principles. I'm arguing there needs to be a balance between improving the encyclopedia by removing deprecated sources, and avoiding disruption by trying to find replacements or other solutions for those removals so that articles are not suddenly gutted of information (though sometimes outright removal of information sourceable only to a deprecate source may be required). All this means here is that editors should spend just a few minutes to search Google for possible replacements for each deprecated source use, and if a replacement can be found, swap it out, otherwise, remove the deprecated source and determine if leaving behind a cn tag or removal of the info tied to it is necessary. It may take a bit longer but that minimizes any disruption. --Masem (t) 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont know if asking editors without specific knowledge in a certain field to search for replacements is always the best option. For instance I’ve removed The Epoch Times from a number of BLPs of Cantopop stars and had exactly zero success finding a replacement because I dont know which of the niche english language publications that cover Cantopop are reliable and often there is no english language coverage at all (often why the Epoch Times was used in the first place). I think in a non-BLP situation where an editor is outside the areas they feel comfortable editing in tagging so someone more comfortable in that area can check for sources is preferable. Obviously disruption is in the eye of the beholder, I cant deny that some people see removing these sources as disruptive and this is a good opportunity to craft best practices going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect editors that seek to remove deprecated sources to have expert field knowledge on the topic they are removing the sources from. Just enough competency to know how to do a quick 2 minute search for info via Google and to make a judgement call of removing a unsourced statement or leaving a CN behind. If I were removing the Chinese-state owned media sources for current systems, this would be two-three minutes in Google News to see if something came up. If it were a topic related to the first half of the 20th century, I'd be over at Google Books as well. If a quick search showed nothing close, then removal would be correct and then its just determining how controversial the unsourced statement is for its removal or flagging as needing a CN.

And yes, what is disruptive is of subjective question, but we know from FAIT and past AE that when one is making such changes with a bot-like speed (one edit every few seconds) when there is a need for human review is clearly bot-like (the case of BetaCommand is the big one here). Is one edit to remove a deprecate source every minute disruptive? I don't know, and it may be appropriate in some cases and not in others, but clearly a minute is enough time for some possible human review to take place so the timing is less likely to trigger concerns of disruptive editing , but other factors may contribute. We just don't want editors blindly removing these on sight without thought, because that is against the spirit of what WP:DEPRECATION means. --Masem (t) 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont think that happening, at most I see one edit ever few tens of seconds. What editor’s edits are you referring to specifically? Also can we not use the phrase bot-like user? Tbh I think is over the line WP:NPA when used to describe a specific editor. Also technically inaccurate as bots do their work in fractions of a second so saying someone with an edit rate orders of magnitude slower than a bot is bot-like was always stretching reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk)

In my experience its also more like an average of 10 minutes to find and add a proper source (which of course is onerous to require of anyone, wikipedia is a volunteer organization and as such the bare minimum is always acceptable... Simply replacing with a CN tag would appear to be the bare minimum and an efficient use of time), obviously you have to actually read the source before you use it. Do you mean two minutes seriously or figuratively? Actually I guess this isnt our first issue with you and time, do you mean the measures of time you use literately or figuratively? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We have used "bot-like" in the past at AN/ANI to evaluate whether an editor's actions show any type of human check or not. Its describing behavior, not the editor themselves so it is definitely not a personal attack. (unless of course it has been shown after discussion that the editor is not doing their actions in a bot-like manner but other editors still keep applying the term, then that borders on harassment). And yes, I feel even 2 minutes in real time is a reasonable minimum, though obviously one can take longer if they have a more vested interest to try to retain information. I can usually tell if a claim is legit or not within 2 minutes with appropriate Google-fu, and if its legit, it may take a bit more time to find the best source to replace. Some may take longer. But I can tell if someone is removing 100s of deprecated sources with 15 seconds between each that I question if they have put any human thought into that; in contrast, having 2 minutes between each of those edits is something in good-faith I would say had some human check before each was done. --Masem (t) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You might want to watch it then "when one is making such changes with a bot-like speed” is a critique of "one" while "when one is making such bot-like speedy changes” would be a critique of the changes. Likewise "editor is not doing their actions in a bot-like manner” would need to be "editor is not doing their bot-like actions.” Back to the main point: while requiring people to do the best possible job is desirable in some ways its not how wikipedia works, I know of no way to compel editors to do more than the bare minimum. By definition a human doing anything on wikipedia requires human thought, perhaps you meant something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FAIT states: "Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate." In most cases, deprecated sources should never have been added to articles in the first place, because they are questionable sources. It would be inappropriate to make it difficult for editors to reverse the addition of deprecated sources, especially since all deprecated sources have undergone an RfC confirming that the community considers them unreliable in nearly all circumstances. As explained in the WP:ONUS policy, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." — Newslinger talk 11:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I argue this that "deprecated sources should have never been added in the first place" is a poor starting proposition. There are some, DM being the big one, that probably since the start of WP's existence should not have been used, and thus where there is true. But we have sources like Newsweek which has changed over time, and thus we have had to re-evaluate the source over time. We should not be talking of the addition of sources before a deprecation RFC as "bad", because editors were likely adding those in good faith, and in the case of something like Newsweek, we have to be careful around the period of transition since before 2013, it was a high quality RS that would still be valid sourcing per the RS/P table. Same with Fox News from its recent decision related to politics. So a rush to wipe out all deprecated sources may actually be wiping out valid uses of those sources. Coming from the computer way deprecation is handled, it just means that we have decided from this point forward, these aren't good sources anymore (not necessarily beforehand), we don't want people adding them, and thus we want to replace and/or remove existing uses with human review, but there is no DEADLINE to meet outside of "sooner the better to make WP look good" (an appropriate goal). So FAIT would absolutely apply if this was being done blindly or in a rush. The caution I'm saying here is that this is not a task to turn over to a bot, or to 100% automate with AWB or the like. --Masem (t) 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your overly wordy argument is pretty much eviscerated by the fact that Newsweek's entry is split into two distinct time periods, because the change in quality could be traced to a single event (the sale from The Newsweek Daily Beast Company to IBT Media). For sources like Fox News or Newsmax there is no one "single event"; they have simply demonstrated a lack of journalistic ethics, standards, and reliability over time. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is that deprecation - or handling deprecation - is more than saying "Oh this source is on RS/P, it needs to go." as per WP:DEPRECATION each case needs a bit of human review: is it actually a case deprecated per RS/P? Can I replace the source easily and avoid removal? If I can't, what do I do with the remaining text - is it contestable or is it a fact that someone may be able to find if I leave a CN behind (obviously not on a BLP page)? This takes some time - a few minutes per instance - and so all I am saying as key is there is nothing that requires us to rush and remove these deprecated sources in a sloppy, disruptive manner as per FAIT. --Masem (t) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither Fox News (RSP entry) nor Newsweek (RSP entry) is deprecated. It is possible to make good-faith edits that are contrary to policy: many editors who add deprecated sources are not aware that they are unreliable, but lack of awareness is not a good reason for keeping policy-violating content. No editor is obligated to remove deprecated sources because Wikipedia is a volunteer service, but editors who choose to do so are supported by the verifiability policy, which states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Newslinger talk 17:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And especially on BLPs, yes, those removals should be of high priority. But as I point out above, we're talking balancing several of the WP:5P here, verifyability and IAR to improve the work balanced against collaborative editing. Keeping in mind that there are only a limited number of cases that we allow for blowing past 3RR rules (WP:3RRNO), removing deprecated sources is not among them (outside of BLP pages) so these edits must be assumed to be within a consensus-based process and thus should be done with minimal disruption. --Masem (t) 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is that until we actually RFC + add a source as deprecated to the RS/P table, all prior insertions of those sources should be assumed to have been done in good faith (though there have been cases of bad faith spamming of bad sources in the past). Not that there were rumblings about getting DM onto the deprecated list earlier than the RFC, and most editors did avoid it, and I'm sure similar cases with RT and the Chinese state-owned media can be said to be similar to this (that some editors knew before the specific deprecation RFC that these were bad). Others are more that the community has now decided these sources aren't good, and thus we should not be rushing to punish prior additions that had been made in good faith when there was no written guidance on that, outside of being a well-versed WPian able to read the tea-leaves on the direction these sources were going.

The one rule that WP:IAR is unable to bypass is consensus. A violation of the verifiability policy without the backing of consensus is just a plain policy violation. All deprecated sources, by definition, have consensus for removal in almost all cases because they have undergone a request for comment confirming that they are unreliable in nearly all circumstances. Whether a policy-violating edit was done in good faith does not change the fact that the edit violated policy, and that is precisely the type of edit WP:FAIT describes as "actions [that] are justified by virtue of being already carried out". — Newslinger talk 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this thought approach is claiming that the addition of a deprecated source prior to its formal deprecation RFC is a policy-violating edit. That is simply not true in part of WP:AGF that at the time the edit was made, editors would not have known they would be deprecated, and that per WP:DEPRECATION that even one deprecated, these are not immediately WP:V-violating sources save for their use on BLPs. Yes, deprecation is retroactive to prior edits, but it has to be remembered that deprecation is not the same as blacklisting (where we would remove the sources with expediency). The FAIT actions I'm cautioning is the rush to remove these without attempts to find alternatives, which is the actions already carried out and overwhelming those that want to try to fix them. There needs to be some onus on those removing to avoid the disruption in their removal and simply asking for a quick human check of possible source replacement is not that much of an onus prior to removal. --Masem (t) 18:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I am not assigning any blame to editors who add deprecated sources before they are deprecated. However, the process of deprecation identifies the content within almost all of the edits that added the deprecated sources as policy-violating. I agree that it would be ideal to search for replacement sources before removing a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Does removal of a deprecated source also imply that the content sourced with that deprecated source should be removed? Or can a deprecated source be replaced by a source request? The Banner talk 21:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If the content is not supported by any cited reliable sources, then it can be removed under the verifiability policy. If no reliable sources are available for the content, then it should be removed. But if an alternative reliable source is available, then it would be preferable to cite the reliable source instead, and ensure that the wording of the content is consistent with the reliable source. — Newslinger talk 02:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So what happened here was not okay, in your words? One editor bluntly removing text with the claim "source deprecated" and started editwarring to keep the text out when I started adding first source requests and then sources. The Banner talk 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Thats a WP:BLP case so the criteria for removing it is much more solid, no sourced information was removed either. If you want to work on sourcing unsourced text in a BLP use the history instead of edit warring unsourced contentious information into a BLP. From BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.” (emphasis mine) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The process for deprecating sources is broken. Consider the following. A source is deprecated. Editors remove all references to this source and also the content these sources are supporting. The next year the political majority changes and the source is undeprecated. Thus, a lot of valuable content has been deleted for no good reason whatsoever. In theory, that shouldn't happen because only sources that are so awful that they shouldn't ever be used for anything are deprecated (think Breitbart news). The policy says: "A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. ... It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues." But the regulars on this noticeboard doesn't adhere to policy, leading to a lot of sources being deprecated that shouldn't be.

Replacing "bad" sources with better ones (such as books and scientific articles) is of course great, but replacing "bad" sources with citation needed tags probably isn't. It is much easier to replace a bad source with a good one than it is to find a good source for a statement with no source at all. ImTheIP (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: Regarding "The next year the political majority changes and the source is undeprecated.” Can you give a few examples of this happening? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This comment is based on the false premise that sources are deprecated for "political" reasons and not because they habitually publish incorrect information and fall far short of WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of a 2013 Master's thesis on questions of possible origins of SARS-CoV-2

With the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (The virus causing COVID-19). There has emerged evidence that suggests that an earlier outbreak from 2012 might be related. At the core of it is independent research by Dr.Latham and Dr.Wilson from [85] Obviously this is still in the realm of a hypothesis. But one of their strong evidences is a chinese Master's thesis published in 2013, written by one of the doctors (Xu Li) treating the 2012 pateints, which has been translated to english. titled “Analysis of Six Patients with Severe Pneumonia Caused by Unknown Viruses” from Kunming Medical University.

the chinese page hosting the thesis: [86] and the english translation: [documentcloud.org/documents/6981198-Analysis-of-Six-Patients-With-Unknown-Viruses.html]

Recently a peer-reveiwed paper was puslibhed summarizing and citing the thesis at [87]

There have been a few news articles about the thesis, the paper and the discovery

The Science times [88]

The times [89]

NY post [90]

WaPo (2 days ago) [91] -though it doesn't mention the thesis, but basically repeats it's conclusion

Times of India [92] ...And a few others

Obviously, none of this supports strong assertions about the current pandemic. but I believe it can be a reliable source on the topic of the 2012 outbreak, and the opinions of the treating doctors as to what they believed they were dealing with in 2012. and mentioning of the fact that according to the thesis the WIV recieved samples from the sick miners.

With higtned sensitivity regarding various conspiracy theories on the pandemic, I understand this is a very touchy subject. but as the actual origin has not been conclusivly established, there are competing hypothesis with varying levels of supporting evidence (and with china supressing investigations, it's doubtfull it will ever be conclusive). I think that this source can shed light on this important topic. what is the opinion of more veteran Wikipedians? Shturmavik71 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Independent Science News is a WP:FRINGE advocacy organization that is unreliable, Frontiers is to be avoided as a predatory publisher, and several of the news magazines you cite mentioning the story are deprecated or considered generally unreliable. This is all on top of the fact that a master's thesis is 100% not MEDRS-compliant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not due at this time. There's been numerous efforts over the past year to push fringe views of the coronavirus's origin into wikipedia, and any hypothesis of the virus's origin requires stringent sourcing standards. A single research paper is not due for inclusion on medical topics per WP:RSMED. NYPOST is considered generally unreliable, and the WashPost entry is an Editoral Board opinion piece. Science Times appears to be an obscure website with no record of reliability. Jonathan Latham, one of the pushers of this latest research, has stated that the coronavirus "almost certainly escaped" from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is fringe and rejected by the vast majority of scientists. The mineshaft samples were collected by WIV, so this appears to be a backdoor attempt to push the "leak from WIV" theory. While The Times is considered generally reliable, I would not trust it for coverage of medical issues per WP:MEDPOP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

While I understand your reluctance. it seems to me that this is throwing the baby with the bathwater. unless patient zero is identified which has not happened, a lab-leak cannot be excluded, and I believe the scientific consenous rests on that. Dr.Latham conviction (and his strong idealogical stance on other issues) is not a reason to completely disqlaify the raw evidence he obtained. Shturmavik71 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that any new information, espcially something that can withstand such extreme rigor, about the 2012 outbreak will emerge.

by refusing to even consider the thesis on it's merit, valuable first hand evidence is lost. Shturmavik71 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Going by the Mòjiāng virus article, the virus isn't even a sodding coronavirus, but a member of Paramyxoviridae.(EDIT: there is a distinction between the Mojiang pneumonia event and the virus, and they have no confirmed connection other than locality). The "evidence" as far as I can see for their relationship is that there are similar symptoms between COVID and the Mojiang outbreak, but no genetic evidence of any kind, clearly not DUE without substantial confirmation by the wider scientific community, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated one of the reasons why I'm trying to use those sources, by initially confusing MojV and the cause of the Mojiang pneumonia event. that's exactly my point, the Mòjiāng virus article is confusing!

From [93] MojV was sampled just as a result of the interest that the 2012 outbreak generated, quoting the author of the study “we have not established a direct relationship between human infection and MojV”. and "But for the time being, Jin says, MojV is “more likely a curiosity.”.

the Mojiang pneumonia event demands a wiki page it seems, but first it has to be made clear that MojV itself is not the cause of it (or at least no evidence that it is).

The second point, is that according to [94], RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 was sampled in the same mine.

Please note, That I'm not arguing that the article should infer anything from that. but that the record on the Mòjiāng virus article should be set straight on that.

Because as it is now, anybody that gets interested in the Mojiang outbreak stumbles first upon the Mojiang virus, which is not the pathogen involved.Shturmavik71 (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A master's thesis isn't even a published, peer-reviewed research article (and if the master's student didn't get a paper out of it that's an even bigger red flag), but even if it was the content still wouldn't be permitted as MEDRS because it is a WP:PRIMARY source. Wikipedia does not and should not reflect the views of a single publication, especially when it's not even published, and especially especially when it's dredged up as fodder for a conspiracy theory by a fringe former plant virologist. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

greekcitytimes.com

• Source: [95]
• My concerns: The chief of this website Paul Antonopoulos had been criticized he posted hate comments on a neo-nazi website called Stormfront (website). I think this person has anti-Turkish sentiment based on his "news" on that website, and he posted comments about denying a chemical attack, and racist comments (you can see here on the video). Is this source reliable? Beshogur (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

more Mail On Sunday

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

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

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

No it doesn't, and this was discussed before [96]. An example RSOPINION gives is of an opinion from an RS, but it does not say that the opinion must come from an RS. Obviously, though, we don't want Random John Doe's Blog to be used as sourcing due to RSOPINION, so there is a factor of UNDUE in regards to whether the DM's staff review is considered part of the expert body of reviewers in that topic area. In the case of the DM, its opinions on British entertainment is actually well discussed in broader sources (from research back at the time of that discussion) so it would seem to be inappropriate to ignore their reviews on British works, when relevant. (I don't it is for this specific instance). --Masem (t) 17:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fool's Errand

Above, Masem writes "I do not see anyone in the RFC challenging that the staff writers works were fictionalized (in contrast to third-party opinions which were objectively found to have been manipulated)."[97] This was immediately followed by evidence that The The Daily Mail does indeed fictionalize staff writers' works.[98]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of sources for uncontroversial facts

[99] I have used as a source the Mail on Sunday for the names of the two daughters of an individual, nothing else. As it happens, this is the only source I have found so far where both are named. If a better source was available I'd already have used it. David Gerard simply applies a blanket ban on the MoS and removes it to add a citation needed tag.

Was the purpose of the above RFC to allow one editor carte blanche to simply remove sources and not apply even a modicum of common sense when doing so? WCM_email 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic significance of the given names of the two (apparently) non-notable children? They are not mentioned again in the article. I think it would be an improvement to remove their names. That would also eliminate the underlying problem. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

JBL, I couldn't agree more, and I removed the names. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

They're two children the subject abandoned in infancy, two children he later attempted to claim weren't his and the subject has since tried to portray himself as a man of principle. They chose to put themselves in the public domain as they wished to put on the record their feelings about what their father did. But it seems that wikipedia doesn't believe they should be quoted or mentioned, merely silenced. An outside observer could all to easily portray this as a bunch of misogynistic middle-aged men protecting another, did anyone stop to think about that for one second? WCM_email 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you stopped to consider for one second that an outside observer could all too easily portray your editing as that of an incompetent asshole? --JBL (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Having done some background reading on the guy, all of the Spanish language obituaries make no mention of his second marriage. Some even portray his second marriage as that to his Argentine mistress. It's like he tried to airbrush them out of his existence. So yes it could very easily be construed as I suggested, or I could just be an incompetent asshole. Or you failed to take into account that text is a fairly poor medium for conveying nuance and you've inferred something completed unintended into my comment. Who knows. You have a nice day now. WCM_email 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it will remain a mystery forever. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You included the names of living persons who are minor children in a Wikipedia article, sourced to an unreliable tabloid, that is now deprecated. You then edit-warred it back in repeatedly. I can confidently state that you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems unlikely that they're still minor children (if I understand the context correctly, they were born before 1982). Anyhow, it's better now that they've been removed (again). There were also three more children pointlessly named, I've removed them. --JBL (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Large chunks of the article are cited to tabloids - e.g. quite a lot cited to "Free Library" is actually a single Sunday Mirror article. It looks very like Wee Curry Monster is cobbling together any old trash that mentioned the subject's name - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor children eh David? One is nearly 40, the other 37 now, so hardly minor children. I can confidently state that it shows how little you care about getting your facts right. And they themselves wished to be on the record about what their father did, putting themselves in the public domain. And for the record again, the "Free Library" cite was already in the article when I started to improve it, I didn't write the article but started to correct what was a bit of a dog's breakfast. I've already told you this, so it's difficult to see your comment as anything other than a deliberate smear. WCM_email 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME predates any Daily Mail related issues sufficiently to merit removal of them regardless. The inclusion of non-notable living people is sufficiently controversial that it has a specific section in one of our strongest policies to address it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Long Beach Post News

I ran into this edit, and am almost automatically inclined to revert it since the content is not really excessive and seems well-verified...I thought. But I'm not sure about that Long Beach Post News. The linked article doesn't strike me as the kind of writing I'd expect from a news publication, since it seems to me that the one activist singled out in the article is celebrated a bit much--but then, it might all be correct, and their About Us pages seems pretty real. Does anyone have any experience with the publication? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• So there is an interesting twist: the edit I saw was to Robert Garcia (California politician) (it's been reverted by M.Bitton), which has a history of edit warring and likely COI edits that I'm about to dive into; turns out Garcia actually founded the Long Beach Post, and then sold it. Ha, local politics! Drmies (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Given the past relationship between Robert Garcia and the Long Beach Post, do you think it's worth replacing the first source with this one (which looks as reliable and says more or less the same thing)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • M.Bitton, that seems fine to me. I can't help but wonder if under new ownership the paper didn't sort of swing in the opposite direction. Thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Maybe, though this article suggests otherwise. What you said about the history of the article is certainly true: my revert has already been reverted by an IP (most likely a sock of DevorahQ). M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Canary

Would editors mind having a look at the designation of The Canary as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? [100] The summary says "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary". I counted 6 editors voting for GU and 4 editors for GR with appropriate attribution. As far as I can tell the editors who considered Canary as GU didn’t raise any significant specific examples of how it was unreliable. My feeling is that the GU tag does not adequately represent the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. I would suggest 'no consensus' would be a closer summary. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

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

This is being restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE because this RfC was not concluded and a close request lingers at WP:AN/RFC. It is very clear from the discussion below that the participants overwhelmingly feel that the South China Morning Post is in one of the first two options as there were almost no voices in favor of Options #3 or #4. The only question is which of Option #1 or Option #2 applies and this is slightly complicated because some !voted for an "either/or" and some for an "in between" approach. There are few outright "irrelevant opinions" per WP:NHC so the consensus is evaluated based on the arguments presented instead of the simple !vote totals. Looked at in this manner, Option #1 is preferred by discussion participants over some form of Option#1/Option#2 hybrid or medial position which is preferred over Option #2. The clear consensus is therefore in favor of Option #1 but there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply at some higher level of scrutiny than "normal". Particular concerns mentioned include SCMP coverage of the mainland China government, the Chinese Communist Party. or Alibaba. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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 [101] 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 [102] from a NYT reporter who was reciprocally thrown out of China [103][104], and who has pushed the conspiratorial view of the Trump administration that the WHO is too close to China [105]. 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.

• [106][107]: These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
• [108]: 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.
• [109]: 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).
• [110]: 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.
• [111]: 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?
• [112]: 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 [113] 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 [114]. 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)

Update over the last two weeks I've watched SCMP closely, the only major difference I can detect is a large shift in their tone when covering Taiwan. This makes sense given that Taiwan is the core national security concern of the PRC/CCP. As a result of this shift I would consider them a less reliable source when it comes to Taiwan but the unreliability is coming from the language they choose to use and the facts they choose to disclose rather than active disinformation or anything truly disqualifying like that. Obviously this effects stories about politics, defense, and the like more than a story about a new restaurant or something like that. However I would say additional considerations apply to coverage of Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 19 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. TheKaloo (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)
• Option 1 Option 1|2 (so far) 1 until 2016 for news stories, more caution required after that. Opinions, as always, should be attributed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 before the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong. Option 1.5 until the 2016 purchase by Alibaba. Option 3 from 1 July 2020 due to the new Hong Kong "Security" law, which is in fact more about ending free expression[115]. This[116] is a sufficiently major change in their environment that it would be unwise to assume they will be able to continue their past practices. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Stop your WP:SOAPBOXing (more about ending free expression) and actually produce a link which comments explicitly on the SCMP. Neither of your BBC links does that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 and Option 3 - It is a mouthpiece of CCP now. SCMP was a reliable source, but not since it is owned by Alibaba, which is the most Pro-Chinese group in the world after communist party of China.[117] NavjotSR (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per Hemiauchenia – advise caution/judge case-by-case post-2016. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - indispensable but problematic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:54, 23 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 [118]. 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 [119][120]. -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 [121] was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these [122][123][124][125][126][127]. The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" [128], another from The Daily Beast [129] (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 [130]. 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 [131], 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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science as Culture

I have been looking over the Andreas Eenfeldt article per a request on my talk page (User talk:Guy Macon#Andreas Eenfeldt).

One source stood out to me: [132]Food Fight! The Swedish Low-Carb/High Fat (LCHF) Movement and the Turning of Science Popularisation Against the Scientists Published in Science as Culture.

Alas, I haven't been able to find an online source with the entire paper, but the abstract set off alarms in my mind. It really reads like an editorial opinion rather than a scientific paper, and I am not familiar with the Science as Culture journal, and I could not find any previous RSN discussions on it.

Other papers in Science as Culture:[133]

• Intersecting discourses: MMR vaccine and BSE
• Eugenics Perpetuated by Altruism
• The public foetus and the family car: From Abortion Politics to a Volvo Advertisement

Is this a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why not, if you consider that the topic and expertise of the authors seems to be sociology / philosophy, rather than science. These types of interdisciplinary journals are often more subjective than harder topics, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they are just editorials. The journal is certainly not reliable for hard science info. (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)