Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Unreliable now. As others have noted, RealClearPolitics has made a big shift into the fringe and is now completely unreliable as a source. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable per John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. starship.paint (exalt) 09:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliabe per comments above. SlackingViceroy (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Volunteer (book)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. It was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories [20]. According to the author he adopted a technique he called "literary forensics," or re-creating "the scene of the crime" [21] (???). Clearly, it's not an academically focused source.--JBchrch (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I read The Volunteer when it first came out and found it to be an important and inspiring book. It is, however, a work of advocacy and I agree with K.e.coffman that it fails to meet the requirements of the Arbcom remedy, which I think was designed specifically to exclude journalistic works designed to persuade like this one. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting WP:APLRS

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

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

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

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

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

• @El C: I laud your optimism and good intent, but seeing as your third warning to VM had little impact,[22][23] I doubt we're not headed to some form of WP:DR. As an aside, VM has been making PAs for longer than I've been in the TA and against more people than I'd care to count, so tying this behavior to him being harassed by Icewhiz's is wrong. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest that people read this article: [24] Maria Suchcitz, "A volunteer’s journey to hell and back: A review of Jack Fairweather, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz, London, WH Allen / Penguin Random House, 2019", New Eastern Europe, 12 November 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Fairweather's study, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz (2019), appears to qualify as a reliable source on Witold Pilecki. The book received an extensive positive review in Memoria, a publication of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, by Adam Cyra, since 1972 a Museum staff member: [25] "Review of Jack Fairweather's Book 'The Volunteer: The True Story of Witold Pilecki's Secret Mission', Memoria, no. 36 (September 2020), pp. 14–23. The book discusses the methodology used in its researching and composition and provides copious notes. Fairweather acknowledges the assistance of ten institutions including the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Yad Vashem; of a large staff of qualified researchers and translators; and of respected scholars of Polish-Jewish history and the Holocaust including Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer, Wojciech Kozłowski, Hanna Radziejowska, Rafał Brodacki, Jeffrey Bines, Staffan Thorsell, Wojciech Markert, Kate Brown, Magdalena Gawin, Anna Bikont, Francis Harris, and Suzannah Lipscomb. Nihil novi (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Actually, hold up. Where did this idea that there's no inline citations in the book originate? The book most certainly has inline citations - numbered, with endnotes which cite the specific source [26]. The book was likewise reviewed by top Holocaust scholars and historians such as Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer and others. Volunteer Marek 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~:Girth Summit, Sure. Cyra: [27], Suchcitz : (paywalled?)/OA mirror?, Chodakiewicz: [28]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Malinowski, Kazimierz (1986). Tajna Armia Polska. Znak. Konfederacja Zbrojna. Zarys genezy, organizacji i działalności. Warsaw: Pax, p. 54. OCLC 462130075
• Gawron, Wincenty (1992). Ochotnik do Oświęcimia. Oświęcim: Wydawnictwo Calvarianum, Państwowego Muzeum w Oświęcimiu, p. 114. OCLC 38226627 [29]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did the Arbitration Committee provide one?

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Fairweather's book has received a number of English-language reviews, including one by Michael Fleming [30] in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, surely a serious publication.

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

A review by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, translated into Polish in Tygodnik Solidarność [31], while expressing many reservations about Fairweather's understanding of Pilecki's cultural background and motivations, does not find fault with the author's basic presentation of Pilecki's actual deeds and accomplishments.

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

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

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

• More reviews - this one of Maria Suchcitz, right here - [32] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Levivich, Have you heard of narrative ethnography, for example? [33]/[34] Or ethnographic fiction [35] (note our article is poor, I will see if I can improve those topics in the near future). Narrative style and even storytelling ([36]/[37]/[38]) are allowed in academically focused works, too. Take a look at this. It's a chapter in an academic book (Davis, C. S., & Ellis, C. (2008). Autoethnographic introspection in ethnographic fiction: A method of inquiry. In P. Liamputtong & J. Rumbold (Eds.), Knowing Differently: An Introduction to Experiential and Arts-Based Research Methods, (pp. 99-117). Nova Sciences.), not a short story - even if most random readers could be excused for being confused (and it has 29 citations according to Google Scholar...). So I am afraid that the argument that the book is written in a narrative form which makes it non-academic fails. Narrative style, although rare, is perfectly acceptable in academia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Reliable I have read the above discussion and the book is in my view highly reliable, fulfilling all the necessary criteria. It has has been subjected to academic reviews, and the publisher is respectable, the book is also academically focused.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note since this discussion has been running for some time now, and there does not appear to be consensus about how the sourcing restrictions recorded at WP:APLRS should be interpreted, I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee here. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Fails to meet the requirements of the Arbcom decision. A great book, I enjoyed reading it, inspiring, as was its purpose, but fictionalized. A work of advocacy, journalistic not academic or scholarly. Not even a close question I'm afraid. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This is not a proper noticeboard to discuss if a source meets the requirements by Arbcom. This is only to comment if a source was RS. I think this specific question can be answered only directly by Arbcom (at the "Clarification and Amendment") because it's not entirely clear what they wanted to accomplish by such restriction. To improve content? OK, but if that was their intention, then why using strong RS, such as this book, would be forbidden? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC: The Federalist

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

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

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

Survey (The Federalist)

• Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [39]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum I can understand the reluctance to deprecate a "source" that has only been invoked infrequently so far, but I can also see the value in nipping a problem in the bud. The point raised by Newslinger a few lines below about talk pages is a good one; why should we let the community's time be wasted? XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [40], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [41] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option 2 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [42]. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny:They actually do make corrections. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Moved my vote from option 3 to option 2 based on it. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't know about their Covid reporting, but the stuff i've researched on there seems factual. They have their spin of course and the titles aren't great. Just checked their site and it's good they are reporting about the lifesite youtube channel being banned. Earlier today i was looking for the story and it was only on the actual lifestyle site, so they might pick up stories otherwise missed.Fred (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 just general hooey and unreliability. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Don't see the need for the drastic step of deprecation, but the falsehoods it has published is enough for it to be classified as generally unreliable. Zoozaz1 talk 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, unfortunately. I do read them sometimes and do think there's a place for their contrarianism, despite being very far away from them on the political spectrum. They have done real reporting which has been better than the dead-eyed nihilism of Sean Davis's twitter feed (likely for many people their first exposure to the website) might indicate. However, that difference has declined and they're basically Radio Trump now. Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 or 3, given the repeated instances of publishing false and fabricated information, as noted by OP above and by David Gerard in the Discussion section below. -sche (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, just look at this stuff. This should be kept as far away from sourcing for articles as possible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The source cannot be trusted for reliable information. I'm hesitant to fully deprecate, however, because there could be some value to their opinion pieces. -- Calidum 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - let's be realistic - there were different conspiracy theories going back & forth on both sides throughout Trump's term - we've endured 4 years of clickbait media on steroids over party politics including 2 impeachments in a Democrat-controlled House, and 2 acquittals in a Republican-controlled Senate. Left-leaning sources sensationalized the impeachments while right leaning sources downplayed them. The side that downplayed it turned out to be correct - he was acquitted - and its the same song, second verse with the Russian collusion conspiracy theories, yet the conservative sources were downgraded, not liberal sources. We've endured boatloads of speculation, sensationalism, and just plain ole political rhetoric in all of our news sources - not one of them stayed in the dugout for that game. If you downgrade this source, then downgrade them all because they all played the same clickbait political game to their respective political demographics. As for the OP's reasons for wanting to deprecate - let's go back in time - read this article, and let's deprecate all of the sources who promoted the Democrat's belief that Bush stole the election. That's how silly it all looks with retrospect. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable WP:ASPERSION and dispute personalization, —PaleoNeonate – 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Option 4 - The fabricated election fraud claims and spurious COVID-19 information are enough to deprecate this source. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - The promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories is particularly concerning, to me, as that is specifically a type of medical misinformation. Here is a tag they use on their website to flag such articles. A couple examples I have noticed under the tag are: Why I Think The Wuhan Virus Was Likely Man-Made But Escaped By Accident, and Mask Fanatics Have Officially Abandoned Science To Control Your Life. EDIT: Here are some more tags they use on their website to flag COVID-19 related articles: "Pandemic", "masks", "vaccines", "World Health Organization", "COVID-19", "coronavirus", CDC, and "Wuhan Virus". Just in case somebody wants to take a wider sample of what content they publish relating to these matters. --Chillabit (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 i.e. oppose deprecation. The Federalist is a significant voice on the Republican right and is therefore usable as opinion. But it is a source for opinion, not for fact. As far as I know, the Daily Mail publishes minimal opinion. feminist (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 with reluctance and surprise. I came in here ready to !vote Option 3, however, my standard first check is to see if RS reference the source. As I've repeatedly said here, we cannot undertake independent textual analysis of any source to determine its reliability. Our only standard (with a small number of exceptions) is if RS think the source is reliable. The most cursory of checks finds its original reporting recently sourced by FactCheck.org [43] , KIRO-TV [44], The Guardian [45], NBC News [46], and others. Since it also has a physical personality by which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes and the appearance of a gatekeeping process, I am only left with my personal, independent analysis to justify a !vote below Option 2, and Wikipedians - including me - are not competent to undertake independent textual analysis of sources. Obviously WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Option 3, leaning 4 Pure opinion that frequently veers into literal fake news, especially with health care and election topics. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4: I've thought this was missing from RSP for a while as an obvious "red or worse" listing. I would have initially thought option 3 but the conspiracy theories around the 2020 U.S. election and COVID-19 pandemic are completely disqualifying from taking this website seriously on anything. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the two biggest issues of the past year in the US (COVID-19 and the election) should totally disqualify a source as RS. NightHeron (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. You can find good and bad in it, but as far as The Federalist is concerned we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. It certainly shouldn't be used for factual claims, but no one has presented any evidence that the Federalist falsifies the opinions of its contributors. If a person's opinion is relevant to the article, and that opinion has been published in the Federalist, then the Federalist is an acceptable source to report that opinion. The extra step of complete deprecation is unnecessary. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Seems like a clear call. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The conspiracy theories around the covid-19 and the election fraud says it all.Sea Ane (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. The Federalist has repeatedly promoted both the stolen election conspiracy theory (see articles with the "election fraud" tag, per Elliot321) and COVID-19 conspiracy theories (per XOR'easter, Chillabit, and others), thus crossing the threshold for deprecation. — Newslinger talk 06:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per NorthBySouthBaranof, XOR'easter and David Gerard. starship.paint (exalt) 09:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• 'Option 4 a partisan organ of opinion that is widely noted for its conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per its publication of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the wake of the 2020 US presidential election.Grnrchst (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. The evidence presented clearly shows that this source repeatedly published false and fabricated information and promotes conspiracy theories. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2, by the reasoning given by User:Atsme Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

• Previous discussion from 2019 indicates similar problems with deliberate promotion of conspiracy theories by the Federalist. Here's some 2018 promotion of conspiracy theories:[47]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories[48]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health"[49]. If advocates have any excuses to offer for this history of fabrication and deliberate misinformation, that would be useful to hear - otherwise this looks very deprecable - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Covid conspiracy theory, how is it different from all the newspapers that said that masks are mostly needed for people working with patients [50]? This was an article from April 2020 when we knew little about covid and even expert opinion fluctuated a lot. Do you have other examples (I haven't voted yet)? Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• There is this usage of the editor by the BBC, alongside usage of university professors. [51] -- --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the "political editor" being on a podcast translates to the website being reliable. People get chosen for panels, interviewed on TV, etc., for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just because they're visible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronos Encyclopeadia

Hi Folks! Does anybody consider the Russian Chronos encyclopedia to be reliable as a source? It is located here: [52]. I have an editor who is using it at: Draft:Peter Moskatov and I have a feeling it is a bit dodgy as it doesn't even have a site x509 certificate. It could be good, but don't know. scope_creep^Talk 19:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The website had been Russia's largest online history resource, widely used by scholars in Russia and elsewhere as a unique source of biographical and historical material." [53] and "Hrono.ru offers a chronology in Russian. This chronology is very detailed and can be viewed by century, by clicking on any of the century or decade links seen at the top of the page" [54] seem to put in the reliable side. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

RFC: Encyclopedia Chronos

This is an RFC to determine if the Encyclopedia Chronos is a reliable source. It is located at [55] It has no Wikipedia page and the site itself doesn't have an SSL certificate, perhaps indicating it has been run by a team of volunteers with little money. It is a Russian encyclopedia that I've seen used in multiple places but up to this point, it has not been investigated as an RS. There has been no prior discussion apart from the previous two statements. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Responses

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

• Is an RfC really necessary? Has the source been brought up here before? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Canary

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

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

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

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

Responses (The Canary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 or 4 They regularly publish fake news as evidenced[56] by Stop Funding Fake News. I will also repost the links from a last discussion nothing has changed
  • • "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Topple, Steve (27 September 2017). "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference". The Canary. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • Lewis, Helen (27 September 2017). "The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks". New Statesman. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
    • "Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 2020-11-19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2 There is little evidence of unreliability but as a study just released indicates "a strong editorial focus on criticising the government’s right-wing policy agenda, as well as opposition towards mainstream media – notably BBC news" then attribution is probably the safest course for the present.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3+: The last time The Canary was discussed on this board, several examples were given of bad reporting, including misleading and sensationalist reporting, and of widespread description of its content as "fake news" by reliable sources. I'm pasting here my one set of examples I posted then: As well as (a) the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg,[57] and (b) conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[58] (c) it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor.[59][60][61][62]; (d) as well as Grayzone contributors, it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[63] (e) it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[64] (f) it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[65] (g) one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[66]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[67] (h) it published a Daily Mail-style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[68] (i) it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[69] (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[70][71] (k) before setting up the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[72] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[73] and (l) it published Pizzagate-style fake news about Seth Rich's murder.[74][75] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour,[76] Owen Jones[77] or Momentum's David Osler.[78] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough inform ation for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Here's another example (m), from a 2018 article by the editor. Headline: "Israel put up a £1,000,000 bounty for Labour insiders to undermine Corbyn". Lede: "The second release from Al Jazeera‘s undercover sting operation on key members of the Israel lobby in Britain revealed a £1,000,000 plot by the Israeli government to undermine Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn." Dig into the actual story and you get a quote from Middle East Eye saying "Masot described taking delegations of Labour members on trips to Israel and told Joan Ryan, the chair of LFI, that he had he had been approved £1m ($1.2m) to fund further visits." In other words, money isn't "to undermine Corbyn" but to fund visits to the Middle East.[79] That's dishonest reporting which goes way beyond mere bias (and plays into antisemitic conspiracy theories). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Can you pare down this list to examples that you actually think are fake news? You've included a mix of complaints, many of which don't have to do with accuracy. Just taking one of your points, (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack, you accuse The Canary of spreading fake news, and insinuate that it's somehow being funded by the Russian government. Your only non-broken link to source this claim ([80]) itself looks highly suspect. It's a website that appears to be dedicated solely to attacking the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party, and the website also appears to have completely ceased publishing around the time that Corbyn left the leadership. It complains that The Canary quotes someone who pointed out that countries other than Russia have Novichok (which is true, not fake news). Essentially, the complaint is that The Canary did not immediately accept the UK government's claims about the Salisbury poisonings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I've given two examples above of how misleading reporting which plays into antisemitic tropes: (e) the example [81] given by veteran Marxist writer Bob Pitt (previously Ken Livingstone's researcher and editor of the website IslamophobiaWatch), who shows how an article by John McEvoy[82] is misleading: the source the Canary cites[83] shows that Starmer received some £455,000 from wealthy donors, but the Canary only ignores £405,000 of this and reports jsut one donation, by the only Jewish donor, Trevor Chinn, who is described by the Canary only in terms of his support for Israel, leaving out his long history of Labour party activism, philanthropy and support for pro-peace groups such as Yachad (compare e.g. this JC article[84]), i.e. no actual lie but would be dangerous to use this as a soure for factual claim about Starmer's funding or Trevor Chinn; and (m) the piece about the "£1 million plot" which I've shown has an actually false headline and lede. In addition, I've given an example below from an academic joural article[85] which describes a misleading report in the Canary about the extent of antisemitism, which the academic summarises as a denial of anti-Jewish racism, suggesting that if their article was used as a source on antisemitism our content would be misleading.

You also ask about state-sponsored propaganda. The examples I gave of that were (c) where they republished (from a deprecated source) articles that were part of a state-sponsored disinformation campaign against a journalist in Nicaragua;[86] (i) the publication of Russian-sponsored stories about the Salisbury attack, claiming various perpetatrators other than Russia (this[87] is one example, which claims to "unravel" the "Russian spy story" (i.e. the version we now know is true), citing as its authority conspiracy theorist Annie Machon on the Kremlin's RT.com platform), which were never retracted now this is beyond doubt; and (l) the several articles they published showing Seth Rich was the source of the DNC hack, which are all based on false reports that had already then been revealed to come from the Kremlin[88] to obscure the fact that Russia had done the hacking - see our article Murder of Seth Rich. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2, as I don't think that the evidence presented here amounts to a blanket ruling of Option 3 for all their content. However, it should always be attributed (as it is clearly a biased source), and when it comes to Israel and Jewish-related subjects (broadly construed), Option 3 likely applies. Obviously, anything from their "Off the Perch" section is clearly meant to be regarded as satire. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm having a look at Google scholar to see what academics say about The Canary. It's difficult, because "the canary" is not a very easy search term so needs to be combined with other terms such as "media" and still takes time to find the references. I'm adding some of these to our article on the website. Here are the first few I've found:
  • General reputation for hyper-partisan reporting and sensationalism:
    • Leeds University political scientist Jonathan Dean wrote in the peer-reviewed Sage journal Politics in 2020 that "websites such as Evolve Politics, Skwawkbox and The Canary have aped a more tabloid style, with short, punchy headlines and an often rather sensationalised style of reporting. The Canary, in particular, has faced criticism for its highly partisan presentation of political news stories, with critics often deeming it symptomatic of the rise of so-called ‘fake news’".[89]
    • Three UK media studies scholars from three different universities in 2018 in New Media and Society: "In the fallout from the 2017 UK general election there was much discussion about the growth of sensationalism in online political news as a result of the popularity of new, ideologically-slanted news sites such as, for example, Breitbart UK and Westmonster on the right and the Canary and Evolvepolitics on the left."[90][91]
    • A 2018 Routledge book on new media and journalism by two journalism lecturers: "If there was a British equivalent of Breitbart it would be The Canary... It is a simplification to say hyperpartisan news is automatically fake news. What unites these sites is a commitment to report stories that they believe that mainstream media ignores. In this respect, they see a role of expanding media plurality and provide a platform for alternative voices. Kerry-Anne Mendoza, Canary editor, states the site's aims: 'Today, a handful of powerful moguls control our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative. One that isn t afraid to challenge the status quo, to ask the hard questions, and to have an opinion.' (Canary n.d.) Their skilled use of social media optimisation when promoting stories on social media has meant their stories are often widely shared. In some respects they share the traditions of journalism, e.g. they usually seek to break exclusive stories and expand the public debate. But with a strong commitment to a particular political cause their reporting is by definition one sided."[92] (chapter 3)
  • Specific examples of misleading reporting:
    • Leicester Uni (and now Kings College London) scholar on digital media Daniel Allington, in the specialist Elsevier journal Discourse, Context & Media in 2018 gives an example of misleading reporting: "both the pro-Corbyn online tabloid The Canary and the website of the Israel-critical organisation, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, presented the research positively but reported it selectively in order to create the false impression that the finding was that only those on the political right were likely to be a problem for British Jews (see JFJFP, 2017, Micner, 2017). This was in effect a denial of racism."[93]
    • Labour Party scholar Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, wrote about the Portland Comms conspiracy theory: "McCluskey suggested that these sinister forces could be linked to the public relations firm Portland Communications – an organisation which he claimed had clear links with Tony Blair and the Labour right. This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an article published on the pro-Corbyn website The Canary that (falsely, as it turned out) argued that the firm had been directly behind the attempted coup (see Topple, 2016). "[94] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to note that your source is Vox, whose article in turn recycles The Canary's own hatchet job on SSFN, coincidentally published when we were in the middle of our last discussion of this page. What I wrote then: Actually this is a good example of why The Canary is not a generally reliable source. Article is billed as an "Exclusive" and opens with "The Canary can now reveal that" but the information they are "exclusively" "revealing" is the SFFN's own publicly available Companies House listing, plus a listing of the "associations" Imran Ahmed, plus a mention of the fact that Rachel Reeves is connected to it (a fact already in our Wikipedia article as it's "revealed" in previous, reliable reports), a nudge-nudge-wink-wink dressing up of the fact they know nothing about SFFN's funding to make it seem suspicious (now why on earth would donors to a campaign against fake news suppliers such as Westmonster and Tommy Robinson not want their names to be in public?). The "associations" they "reveal" are essentially that some of the people involved are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking. They note the fact that "CCDH also shares its address with “Blue Labour” campaign group Labour Together", not mentioning that 116 businesses on Companies House share this address.[95] (And in fact Labour Together is not a "'Blue Labour' campaign group"; it involves some people who are in Blue Labour, but others (e.g. David Lammy) who aren't.) In short, the mix of innuendo, guilt by association and sensationalism in this article show why most people consider it generally unreliable. You seem very focused on the fact that Rachel Riley has some connection to SFFN, a point amplified by your Vox source, which says I won’t comment too heavily onthis [sic] as This Writer is currently being sued for libel (on very tenuous grounds) by Riley. Suffice it to say that she has been fighting her own crusade against Jeremy Corbyn and left-wing politics for several years now. In fact, of course, Riley won the libel claim.[96] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Option 3 Per information provided by Shrike. The Canary is generally unreliable.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3, The Canary is fully unreliable, bellow minimal standards of Wikipedia, borderline antisemitic, absolutely bias.Tritomex (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what people are referring to when re "blaming Zionists":[97] Should be placed alongside, for example, the misleading article about Starmer's "Israel lobby" funding noted above.[98] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

• Option 1: As per Thryduulf, Jontel, G-13114, Burrobert and others. Yet Another RfC on the Canary, three in one year, what has changed since last time? Nothing. The Canary has a political bias, its a rare British left of centre news source; all news media have political biases, many equally strong the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) apologies for forgetting to sign. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4 - based on the evidence cited above, and what I have previously seen of The Canary's articles, I would say that it at least deliberately distorts through selective reporting. I certainly don't think the comments above comparing it to The Guardian, which always attempts in its news articles to represent the truth, albeit from a clearly leftwing stance, are even vaguely close to the mark. If I had to wager money on the accuracy of reporting in The Canary or the Daily Mail (which, as is well known, has been deprecated) I would take the Daily Mail every time (and would take the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC before either of them). It may be accurate for a small selection of items, largely about the goings on in the left wing of the Labour party, but beyond that I would see it as generally unreliable. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Clearly at least option 3 and I would argue option 4. This is, in my view, a distinction without much of a difference, as The Canary is simply not an appropriate source for Wikipedia, for the same reason as Occupy or Breitbart. It's an agenda-based source that twists facts to suit its narrative. Fine for the faithful but no use to us. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: people confuse political stance with factual bias. A source can be extremely far from a mainstream political view and still rely only on clear factual content to make its case, while another can be fully mainstream and almost entirely wrong. The Canary has a significant left-wing political stance but the reason to avoid usage is simply that it's tabloid-level garbage. The paper has selectively chosen facts to further anti-Semitic conspiracies; it's made flagrantly irresponsible reporting about a suicide; and it's made plenty of incorrect claims. (Sources already provided in the discussion above.) I also think there's WP:BLP concerns with its deliberately provocative language towards living people—one of the things that tipped me over the edge is that I'm just not comfortable with looking at a References section and seeing "Matt Hancock's audacity is off the scale as he refuses to apologise for breaking the law" or "Marr just told one of the biggest lies of the pandemic, and it could impact all of us". Headlines are not reliable sources even in many reliable online news sites but the body of these articles continues the very worrying and extreme rudeness. We might see similar on certain topics in the Daily Telegraph or The Times but we see it on every article in The Canary. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, sensationalist tabloid.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 There seem to be some serious issues around how their bias affects what they say. There seem to be some serious issues around fact-checking and tabloid excesses.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Multiple academics comparing them to Breitbart is a deal breaker. Breitbart is the gold standard of bullshit (the Mail by comparison, is a real newspaper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) — Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AttackTheMoonNow (talk • contribs).
• It's a tabloid - treat it the same way you would any tabloid source, i.e., unreliable under most circumstances. We already have guidelines for this. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per above discussion. The canary is generally unreliable.Sea Ane (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the unreliable nature in sensationalism and promoting falsehoods as demonstrated above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per regulation via IMPRESS and regular and prompt updates and corrections. (it is also rated as reliable by Newsguard and MB/FC if people here think that they matter). ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. BobFromBrockley and others have highlighted examples of inaccurate and poor reporting. It's not a good publication, both for its content and opinionated-beyond-the-point-of-usefulness nature, and shouldn't be used as a source for factual claims or to support notability. Ralbegen (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per above. Many of its articles exist for commentary and don't often act as sources in and of themselves. Their original content does often prove to be unreliable, with a clear and present bias. I don't think it deserves to be deprecated, but it should definitely be treated as a tabloid.Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Space.com

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

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

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

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

Survey (Space.com)

• Option 2 Pretty marginal for scientific topics, prone to uncritical churnalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Lots of syndicated content, for which we should bypass them and go to the original source anyway. Items that are churned press releases are no good, while the occasional posts by credentialed experts are probably OK — even if they're not much more than blog posts by astronomers, that can still be fine by WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mu — there seems to have been very little discussion about it at RSN means we shouldn't have one of these RFCs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 from my experience. ~ HAL333 00:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Close this RfC with no result: This is an inappropriate RfC, as others have explained. If there's a specific question about use of space.com for a specific claim in a specific article, then the filer should create a new section to ask that question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw this RFC and pretend it never happened. (The method for withdrawing an RFC is just to remove the RFC template at the top of the section. It's very easy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 IMO is in general reliable. ExoEditor 02:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, they do alot of churnalism and reprints and mainly present for a popular enthusiast audience.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. It is a reputable online news site, manned by professional editors and journalists. Won an Online Journalism Award for Breaking News by the Online News Association for coverage of the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster. Received Webby awards in the Science category in 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Do "Webby" awards actually indicate quality or just industry insider access? Are they qualified to judge the accuracy of scientific reporting, which is what we would be relying on space.com for? Ironically, the website for the Webby's is almost un-navigable (who decided that "selecting more than two criteria in a search form" should require registration?), so finding the criteria they use for awards is not easy. Their pages for space.com don't seem to have any significant information at all. More recently, a science Webby was given out for a redesign of a website that just recycles press releases. And what does an award from nearly two decades ago mean for their reliability now, after two changes of ownership? XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1.5. I'd say they are fairly reliable, but a bit given to sensationalizing. They are fine for use as a secondary source. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1.5. Most of their material appears to be lightly-edited press releases, but those press releases tend to come from sources like NASA or university press offices that are somewhat reliable (but lacking in independence from the research they report). So I think they should be treated as equally reliable as the original press release: ok for reporting what was discovered, not ok for opinions on its significance nor for contributing to notability. I don't think they remove reliability from the press releases, and they can be useful to cite when the original press releases might no longer be available. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - I don't see any glaring issues with this source, and no specific examples of its use have been cited as being problematic. It is generally reliable in its areas of expertise, and has a strong editorial team. Of course it would be subject to normal editing guidelines to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is a reliable news site.Sea Ane (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 Brought here by a bot. Generally reliable, though like many other sites given to some sensationalism and such. Also agree this probably didn't need an RFC unless someone was actually challenging the sourcing provided by this site. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments (Space.com)

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

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

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

Space.com reliable?

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

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

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

IMO it's option 2: generally reliable.

Option 1: Reliable.

Option 2: Generally reliable

Option 3: Not reliable.

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

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

Lesbian and Gay News

Is Lesbian and Gay News a generally reliable source?

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

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

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

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

• Not Reliable. This is an anti-transgender hate site. See [99] and [100]. And they appear to be letting that agenda spill over into factual claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable they appear to be unable (or possibly unwilling) to distinguish opinion from fact. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral regarding deprecating as suggested below. I have no arguments against it but I'm not familiar enough with deprecation of sources to know whether it is the sort of thing we do for sources that are not widely used (and I sincerely hope this never becomes widely used). Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It is uncommon for non-notable sources to be deprecated, if they are sparsely used. If a non-notable website is repeatedly inserted onto Wikipedia pages by multiple editors in an inappropriate way, the website is much more likely to end up on the spam blacklist, instead. — Newslinger talk 23:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for citing attributed opinions, but not for unattributed statements of fact - whether the opinions are WP:DUE or not is a separate issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• It's brand new and clearly agenda driven, apparently being closely tied to the LGB Alliance. The stories labelled as "reports" contain just as much opinion as the opinion pieces. Not a reliable source. Fences&Windows 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• More reliable than PinkNews is not a high bar. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • From WP:RSP: "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." Fences&Windows 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I have found PinkNews to be generally reliable on purely factual claims, biased in opinions (as one would expect) and completely and utterly unreliable on the subject of whether a particular person is LGBTQ+ or whether a particular person is homophobic -- especially historic figures. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Possibly too early to tell? They clearly have an agenda, but there are many RS that do. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  It's worth noting that Boyz got into controversy back in November after their twitter account retweeted the LGB alliance [101], which in combination with the email address does indeed suggest that there is some kind of connection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not RS Bias doesn't inherently make them reliable or not nor should being transexclusionary (nor does it suggest they are representative of a given group's POV). My concern would be this appears to be a very new source with no track record. Thus we don't know if they get the facts right and we can assume, at this point in time, no one is referencing their work for either statements of opinion or fact. Thus we shouldn't either. The source may evolve over time but that needs to be seen first. Even if their POV was uncontroversial the question of track record would stil be a concern since we need weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Where did this website say it was anti-trans rights? Did it say it was against equal educational opportunities, equal employment opportunities, equal housing opportunities, the right to organize, the right to camaraderie, the right to representation, the right to vote...? If it didn't say that, then you can't say it is against trans-rights. If it takes the stance that it is against gender identity, it has the right to do so. That also doesn't equal anti-trans. The website does not center trans people, and it isn't supposed to. It is for gay men and lesbians. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  If it doesn't cater to trans people, why are nearly all of it's articles about trans people and/or their rights? Not that their POV is related to their reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Rad Fem Ish says, If it (the site) takes the stance that it is against gender identity, it has the right to do so. That also doesn't equal anti-trans. The website does not center trans people, and it isn't supposed to. - I would make the argument that by presenting gender identity as the major threat facing gay and lesbian people, the site is precisely "centering" trans people - as a key existential threat, and "othering" them at the same time. The idea that the standing of (non-trans) gay and lesbian people is threatened, for example, by the availability of and desire for facial feminization surgery is a rather unique "take" on gay and lesbian experience. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable: The site is young but I checked out a few articles where I had previous knowledge and they had basic facts right, with a clear distinction between opinion and fact. That may change over time but those I looked at were in keeping with what I have seen in other WP:RS such as Newsweek or The Guardian. Certainly WP:RSOPINION so far, so WP:AGF and watch for issues later. Rorybowman (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rorybowman (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  WP:AGF is a policy that applies to Wikipedia editors, not external publications. The reliable sources guideline demands sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and a new source with no track record – such as Lesbian and Gay News – does not meet that requirement. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable I don't think this conversation should have been opened for a few months, tbh, so that we could have seen LGB's track record better before making determinations (and I have to say that it's unlikely to be even considered fairly with a write-up like this one). But since it has been, I have read through almost everything on the site and find it very reliable for factual statements. It covers topics in the lives of gays and lesbians that are given little to no coverage elsewhere, like being a racial minority in the lesbian community. It's well-written and avoids sensationalism. I've seen comments claiming that it covers "mostly anti-trans" topics but this is certainly false. The majority of articles aren't about trans people at all. There is a gender critical viewpoint that certainly many editors strongly disagree with, but this should not disqualify it in any way from being considered a reliable source. The views are presented from the POV of women's and lesbian's rights and don't depict trans people as bad or predatory. It's a reliable source as far as I can see and shouldn't be discounted due to personal disagreements with its views. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it factual that "Transgenderism, transing LGB youth, is just the latest form of homophobia"? Urve (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Urve, you represented that very dishonestly in the into to this discussion - that is a direct quote, attributed to someone and in quotation marks. You claimed "They report as fact, for instance, the notion that..." and do not mention that they are quoting someone in the article and make it clear those are the subject's words and not represented as fact or as the voice of the publication. That's a huge difference and I'm sorry, you should not have biased the intro so heavily. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA. It is attributed, but it is also reported as fact that the comment is made "astutely". Synonyms include intelligently, correctly, wisely. Is it factual? Urve (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Opinions can be astute (and are frequently described as such). It is an opinion that is correctly attributed to the person giving it and which you falsely represented as being presented in the voice of the publication as fact. You have every right to disagree with that person's opinion, but not to misrepresent it as the publication's own voice. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • It is reported as fact that the speaker "accurately assess[ed the] situations or people; perceptively" when they said that transgenderism is homophobia. Is that factual? Urve (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
            • Urve, it does not say that at all and you need to stop making false claims to bias a discussion. Likewise, please stop haranguing me over and over with a question I have already answered, because I disagree with you. I understand this is a very contentious topic and feelings run very high, but this is not conducive to mutual discussion or debate. Thank you.Lilipo25 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
              • A quoted definition is not false. As you wish, though my question was never answered. Urve (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Those reports are about how gender identity and some aspects of trans activism are affecting THEM as GAY MEN and LESBIANS. Gender identity and trans activism affects them in a big way, unbeknownst to other demographics of people. Lesbians and gay men have a right to talk about it and define it in their own way. Also there are other sections on the site such as books, films, theatre, and interviews. Rorybowman mentioned the sources, so no need to go back over that. It's a new website, and again, penalizing it because that POV runs counter to yours or another group's is petty. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• reliable This website contains a number of articles, both opinion and factual, that are of relevance to people who are lesbian and gay. It has a range of contributors and viewpoints. It is a new website but the articles I checked were factually correct. As @lilipo25 states, the website is a gender critical viewpoint that some editors disagree with. Of course, this should not disqualify the site from being considered a reliable source. Reliability should be the sole factor in assessing the site. The articles I read and checked were factual and reliable. MandyMB (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MandyMB (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• reliable I am bemused by the reactions here. I have followed Pink News for some time and am surprised PN is considered a reliable source, It seems mainly filled with hit pieces and unresearched articles. I have read most articles in Lesbian and Gay News and am pleasantly surprised by the quality of journalism and the balanced reporting, seeing it is a publication with a gender-critical stance. I'm sure many will disagree with its editorial policy, but that is no reason to reject it as a source. MCleaver (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mcleaver (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Note: User's first edit for two years. A definite sign of off-wiki canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Anyone else noticing a bunch of SPAs showing up to this discussion, particularly ones with account creations within the past two weeks? And they seem to all have a particular stance on the topic. Just an interesting observation. Silverseren^C 06:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, my thoughts exactly. Urve (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Definitely something fishy going on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    The PinkNews (RSP entry) RfC in July 2020 (which is in the same topic area) was subject to off-wiki canvassing, as documented in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305 § Off-site canvassing – see the Wayback Machine archive links of the tweets by @feministbirther and @lil_p12345 at the bottom. I've added the "not a vote" banner to this discussion as well. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Judging by the SPA's activity, it seems likely that the initial canvassing was to the Equality Act (United States) article, and this is a spillover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    I've tried searching the internet for the canvassing and have found nothing. Some of the accounts have legitimate histories so it is very unlikely that they are all sockpuppets. I suspect that the canvassing may be happening in private communication channels like discord. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swagsevo.This is closed, please do not edit it - the case has been passed to ArbCom instead. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is so wrong. I have done nothing wrong, and instead of waiting for the SPI to be done to show that, you post a link for anyone who disagrees with my views to pile on there with more accusations and make me look guilty before the investigation can even be done. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for news, reliable for stating (POV) opinion, in the same way as we'd treat far-right US news sources as being reliable only for confirming the opinions of people quoted there. Though I'd hope that generally there'd be better sources than a "news" site set up with a hate group. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Biased sources are fine, but this is a single-issue publication in a highly controversial space of political discourse, and I don't see how citing it would improve Wikipedia.--JBchrch (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not Reliable No reputation of fact-checking, fringe position on matters of sexual identity, and prone to propaganda. I would compare it to the Völkischer Beobachter, as they are little more than mouthpieces of political organizations. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable in lieu of someone describing its fact-checking process. Most of the comments above are about people agreeing or disagreeing with the website's opinion. Whether its opinion biases its factual content to the point of unreliability is a question to ask after working out what the corrections processes are, whether the writers are professionals and what fact-checking protocols there are. I see one of their journalists, Jo Bartosch, has written for some reliable publications and some less reliable publications. Unclear so far. I can't find much out about other journalists from random spotchecks. And I can't find anything out about their editorial process (their "About" pages seem distinctly like those of websites I generally categorise as "assumed unreliable" when writing articles or conducting quality reviews). So unreliable until someone can provide evidence of known-to-be-reliable sources citing the website and describing what their fact-checking processes are and giving a more compelling case of their journalists' credentials. — Bilorv (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is reliable for the opinion of the contributors but unreliable for now in terms of factual coverage. I tend to agree with Bilorv, I see no evidence of fact checking because the publication is so new. Classification as a "hate group" seems entirely unwarranted, although I can understand why many transpeople and advocates of the same take great exception the position it takes. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand, the source in question is the publication of an organization that has been fairly characterized as a hate group (again, these guys are extremely open and clear about who they hate and why) but the source is not itself contended to be a hate group. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  While not necessarily agreeing with them, I don't personally consider the LGBA to be a hate group, they don't seem to tick any of the boxes. I am aware that some people consider them to be, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don’t personally consider them to be one either, but it is a fair characterization which appears to be supported by WP:RS (not just transpeople and advocates of the same). Wikipedia doesn’t designate hate groups, that isn’t part of our process and the term as used by the posters here does not appear to be factually inaccurate or have much bearing on reliability concerns. For example Falun Gong’s Epoch Times is clearly deprecatable regardless of whether an editor considers FG to be a cult or religion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I know some campaigners and politicians describe them as such. That allows us to quote the campaigners not to say they are a hate group in wikivoice, therefore nor should we automatically exclude this website as such due to its connections to them. Neutral academic sources use the term "trans-exclusionary" that is absolutely fair comment.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Too new to say anything. There were only launched a week ago ("We only launched on Friday but we have been overwhelmed..."), and spell out their viewpoint. It is simply too early.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Treat it the same as all the other in-house publications of fringe organizations. If we don’t use scientific racists, young earthers, or climate change loonies, why would we give a platform to TERFs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be blacklisted ASAP.Moxy- 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• This RfC is premature. There's no way at this point in time that this source can be deemed either reliable or not reliable because it's too soon for anyone to have an opinion based on its publication history. The creation of this news site was announced in February 2021; the announcement was made by the founder, David Briddle: "Read our announcement here on why we're launching Lesbian and Gay News: "Most UK and US lesbian and gay news outlets now embrace an all-encompassing umbrella belief in LGBTQIA+ as the only perspective through which they are prepared to report the world."" – February 3, 2021, Twitter. As seen in the above-noted "We only launched...." link, it was officially launched on Friday, February 26. It has published a mix of articles, such as "A teacher writes on why we must include lesbian and gay history in our schools", "Living and Loving in the Age of AIDS by Derek Frost: this poignant and informative autobiography records a devastating era for gay men", "Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love, 1850s-1950s", "Out and proud lesbian writer, performer and activist Rose Collis: The show must go on". This RfC needs to be shelved. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure how time is supposed to change the clear unreliability of the "news" source. Also, you really had to go out of your way to cherrypick those articles. The featured article on the top of their website right now is Dysphoric – Fleeing Womanhood Like a House on Fire: An interview with documentary film-maker Vaishnavi Sundar, which is promoting an anti-trans film. And let's look at the first one you listed. The teacher one includes the factually incorrect line "Gay and lesbian historical inaccuracies run rampant, from claiming the Stonewall Riots were started by Marsha P Johnson, to suggesting that any woman in trousers was actually ‘trans’." And the rest are reviews you have to go down the page a bit to find, past the myriad of other anti-trans articles. Silverseren^C 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    Don't focus on me. Focus on the fact that Lesbian and Gay News has no track record. Whatever the initial variety of articles may be, the publication is still too new for anyone to have an opinion about its journalistic quality. There are many publications that I, personally, may not like but that doesn't mean they aren't a legitimate source for use in Wikipedia articles. Time will tell with this one. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    The lack of a track record of fact checking actually makes it unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes, regardless of the accuracy of it's content. However, in this case spot checks of the articles that it has published to date show that all of them contain either clear and blatant factual inaccuracies, nothing but opinion, and/or an undifferentiated mix of fact and opinion. All three of these would disqualify an established source from being regarded as reliable (with the possible exception that some its opinion's might be DUE, but that cannot be the case for a source with no reputation). This is all completely independent of what its opinions are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    If an author with an established reputation pens an opinion piece in the Lesbian and Gay News ... that opinion is as legitimate for citing as an opinion published in a different publication considered controversial but still used as a source. Too many responses to this RfC display an obvious lack of objectivity. Just because someone doesn't like some of the contents of a publication does not render that publication unacceptable for an encyclopedic project. But, believe when I say, do not waste your time responding to me as it will not make a difference in my opinion regarding this RfC -- which is that at this time it is jumping the gun. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

    If the author is a subject matter expert and their opinions are WP:DUE then we could cite LAGN for the attributed opinions, however it is always preferable to cite such opinions from reliable sources per WP:RSOPINION. Opinions reported only in an unreliable and/or very small publication are very unlikely to be DUE as they are unlikely to be representative of the views of whatever wider group they claim to represent. See also Aquillion's comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable, not even for opinion; effectively just a personal website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. I would avoid even using it for opinion, since how can we know that it even accurately represents the opinions of anti-trans activists? Taking what could be a handful of random cranks on the internet and presenting it as representative of a movement or a broad swath of opinion isn't the appropriate way to cover opinions, let alone facts; there should be plenty of higher-quality sources that can be used for comparable opinions if we require them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  That’s not how citing opinions works. Even “Mein Kampf” is reliable for stating the opinions of its author. Granted, there are very limited situations in which it would be appropriate to mention that particular author’s opinion... but IN those limited situations it is reliable. That will be true here as well. The limit when discussing opinion is a function of DUE/UNDUE weight, not reliability. ANY source is a reliable primary source for itself. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  That is untrue; you are thinking of WP:RSSELF or WP:ABOUTSELF citations, which are different than citing something via WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSSELF requires that the person being cited be a subject-matter expert in the area their opinion is being cited for, even when cited solely for opinion, while WP:ABOUTSELF generally restricts them to articles about themselves and their activities; it does not allow them to be arbitrarily cited for their opinions in other articles. WP:RSOPINION is much more restrictive: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Note the some and the extremely restrictive nature of the prime example. While WP:RSOPINION sometimes allows a slightly more relaxed standard than that provided the source is broadly reliable, it is absolutely not a blank check - you could not, for example, cite a Reddit post via WP:RSOPINION, even if the identity of the poster was unequivocally established; it would have to pass the much stricter requirements of WP:RSSELF. Otherwise absolutely any source could be used with in-line attribution, which is simply not true - it isn't a matter of WP:DUE; even when using an in-line citation and therefore presenting it as an opinion, WP:RS still applies. WP:RSOPINION imposes additional requirements when citing things from a RS that are presented as opinion; it does not allow people to cite opinions to completely unreliable sources - it (or at least the venue where it is published) must still, broadly, meet the requirements of fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS imposes. "Mein Kampf" is citable because it was published by a reputable publisher, not because WP:RSOPINION allows us to cite opinions to whatever we please - if, hypothetically, Hitler had a Reddit account or a website comparable to this one, we couldn't cite it for opinions outside of the very narrow allowances of WP:RSSELF / WP:ABOUTSELF. Under limited circumstances we could use such a website to cite what the author believes in articles about them (and nowhere else), but such a source absolutely, positively cannot be used to imply eg. "this is what people with this opinion believe in general" in a broad article about that topic - generally speaking, only opinions published in sources that pass WP:RS, or things by subject-matter experts, can be used in that fashion. That is the meaning of WP:RSOPINION saying some rather than all; we must still have quality sources even for opinions. Otherwise (among other dangers), citing an opinion to a source that fails WP:RS could result in eg. a random crank's opinion getting presented as if they represent people who they don't. --Aquillion (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've learned a lot through your well-written comment. Thank you; will have to do some more thinking about this issue for the future. Urve (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Too new, and anti-trans sites are really just reliable for their own opinions, not factual reporting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable relatively new, with a clear bias and no good track record of reliable reporting. Opinions could be attributed but are probably undue weight. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for most of the reasons that have already been stated. The site is very new and clearly exists primarily to publish anti-trans thinkpieces. Potentially reliable as a source of the opinions of its contributors, but certainly not for anything factual. Aquaticonions (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable The original content (even those under 'Reports') are all opinion based, so there's no original factual content. The interviews (which I would consider the site as a whole to be reliable for) are just syndicated from Boyz (magazine), so all informative content can easily be found from another source. Uses x (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Kommersant

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Kommersant's reporting?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Kommersant)

• Option 1: The New York Times appears to have cited reporting in Kommersant for information on controversies in Russia and the Caucasus (1 2 3 4). The The Wall Street Journal writes that "Kommersant, which was at the center of Moscow’s political intrigue in the 1990s and has since been widely viewed as one of Russia’s more independent publications, is owned by Uzbek-born billionaire Alisher Uzmanov, a tycoon with close ties to the Kremlin" and that the paper has come under fire for firing journalists that speculatively reported on the future on a member of the ruling United Russia party. Politico appears to have used reporting from Kommersant uncritically, but did so with attribution. The Washington Post appears to have cited Kommersant's reporting in making its own reports (1 2). The BBC has used reporting from Kommersant regarding the identity of an alleged US-Russia double-agent. It appears that the newspaper is generally reliable and independent, though there are some concerns regarding its independence from the Kremlin and reasons to conclude that the source may very well be biased. Kommersant does not appear to have a reputation for fabricating information or for publishing false information, so I think deprecation is out of the question. Its reporting should probably be attributed in-text — though RS seem to indicate that it is more independent from the Kremlin than most Russian media, some RS appear to report that Kommersant may still have some bias in its reporting on political issues of interest to the Russian government. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see the comment above. Also, Kommersant has been called one of the three most respected newspapers in Russia by the Guardian [102]. Specifically in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh war, the information on the combatants should reflect what the majority of RS say, so if it's only Kommersant who claim that Turkey was a party to the conflict, I wouldn't include it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2, before May 2019, but option 3 after the story with Ivan Safronov junior when many people left the newspaper [103]. But one should always also check who were authors of specific publications.My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, only due to media freedom issues in Russia and possible Kremlin coercion, otherwise this is one of the best Russia has to offer.Nyx86 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 due to limited media freedom in Russia. As reliable as they can try to be, with the limited media freedom in Russia, independent media are not allowed to publish things that go against their government and their interests. Therefore, source shouldn't be used for conflicts/international affairs that the Russian government has interests in (e.g. Syria, CAR, Nagorno-Karabakh). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think there is a good reason to deem Kommersant deprecated. Though, editors should be cautioned about its usage when it comes to Russian government-related topics, like foreign wars that carry Kremlin's interests and domestic issues such as human rights abuses, as the Russian government pressures the free media within the country. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, from the point of view of a native Russian speaker I can say that Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media [founded back in 1909] and never found unreliable articles till today. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It depends on the topic. Overall, we have much better Russian sources than Kommersant, so it is very important to know where you want to use it and why.--Renat 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Kommersant)

• As usual with these kinds of sources, it should not be used as the sole source for political matters the Kremlin is involved in. Turkey stands accused of providing Azerbaijan with better weapons than Russia, but Russia and Israel still remain the largest two suppliers of weapons to the country overall. From Al Jazeera "But analysts agree that the main risk for Turkey is if Azerbaijan crosses one of Russia’s red lines". [104] Spudlace (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• (Outside observation (Editors mentioned)): Just an observation I wanted to state that isn't directly about Kommersant. First, I know almost nothing about Kommersant or the discussions leading up to this RFC. In the initial RFC though, Mikehawk10 mentioned 3 editors, each with different points of view. Armatura is a new editor with less than 2,000 editors, however, they have been an editor for 14 years. Grandmaster is an experienced editor with over 22,000 edits, however, it appear maybe 200-300 of his last contributions have been related with the topic of the war. I don't know his status with it, but there could be a chance for a bias especially with that many edits on a topic. Solavirum appears to be an experienced editor with over 10,000 edits and his last 500 contributions seem to be a decent variety of edits (not just on a topic). Out of the 3 editors mentioned, Solavirum's comments to me would be the most "reliable" in terms of why it should not be used just due to the latest edits they have done. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Elijahandskip, hi. I didn't wanted to opine here. I'm currently topic banned from the issue, and I don't think it is to best to use my comments to see the source reliable. Though, I appreciate your comment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: I agree that the initial dispute isn’t about Kommersant generally, but rather its specific application. It got me curious into whether or not the source was useable more broadly, which is why I created the RfC for the source’s general reliability, though obviously there are additional considerations in making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note — Գարիկ Ավագյան, an editor for 11 years with just under 4600 edits (including deleted edits), was also mentioned in the RfC as being in favor of treating Kommersant as reliable. It seems like there was no local consensus on the source's specific reliability during the dispute that inspired the RfC, though this RfC is (was intended to be) about the newspaper's/website's general reliability.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is heading down an odd path. Please read WP:CON. The consensus of discussions is determined by the quality of the arguments, not by edit count and seniority. Editors do not have a reliability-ranking that grants their opinion more weight than another editor's opinion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That is why I said this was an outside observation. I wasn't making any contribution to the discussion other than stating the editors that were mentioned and a brief thing about them. Sorry about missing Գարիկ Ավագյան. The point of my thing was basically what Mikehawk10 said which was no local consensus. Also Schazjmd I know about WP:CON, however, I have discovered that editors with more experience are probably more likely to do their "research" on a topic and are less likely to have a strong bias. I wasn't meaning for my thing to be a long rabbit hole discussion, but it was just to help show a "no local consensus" without stating that. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Below is the portion of the initial opening statement that has been moved from above to shorten the statement per Redrose64's comment: — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have recently closed a discussion on the talk page for the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. This discussion was relatively close, and there appeared to be no local consensus regarding the reliability of Kommersant, a Russian newspaper that the BBC has described as :one of Russia's leading business broadsheets and the flagship of the Kommersant publishing house." The source is based in Russia, which is a country with relatively low press freedom.

One user in the discussion, Armatura, wrote that this Kommersant source was a reliable source regarding the status of Turkey as a belligerent in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Another user, Grandmaster wrote that the reporting of the paper on this topic "[c]annot be considered anything but gossip" due to its use of an anonymous source. A third, Solavirum curtly told Aruatura to "read WP:RS", but did not elaborate. Գարիկ Ավագյան also seemed to indicate that they believe that Kommersant is a reliable source. None of the editors appeared to appeal to WP:USEBYOTHERS.

The BBC has reported that the newspaper publication has protested against court-ordered censorship, though the BBC report that I found is from 2005. There have been some previous discussions on this noticeboard that have involved the use of Kommersant, though none appear to have a consensus one way or the either. —Initially posted as a portion of the RfC summary by Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media and is a reliable source. Russia seen as an authoritarian country with no press freedom which gives "not appropriate" impression that all media are state-owned and unreliable. However, if this goes about involvement of Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not only Kommersant reported this based on its own sources but also Sergey Naryshkin who is quite notable figure Russian Today, RIA Novosti. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding the NK conflict reporting by Kommersant, especially on the issue of Turkey's involvement, Kommersant's reporting was nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification. I would not call that high quality journalism. In general, I would say that Kommersant should be used with certain care, because the quality of reporting is uneven. But I would not say that it is totally unreliable as a source, it just depends on a particular article and journalist. Grandmaster 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance

The Institute of National Remembrance is a Polish authority in charge of researching, archiving and prosecuting WWII and Communist-era crimes. It was nicknamed the "Ministry of Memory" by scholars.

Starting on March 4th the article underwent a "cleanup" of criticisms, including some high profile sources (cf. before and after). Some of the removals include:

• An interview with historian Gideon Greif as "low quality"[105]
• A paper of record as "not meeting source requirements" (see discussion)[106]
• An article by historian Jan Grabowski for "[involving] personal dispute"[107]
• A criticism by the Simon Wiesenthal Center as "outdated recentism"[108]

Considering the scope of the changes - I've challenged 28 of the diffs myself - I'd rather more eyes were on this. Discussion is taking place here. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This was originally posted at NPOVN, but since the issues encompass both NPOV and RS I've decided to move it here. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FR, I thought you were going to wait for my full response before escalating the dispute. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't "escalation" - you made close to 40 edits in the span of a few hours, and I doubt that page even has enough watchers to go through them, so I'm inviting others. What I wrote has to do with the risk of fragmenting the discussion (you only replied on six of the points, and I wasn't sure if you're even going to reply on the rest), not with asking others to opine. François Robere (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway. It's not true it was "nicknamed"... anything. One scholar called it that though despite the fact that some editors are trying to pretend otherwise, this wasn't meant in a negative way. It was described as a "Ministry of Memory" in the sense of an institution, like many others across the world (for example, Yad Vashem), whose task is to preserve historical memory.

For others - the Greif link, youtube interviews are indeed low quality sources and that reference wasn't even needed. Haaretz does indeed does not meet sourcing requirements here, particularly with an article based on information provided by user who has been globally banned by the WMF (which you know very well for obvious reason). Even without the sourcing restriction we wouldn't be using this.

The AP source is also problematic. First WP:NOTNEWS. This is old stuff and has not received long standing coverage. Second, man, just look at that headline: "Poland urged to fire publisher". Like, wtf? Is "Poland" a person or something? Like do you ever see a source that says something like "United States urged to fire a publisher"? Or is "France" ever "urged" to do something? "Canada urged to be less polite" "Mexico urged to host fewer parties" (actually I wouldn't be surprised if there was a headline like that) "Germany urged to do something about its popular music". "Malta urged to honor more cats". "Britain urged to implement sinks in its bathrooms that actually make sense". Whoever wrote that headline is seriously tone deaf. The headline is just a prime example of some real bias, bigotry and prejudice - when you treat a whole country as if it was some kind of a monolith with everyone in it sharing all the same characteristic. Anyway, that info IS outdated. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "Ministry of Memory" was used by historian Dariusz Stola (2012) and political scientists Valentin Behr (2014) and Tomasz Stryjek (2018); the latter two explicitly tie this to Orwell.

The Greif interview is not a random video, but an upload by the broadcaster, a national television station. I could cite it as {{cite episode}} just as well and you'd be none the wiser.

Haaretz is a papers of record that routinely covers the situation in Poland. That particular piece cites historians Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, and was subsequently referenced or syndicated by a dozen global outlets, from the Corriere della Sera to Deutschlandfunk Nova.

We're citing the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the IPN itself, not the AP headline, but if it bothers you so much we can cite at least the Center directly. As for NOTNEWS - that's debatable, especially as there are so many of these "NOTNEWS" events with the IPN... I'm not sure how it's "outdated", though - did something happen with the publisher since then?

And these are just four diffs out of 38... Shall we take it back to the TP? François Robere (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

latter two explicitly tie this to Orwell Ummmm... they "tie it to Orwell" by explicitly noting but NOT in an Orwellian sense. Come on FR! If a source "but not in the sense X" and you show up and say "look! The source ties it to X!" that's kind of... inaccurate. It's as if we were discussing some person making lots of money and I said "they made lots of money but not in a dishonest way" and someone said "see! the source ties their riches to dishonesty!". That would be a pretty straightforward misrepresentation. Volunteer Marek 15:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Behr (2014): "Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance (INR) is often referred to as the “History Ministry” or “Memory Ministry.” The success of this Orwellian terminology is undoubtedly largely due to the media controversies that its work has often provoked... [but] it would be wrong to see the INR solely in this light. Beginning in 2005, it became the vanguard of Poland’s “historical policy,” a fully-fledged government historical program aimed at serving the state’s presumed interests that was commissioned by Poland’s new leaders."
• Stryjek (2018), in the context of "identity policy" and the politicization of the institute: "[The] previous management was ready to get feedback from representatives of the Polish humanist professorship and learn how experts evaluate their activities, organizing conferences on its image and duties every few years... Under the new management, these directions of research and action were abandoned. Concentrating almost all the functions of the state’s remembrance policy in Poland, the National Remembrance Institute, together with the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage (MKiDN), approached the ideal of the Orwellian “Ministry of Memory”." François Robere (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry, thought this was referring to Stola who explicitly states "not Orwellian". The Behr quote is referring to the terminology which is used in regard to the Institute in political discourse not to the institute itself.

As far as the "Ministry of Memory"... this is honestly kind of strange. The name of the institution is Institute of National REMEMBERANCE. Remembrance. In fact a possible translation of the name into English would be Institute of National Memory (though that's not how sources have translated it). So why exactly is it suppose to be surprising that the word "Memory" is mentioned? It's the same thing as "Remembrance". And the existence of such an institute is not at all unusual in countries with big historical traumas. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, the Grief interview was not even necessary and in this particular instance may not meet sourcing requirements.

You know very well what the background of the Haaretz piece is so why are you going out of your way to avoid addressing that background? Should we really use pieces that really on mis-info provided by users who have been indefinetly banned, for good reason, by the Wikimedia Foundation? (Neither Grabowski nor Drayfuss is the part being cited here - and neither is an expert on Wikipedia, which is what they're being quoted for, and both are making fairly ridiculous assertions about how Wikipedia works ("hundreds" of editors being paid by the government of Poland to edit Wikipedia articles - lol lol lol)

Again, NOTNEWS and outdated. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Greif was one of three sources. That's not WP:TOOMANYREFS.

why are you going out of your way to avoid addressing that background Because, put simply - it's not covered by Policy. Of course I know Icewhiz is a sore spot for several in the community, yourself included, and I try to respect that; but from where I'm standing this is just another source, and there's nothing in Policy to suggest that we should discard it if it otherwise 'fits the bill'.

Neither Grabowski nor Drayfuss is the part being cited here They are. The statement in the text is about politicization, and both experts are cited in that context. Dreifuss: "Since the law changed, the IPN’s fundamental role has changed. Today their official mission statement is to defend Poland’s reputation, and it is in that light that they should be viewed." Grabowski: "today [the IPN] are focused on Holocaust distortion – they are very simply the new face of this revisionism".

The case itself is fairly unusual, you'd agree, and was covered in a bunch of places other than AP.[109][110][111][112] Why is it outdated? François Robere (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

this is just another source - but that's the thing. It's NOT "just another source". It's a source based on misinformation contrived together by Icewhiz, a person who was indef banned by WMF. And actually in both cases where that source was used in the article 1) it was not necessary and 2) it didn't actually support what was being claimed. So there's MORE THAN ONE reason to not use it.

I don't know if the case was "unusual". tvn24 and information.dk ... doesn't exactly show widespread coverage. Of something that happened four (?) years ago and hasn't come up since. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the experts quoted above were mislead by Icewhiz about the IPN (which is what they're cited for), or that their statements do not support the claim that the IPN is politicized (again what they're cited for)?

Re: "necessary" - for an article like this and a claim like that, it's both necessary and common to have 2-3 citations (see WP:TOOMANYREFS), and the fact that you and Piotrus so easily removed two out of the three sort of makes the point.

I don't know if the case was "unusual" It's akin to a university press appointing someone who published creationism books as deputy director, which is to say - not at all common, and the fact that the guy kept his job even less so.

something that happened four (?) years ago and hasn't come up since Actually it has, in connection with the Greniuch incident.[113][114] François Robere (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no indication of any sort in the diff you provide to "connection with the Greniuch incident". And what I'm suggesting is that that article just isn't a good source and shouldn't be used. Volunteer Marek 07:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the diff is just Piotrus's removal of the Greniuch incident from the article; the news bit is the one that ties both. François Robere (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a fork of the discussion taking place at Talk:Institute_of_National_Remembrance#Mass_removal_of_criticisms and of little relevance to RSN. Perhaps WP:NPOVN might have been better, or an RfC on article's talk page. If any editor wants to discuss whether a particular source is reliable or not, a section should be started for that source here. On a side note, I don't think there was any 'mass removal of criticism' anyway, this is a rather exaggerated claim (heading). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms appear to be quality publications and opinions of note. The IPN article downplays the awful reputation of the IPN, it is ostracized now by all liberal media in Poland, and criticized world over. It is known for employing political hacks from Law and Justice and even neo-Nazis from ONR in order to appeal to Law and Justice's base. The IPN is described as:

"the Institute of National Remembrance, a state body that has spearheaded efforts to keep history on a narrow, patriotic path" -- The New York Times

"As part of this struggle, in 1998 Poland created a state-run Institute for National Remembrance (IPN) to research and document losses suffered by the Polish nation under the Nazis and Communists. IPN has a history of ignoring or explaining away Polish complicity with the Nazis. IPN has appointed Dr. Tomasz Greniuch, head of a major city branch. Greniuch, a far-right historian, founded a chapter of the National Radical Camp (ONR) group, a successor to a pre-war antisemitic far-right organization. As the leader of an ONR chapter, Greniuch advocated neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacist ideology, far-right rhetoric and participated in neo-fascist rallies and marches." --[115] Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum

--Bob not snob (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• tl;dr, sorry, so I checked only diffs with allegedly improper removals:

1. - [116]. That's YouTube.
2. [117] - This source mentioned the subject of the page only in passing.
3. [118] - Excessive sourcing, the statement is already supported.
4. [119] - Arguably undue on the page: there are many squabbles surrounding this organization; how many of them would we like to keep on the page?

Bringing this to WP:RSNB was ... bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Please don't tl;dr this. It took me three hours just to check those 38 diffs; then some more to already explain what's wrong with these four:

1. An interview with historian Gideon Greif... [uploaded] by the broadcaster, a national television station. I could cite it as {{cite episode}} just as well
2. IPN isn't mentioned "in passing", it's highlighted: Dreifuss: "Since the law changed, the IPN’s fundamental role has changed. Today their official mission statement is to defend Poland’s reputation, and it is in that light that they should be viewed." Grabowski: "today [the IPN] are focused on Holocaust distortion – they are very simply the new face of this revisionism".
3. The only reason that statement is "excessively sourced" is because some editors won't allow more criticisms in the lead, leaving all of the criticisms to be represented by that one statement. We should expand that statement so it's less dense, not cut it further. Also, mind the ref wasn't removed because it was "excessive", but for "involving personal dispute", whatever that means.
4. And shouldn't we mention if "there are many squabbles surrounding this organization"? It's pretty unusual (cf. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum#Controversy, Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes#Controversies). François Robere (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It took me three hours just to check those 38 diffs; then some more to already explain what's wrong with these four [long explanation]. OK. Obviously, you do not expect such complex content issues to be resolved on this noticeboard? Here people only comment on general reliability of specific sources. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, please read what I wrote: Considering the scope of the changes... I'd rather more eyes were on this. Discussion is taking place here. François Robere (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But just on the point/diff #4. Oh yes, the story that involves Milan Kundera (Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes#Controversies) is highly significant and rightly included on the page. By comparison to that, someone working as a director of a publishing house that had published fringe books is absolutely nothing, undue. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying that "someone published something about Milan Kundera" is more DUE than the IPN appointing a publisher of David Irving as an executive in their publishing house; a right-wing extremist as head of their Wrocław branch, and a Holocaust denialist as head of education in Lublin, in all cases justifying their actions and avoiding action when they're discovered? François Robere (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. I can see that one of books by Irving was published by Macmillan Publishers. Does it mean that Macmillan Publishers are somehow right-wing or extremists? My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: In 1987, two years before he started publicly denying the Holocaust. You know when when Wingert published him? 2009-2014.[120] François Robere (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• <sigh>. This is a topic area which has been heavily dealt with by ArbCom due to the poor behavior of several editors working in the area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is the relevant case. Due to a remedy of that case, articles and text dealing with antisemitism in Poland are held to a particularly high standard of sourcing, per WP:APLRS. Given the LONG history here, of which I believe both principal parties are WELL aware, perhaps this is the sort of thing that needs to be revisited by ArbCom? This has shown to be beyond the ability of the community to solve. As noted by MVBW immediately above me, this is not really the kind of thing this forum can solve, and is part of a long-running intractable dispute that has already occupied far too much of Wikipedia's community patience. --Jayron32 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: They dealt with it, but not "heavily". Despite the complexities of the subject and the connection to past ArbCom cases (WP:ARBEE, WP:EEML) they decided to cast it as a conflict between two editors, with the only TA change being WP:APLRS. It was a much anticipated failure, so I doubt anyone would be eager to go back there any time soon. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but we're all eager to keep fighting the same battles for the subsequent two years without remit. Have fun. --Jayron32 14:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Removing improper sources and making sure that the proper sources aren't being misrepresented is actually doing exactly what ArbCom already mandated (although yeah, you create more rules you get more arguments about what those rules "really mean" and you get some editors who might try to WP:GAME the rules, this kind of thing always happens) Volunteer Marek 15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
      • And frankly, what makes this topic area such a topic mess is the constant and relentless sock puppetry by a several indef bann'ed editors (Icewhiz, Yanniv, Kaiser von Europa, Jacob Peters, just to name a few). The disputes among long term regulars are really just "normal" what you'd expect from a contentious topic area. But everytime there's a disagreement the socks flood the discussions and pour gasoline on the fire. And everytime one goes away or is banned four more pop up. The 500/30 restriction helps with the most obvious ones but generally until this topic area gets a handle on all the sock puppetry, it will continue to remain a mess. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The TA was a mess long before Icewhiz was blocked. I got here on February 2018, and was immediately assumed hostile and my edits stonewalled. I couldn't even get a quote by Irena Sendler in, if it implied that there was some Polish collaboration. Jan Grabowski didn't even have an article, and when he finally had one it contained more criticism[121] than anything we ever had on the +2,000 employee IPN.[122] No, the TA was a mess long before Icewhiz was blocked, but he makes for an easy excuse for why it still is. François Robere (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
          • " and was immediately assumed hostile and my edits stonewalled" - I guess different people remember what happened differently. As for Grabowski, in all honesty, I'm still not quite convinced he should have his own articles (though I am a bit of a deletionist when it comes to BLPs) so that doesn't really illustrate much of anything. Volunteer Marek 01:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RSN should really institute a comment limit on involved parties in a dispute. I will say dismissing something as being a youtube link is not valid when it is an upload from a reputable news organization. Though I dont think that meets the sourcing requirements here. nableezy - 17:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere, going back to your original post, I would say the following

• I would agree that youtube videos are hardly a good source for that topic. If the information described there is really important, it is likely to be published elsewhere;

• Removal of Haarez doesn't look legitimate, at least, I cannot understand the pretext;

• Correct me if I am wrong, but the third diff just is a removal of a duplicated reference (no 11);
• To claim that the Wiesenthal's criticism is an outdated recentism, it is expected to demonstrate that the incident has already been resolved, so there is no need for that criticism anymore. No proof has been provided that that is the case.

In general, I think a solution would be an ARCA: if only best quality sources are allowed per APLRS, what should we do with removal of the best quality sources under a wrong pretext? That is directly relevant to APLRS, because APLRS prevented POV-pushing using questionable sources, but an alternative way for POV-pushing may be removal of good quality sources, thereby shifting balance without adding questionable sources. I think, we should ask what ArbCom thinks about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Paul,

• The Greif interview is not a random video, but an upload by the broadcaster, a national television station. I could cite it as {{cite episode}} just as well
• The third source is duplicated, but all of the refs in the lead are, and only those around the critical statement were removed (for various reasons). The reason given for this removal was "[involving] personal dispute".

I considered filing for ARCA for a related reason, so perhaps combine both; but it's only one of several problems exemplified in these edits, and I doubt ARCA (or even ArbCom) would solve them. François Robere (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a simple math: if APLRS was intended to prevent dilution of good sources with bad ones, removal of good sources is tantamount to addition of bad ones. Therefore, repeated removal of good sources under vague or poorly explained pretext should also be sanctionable at the same extent as addition of poor sources. The key word here is repeated: whereas a single removal may be just a good faith mistake, a repeated removal of sources under questionable and poorly explained pretext, which shifts balance towards some certain POV should inflict serious sanctions on those who commit it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul, it's not that simple and in fact that's wrong. Having a good source is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. There could be a lot of other good reasons to remove something cited to a reliable source - it's UNDUE, it's cherry picked, or, quite simply and of most relevance here, the source could be misrepresented (which is the issue with several instances in this particular case). That's one of the big problems in this TA (and prolly on Wikipedia in general) - often times an editor will stick whatever they fancy into an article and then just tack on a citation to reliable looking source to make it look legit, even if the source does not support the text at all. Volunteer Marek 01:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that does not make any sense. The Arbcom remedy does not prohibit removing any sources whatsoever for whatever reason. Neither do the policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: [123] François Robere (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN

What do you think about the reliability of CNN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mashable

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel S. Levine/archive1, there's a small discussion as part of my source review about if Mashable is considered RS. Last in-depth discussion about this source is from way back in 2008. It deemed it unreliable, but things could well have changed at Mashable in the last 13 years. I'm personally unfamiliar with the source, but my impression is that it has a tendency to look bloggish at times. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It is now owned by Ziff Davis for what that is worth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should Mashable be deprecated?

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Mashable?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Mashable)

• Option 4I have strong concerns about content produced by companies that are owned by Ziff Media due to its self-described advertising practices, with a particular concern about Mashable. Some of the "advertising solutions" available on the Ziff Davis Website include the solution of "[e]ditorial content alignment." Ziff media explicitly states that Mashable articles can be "custom created for your brand, serving everything from upper funnel awareness tactics to lower funnel purchase intent." Mashable does not appear to make it clear whatsoever when an article is paid for by a company versus when an article is written by its staff independently from financial influence. This article is clearly an advertisement, but there is no explicit label that the article is a paid advertisement the article's page; the only way to tell is from looking at context clues. I imagine that not all content that is produced as a result of payments to Mashable's owner are as obviously ads as this one, such as this piece, and I am concerned about the use of any source that produces content that it produces in a news-like style without revealing if an article is a paid advertisement or not. This clearly fails to meet the basic standards that WP:V and WP:RS lay out for Mashable to be considered a reliable source.

Mashable brands itself as "the go-to source for tech, digital culture and entertainment content for its dedicated and influential audience around the globe." But, as far as I can tell, Mashable should never be used except for non-controversial self-descriptions, because it utterly fails to distinguish any real journalism it may perform from custom content hosted on the same website that has been produced as a result of payments by brands as a part of Mashable's money-making practice of "editorial content alignment". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Option 2 for non-sponsored content, per below, and Option 3 for sponsored content, like The Points Guy. I realize now that my browser privacy settings prevented me from seeing the declaration of a financial COI on the native advertising pages that Feminist and Newslinger have pointed out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1-2 for non-sponsored content, Option 3 for sponsored content; like The Points Guy (RSP entry). Chompy Ace 00:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis if an editor is disputing specific content primarily sourced to Mashable. It appears that Ziff Media acquired Mashable in 2017, so would articles published between 2005-2017 be considered false or fabricated information? A search on Google Scholar shows 18,000+ hits for older Mashable articles being used as references for scholarly literature. Two of the articles linked above are clearly marked as being from their "shopping" section, and don't appear to be deceptive to me, as in masquerading as serious news articles. The Washington Post and The New York Times (and many other reliable sources} have shopping sections as well, earning revenue for them. In my opinion, if the content to be included is that significant or notable, then there are probably other sources available, if you don't want to use Mashable. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, per the discussion below. It's a youth-oriented website written in an informal style. Sponsored content should be avoided at all costs, and advert-like content is likely inadvisable when there is a better source available, or when looking for high-quality sources (such as in the FAC that motivates this discussion). Likely good for internet culture, entertainment reviews and some simple uncontroversial facts, but care should be taken on a case-by-case basis. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think editors will consider it reliable for the Syrian Civil Conflict or the most controversial articles but they might accept it for entertainment and pop culture articles. Spudlace (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Per my comments below, it is a low-quality source for science and technology and better sources will almost certainly exist. It is higher quality and mostly reliable for contemporary pop culture, but care should be taken to avoid sponsored and advert-like content which can be inconspicuously marked. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per the discussion above.Sea Ane (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-sponsored content, Option 3 (can be 2 depending on the level of analysis within the article; use editorial judgment) for sponsored content. Both of the examples the discussion starter pointed to are "Mashable Deals" articles under mashable.com/shopping/ URLs, and both are labeled "Shopping" at the top left corner. I find it puzzling that the OP suggests "no explicit label" for paid content: both examples include the text If you buy something through links on our site, Mashable may earn an affiliate commission. This appears to me to be a clear declaration that Mashable may be paid for purchases made via their Shopping section. And if the concern is with Ziff Davis in general, why single out Mashable among their sites? feminist (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for subjects like pop culture, media, internet culture, etc. Option 3 for sponsored content. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 for non-sponsored content, which is generally fine, but not necessarily the best. Option 3 for sponsored content. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, it is not the best source but it is better than nothing.--Droid I am (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Mashable)

Pinging Hog Farm, Emir of Wikipedia, and Yitzilitt. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mashable details their sponsored content on the "Branded Content Sponsorship" page. Looking at the examples (e.g. "Click Here for the Origin of the Buzzword 'Clickability'"), the sponsored content appears to be labeled with the word "Advertisement" in gray at the top-left of the screen on a desktop web browser – which is not the most robust disclosure, and is similar to how Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) are not clearly portrayed as non-staff authors. However, is there any evidence against the reliability of Mashable's non-sponsored content? — Newslinger talk 23:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe Mashable was acquired by Ziff Davis in 2017, so I imagine that the practice that I've detailed only applies to articles after that point. There isn't any sort of labeling in the article I linked in the survey section as far as I can tell from my browser. They've had some content issues before, including republishing content from a parody content from an obscure site as real, though they eventually issued a correction. The NY Times has given coverage to the sort of stuff that you found, which is paid articles labeled as such. Earlier articles (pre-2011 at least) seem to be bloggish and don't appear to have been made under no significant editorial oversight. Some of their earlier reporting is contradicted by reliable sources claims that "300" individuals threatened suicide at a factory, for example, while The Telegraph reports that the number was half that. So They attempted to build up some editorial oversight, but they largely gutted it in 2016. Their attempt to form a newsroom got further gutted at the time of their acquisition. Some of their early Covid coverage seems a bit off, such as reporting that "social distancing" is a three-foot separation, rather than what most media reports as six feet. But honestly the site focuses on "viral" content and has a clickbait feel to it. There are some issues with accuracy on specific numbers in its ordinary reporting, but my main issue is not that they have both some reporting and paid content.

    The main issue for me is that it has (at least after 2017) become nearly impossible to determine what is paid content and what is content that they have generated themselves. In this case, the source becomes unreliable and unusable by Wikipedia's WP:V standards.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the detailed response. The linked article from your original comment is labeled with the "Mashable Deals" tag, with the comment "All products featured here are independently selected by our editors and writers. If you buy something through links on our site, Mashable may earn an affiliate commission." This looks similar to all of the "Dealmaster" posts on Ars Technica (RSP entry), the "Engadget Deals" posts on Engadget (RSP entry), the "Verge Deals" posts on The Verge (RSP entry), and the posts tagged as "deals" on Wired (RSP entry). These types of posts are native advertisements and are considered unreliable under WP:SPONSORED, but they are generally not considered to affect the reliability of the publication's non-sponsored content. As ad blocking becomes more popular, native advertising will become more commonplace, and tech publications (whose technically inclined readers are more likely to block banner ads) are understandably already trying to obtain alternative revenue sources.

      I agree that some of the other issues you have pointed out indicate that Mashable should probably not be considered generally reliable. I am also not impressed with the non-obvious "Advertisement" disclosure that can easily be confused as a heading indicating a topic area (advertising). On the other hand, I don't see any issues with Ziff Davis as an entity, since it also publishes the generally reliable IGN (RSP entry) and PCMag. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  • No, Mashable's non-sponsored content is (generally) reliable, like Forbes staff (RSP entry) and HuffPost (excluding politics and contributors) (RSP entry) does. Chompy Ace 00:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• this article, which is not marked as an advert in any way that I can easily see, reads in a large part like an advert for Signal although the reasoning does match my understanding of the situation from other sources. A random scanning of other articles in the science and tech categories hasn't produced any red flags, but it also didn't show up anything that wouldn't be available in other, potentially better, sources. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think the article's claim that "Telegram, unlike Signal, doesn't have end-to-end encryption by default" is accurate and consistent with other reliable sources:

  • Tom's Guide: "Signal's individual messages are encrypted end-to-end by default, while Telegram's basic one-on-one chats are not. If you want to protect your communications in Telegram from Telegram itself, you'll have to start a Secret Chat." and "Both platforms offer a group messaging option. Again, Signal's is encrypted end-to-end, while Telegram's is not. (There's no Secret Chat equivalent for groups.)"
  • Wired (RSP entry): "Mimoun explained that yes, Telegram encrypts messages. But by default it encrypts data only between your device and Telegram's server; you have to turn on end-to-end encryption to prevent the server itself from seeing the messages. In fact, the group messaging feature that the Southeast Asian activists used most often offers no end-to-end encryption at all."
  • The Verge (RSP entry): "That said, Telegram has also faced its share of criticism from the security community in part because its end-to-end encryption is not enabled by default."

  — Newslinger talk 01:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Is it just speculation that this could be an advert? I think such youth-targeted websites often use this conversational, jokey style like Go forth, and choose your messaging service wisely. (Hint: Make it Signal.) so it's difficult to distinguish between a journalist who reasonably concludes they want to write a pro-Signal anti-Telegram piece, and one paid to do so. As for other uses where it's not superseded by better-quality sources, see my comment below (television/film reviews are generally "the more, the merrier"). — Bilorv (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it's speculation. It doesn't say it's an advert but the tone is consistent with what I'd expect from an advertorial. As I said I only looked at the science and tech sections, where I didn't see any errors but didn't see anything that I've not seen better elsewhere (especially in terms of depth). In other words acceptable but low quality. In contrast the articles I sampled in the "Culture" and "Social good" sections are much more in-depth and seem to be well researched and soberly written (e.g. [124]), and while I have not actively searched out equivalent articles from other sources I saw nothing that jarred with my prior understanding. I don't consume anywhere near enough entertainment news or media reviews to have a reliable opinion about how its coverage compares. Thryduulf (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Alright, thanks for the reply. Gives me enough information for the !vote I've made above. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've found Mashable useful when working in television and film-related topics, such as Every 'Black Mirror' episode ever, ranked by overall dread on pages such as "San Junipero", and David Attenborough's new book and Netflix film tackles climate crisis with a 'vision for the future' on David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet. I'm sure I could find some much better examples if I knew how to search for edits I've made that introduce mashable.com links. I guess what I need to know to continue doing this is that Mashable reviews cannot be purchased and that there's a broadly sufficient fact-checking process for simple uncontroversial facts. (It seems clear that the writers are professionals and that their critical opinion is reasonably noteworthy.) I do consider it on the low-quality end of sources I use, but it is sometimes the best source for something or a necessary source to flesh out a "Reception" section. — Bilorv (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just letting you that for whatever reason I did not get that ping, but I look at this page fairly regularly so I have not missed anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The National Interest

Article: Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

The International Monetary Fund has also warned Mohamed that debt relief will be 'off the table' if oil blocks are auctioned to companies which are not involved in actual oil exploration.

I am wondering if this is a reliable source. Amirah talk 07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Regardless of the reliability or lack thereof of The National Interest, the particular article in question is a blog post, so it must stand or fall on the credibility of the author as an expert and should in any case be used with caution. For a report of a warning from the IMF, I would think that other sources would be available and preferred. John M Baker (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

One issue at the top: from the text above, it looks like we're saying that the IMF said the words "off the table" when it's actually quoting the blog post in question. Speaking of attribution...

The National Interest is the publication of a conservative think thank, Center for the National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center) which exists to advocate a particular foreign policy perspective. It seems to have higher standards than your average think tank publication. Still, if the claim is remotely contentious (and I presume it is, or we wouldn't be here), it should be attributed in the text. In this case, it's also part of the blog rather than the journal, but it's written by a scholar from the Middle East Institute. So, still, not bad if attributed. But none of this is to say it must be included in the article, of course. Doing a quick search doesn't return any other coverage of this, so there's a valid WP:WEIGHT argument to be had on the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle

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

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

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

Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4 for the Brleft, per Buidhe for the rest; it hasn't always been so reactionary, and for most of its existence has been a paper of record for the community. It's mainly under the current regime that the malleability of facts begins. As Buidhe points out, there's unlikely to be a need to use it as a source ert Islam, except for its own position. ——Serial 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A newspaper which regularly publishes libels, and which has published articles in defense of Islamophobia. The Daily Mail is sensationalist, but unlike the Chronicle it did not accuse charity organizations of having ties to terrorism. I would not want the Chronicle used as a source in any BLP article. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The opening statement is incredibly biased for a RfC, making this RfC inherently flawed. It also contains false statements, for instance link 8 is to JVL's website, a highly criticized organization, saying it lodged a complaint with IPSO. However ISPO actually ruled there was no breach - after investigation. The JC has been facing targeted complaints (by groups accused of antisemitism) in recent years. Despite this, the number of complaints upheld is not particularly large. This is a long running news organization that is highly reputable. As for Interpal's terrorist designation, while the UK's Charity Commission on its own investigation did not find Interpal to be supporting terror, it is still designated as terrorist by the US, dating back to 2003 (Guardian coverage in 2019). Money transfers to Interpal have been blocked in 2020 by HSBC,[125] and their bank accounts were closed by multiple other banks in the past.[126] This is not a black and white situation, and rulings here vary by country.--Hippeus (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 A newspaper as old as the Jewish Chronicle is bound to have some complaints from time to time. The press in Britain doesn't have the same First Amendment protections as in the US, so libel lawsuits are much more common there. And the IPSO has been extensively criticized for being an overly bureaucratic regulator. Nevertheless, JC issued corrections and/or full retractions whenever they did make an error, which is a sign of a good WP:NEWSORG. It would probably be a good idea to use attribution for matters concerning the Labour Party. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 but with the caveat that this is strictly within the context we have been asked to consider and is not my judgement of the source’s body of work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The paper is reliable, specifics need to be hammered out on talk pages if a particular author or fact is reliable for a given citation. -- GreenC 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per GreenC, Sir Joseph, and Hippeus. The opening statement of this RfC has false statements (A post on JVL website that was rejected), the newspaper has a very long positive track record. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for both, but Option 1 for the newspaper historically as per the discussion above. It would worry me greatly to think that some of the multiple unsubstantiated or false statements they've published only in the last few years were used in a BLP. Volteer1 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for both per Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1. Possibly even Option 4 for reporting on the Labour left, specifically since 2018. (IPSO noted "significant concerns" about the handling of certain complaints and referred the JC to the IPSO Standards department as a result.) 7-8 complaints (with more on the way). in a fairly short period of time is significant for a non-national weekly publication.--DSQ (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Now it's very easy to see that Interpal has been designated as such by the US [127], [128]. Alaexis_¿question? 11:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When maps and postal addresses do not match up.

We have an issue over at Tommy Robinson (and maybe at related articles).

The government says Onley Prison is a men’s prison is in Warwickshire [[129]], as does (it seems) most sources [[130]] [[. However over at HM Prison Onley is listed as Nothhampronsgire based upon this [[131]]. So which do we use?

• (Followed you her from TR) The crux here is that an address need not be a location. Because it's on the border with Warks, it's close enough to fall under a CV postcode, and therefore the address is written 'CV- ----, Warwickshire' because of course, it would be bizarre for an address to use a postcode that didn't match the county. But Postcode areas can range far beyond their actual counties. For example, King's Lynn, Norfolk has a Peterborough (PE) Postcode—but we wouldn't address a letter to King's Lynn, PE- ---, Cambridgeshire'.
  I'd say this is a case of WP:SKYBLUE; or, use the map and {{cite map}}. ——Serial 13:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I am not seeing which of these is supposed to be based on a postal address. As a person whose postal municipality does not line up with my actual municipality, it is obvious to me that postal municipality is not reliable for geographical location, but I am unfamiliar with these sources so I'm not sure which may be in error. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• As the King[132]^{[Citation Needed]} Of Wikipedia^{[Citation Needed]} we hereby declare the following:

If we are talking about a physical location -- "Woolfardisworthy is in Devonshire" or "Woolfardisworthy is in Torridge" -- use the map. If we are specificly talking about a postal address -- "Woolfardisworthy is in the Exeter postcode area or "The post town for Woolfardisworthy is BIDEFORD" -- use the postal address.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Go with the location that is commonly referenced in reliable, mainstream sources. I am unfamiliar with UK addresses, but in the US, it is common for an address inside an unincorporated county to use the name of one of nearby cities and the same address can have several different city name variants. Graywalls (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so familar with the UK context but in general I'd go by the county boundary as shown on maps (assuming the map is reliable. Google Maps certainly isn't; I'm not familiar with Streetmap.) County boundaries would presumably be legally defined whereas postal boundaries are for the convenience of the postal service and change at random.

What seems strange in this case is that the map clearly shows the prison complex to be in Northamptonshire but the prison web site says it is in Warwickshire based on the closest town being Rugby. The site appears to be in a tongue of Northamptonshire which crosses a canal into what would otherwise be Warwickshire, and the prison itself only appears to be accessible by road through Warwickshire.

Maybe describe it was "a short distance south-east of Rugby, Warwickshire"? Technically correct, as Rugby is in Warwickshire, and is the nearest town to the prison that I've ever heard of, but doesn't actually say that the prison itself is in Warwickshire? Daveosaurus (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• This really isn't a case of reliable sources, this is a case of oversimplifying a complicated geographic anomaly. And, I might add, not one that is all that rare, especially in the UK, where there are Multiple meanings of county, and where borders change frequently enough, and where postal systems (i.e. who delivers the mail) may not use the correct county, etc. etc. etc. What we've got is a minor bit of trivia which requires much more text to explain correctly than its own value. At best, it might be efficient to describe it "Near the town of Rugby, Warwickshire" and then add an explanatory footnote about the prison being near the border but physically located in Northamptonshire. --Jayron32 12:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Coalition of Women for Peace/ WhoProfits.org

Is the Coalition of Women for Peace/WhoProfits.org a reliable source to be used in the IP Conflict area? On Israeli wine it is used without inline attribution. WhoProfits pdf, Coalition of Women for Peace Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. It is a highly partisan advocacy group with a clear agenda. It can only be used for its opinions, not facts. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)user disallowed from participating per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

Its not clear when its WP:DUE maybe only on thier own wiki page. --Shrike (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably ok for the claim being made, that Shimshon wines are made with grapes which are grown within the Occupied Territories. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, do they? Stating any further analysis from them would require attribution. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not the question here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If no one disagrees with it you could find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an academic source here, but tbh I don't think it is necessarily. All you need to do is look at a map of Israeli wine regions to see that the report is correct. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bald assertions dont really help determine reliability, use by other reliable sources do. The journal article Boynamedsue shared cites this specific Who Profits study. A bald assertion that it is "highly partisan" or has a "clear agenda" by an unnamed person on the internet holds no weight next to the considered views of academic expert, and those assertions should be ignored. nableezy - 14:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that being highly partisan does not disqualify a source. I had not noticed that the academic source cites Who Profits?, to me that more or less nails it on. This Who Profits? report is WP:RS for uncontroversial statements of fact, and is notable on the topic of Israeli wine.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable This outfit is advocacy oriented so better to attribute for anything that might be contentious. It is cited by scholarly rs with reasonable frequency and their reports appear to be mainly factual, no complaints that I know of, so that tips it for me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add that the claim in question is not remotely contentious. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable just to further clarify the evident merit of "Forbidden fruit? The Israeli Wine Industry and the Occupation", it gets 8 citations from academic sources on google scholar. Given this is a fairly niche topic, and this is the work of an advocacy group, I think that's enough to establish notability and RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This seems like it can be can be easily resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, but perhaps I'm missing something. Just attribute the statement. And bluelink the source of that statement in said attribution, to the relevant article. It is indeed an advocacy group, but from what I'm reading: this appears to be a relatively non-controversial statement of fact, but given the source, it's better to not use Wikipedia's voice. Bare in mind such a move has no affect on determining its future reliability in any other circumstance. But this seems much ado about nothing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable. The very name makes this clear. "Coalition of women for peace." Advocacy group. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable, this is an advocacy group. If a reliable sources uses their information, after vetting it thoroughly, then that is usable, but the site itself is not. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, 11Fox11 Which wikipolicy states advocacy groups are not RS? WP:RS specifically states that opinionated sources can be used.Symmachus Auxiliarus Where the source is used to give the opinions of the group it is attributed, the borders of the occupied territories and the location of the Israeli wine regions are statements of fact that are not disputed by anybody. There is no need for attribution in this case, per WP:RS statements only require attribution if they are disputed or opinion. WP:UNDUE might have been relevant, but notability has been demonstrated by widespread academic citation.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously reliable - this specific article has been cited in a number of academic works, such as Environment and Planning A, Gastronimica, The Journal of Food Studies and Comparative Studies in Society and History. Usage in unquestionably reliable sources demonstrates the reliability of this source, and as far as the claim that an advocacy group (who exactly is against peace anyway?) is not reliable, that is not a criteria that WP:RS gives as determining reliability. Usage by high quality sources however is. nableezy - 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Beijing Asks Alibaba to Shed Its Media Assets

WSJ: Beijing Asks Alibaba to Shed Its Media Assets

We probably don't need to take immediate action, but depending on how things progress, we will need to review South China Morning Post's reliability going forward. Expect more self-censorship from SCMP as the government statements will likely have a chilling effect on its journalists. feminist (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-Citing in article on James Chuter Ede

I have added a great deal to the article on James Chuter Ede, and believe that the template seeking more citation can now be removed. But I have done this by citing my own published work many times. These are my book James Chuter Ede, by Stephen Hart, published by Pen & Sword, 2021, and my article James Chuter Ede - a Model Unitarian Overlooked, by Stephen Hart, in Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society, 2020.

This should not breach the conflict of interest policy, as self-citation from published works is permitted, provided it is relevant, not excessive, and conforms with policies. I believe there is not a problem in my case, but I would value the confirmation from an independent contributor that this in order. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjshart (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Editors should not have added citation needed templates to each place they thought a citation was required but should have added one general template saying that the article needed more citations. However, in order to remove the notice, you need to provide specific cites for the information, i.e., page numbers.

Articles should have multiple sources and not rely primarily on one source. However, it's probable that your book is the only recent biography.

On another point, I did not think that the British Nationality Act 1948 allowed all citizens of the UK and colonies to reside in the UK, but that the right already existed for British subjects under common law. It's particularly confusing because later versions of the act would specifically restrict immigration from British Overseas Territories.

TFD (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD, for your help. I have added citations where another editor added several requests for them, in many cases citing page numbers in the same source, but others where possible. This book is the first biography ever of the subject, so there is little else to cite. I take your point about the British Nationality Act, and have modified the text accordingly.

Washington Post and CNN

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

---

Suggest the reliability rating of these outlets be reduced given recent retraction of Georgia Sec of State story based on undisclosed anonymous unreliable sources. Pkeets (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No. As already stated when you asked this question the first time, we expect reliable sources to retract and correct articles; that's what responsible authors and editors do when they make mistakes.

It's also odd that you have asked this same question in two venues without even giving notice in the first venue so editors who commented there can also comment here. I strongly recommend you drop a notice there both as a courtesy to those editors and also to prevent confusion with the same discussion occurring simultaneously in two different places. ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, per ElKevbo. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No but... this really is a major screwup and should be in the WP article as it has been widely covered. We have a widely circulated quote that the WP could not confirm yet treated it as if it were. It effectively means anyone can reasonably question a WP claim of "sources said X" absent evidence that the WP has first hand knowledge. That is a big deal especially since it gives a lot of fuel to the friary claims that the many in the media were more interested in publishing negative stories about Trump than actually being impartial etc (note, that last part is my OR with all the associated WP limitations). This is one of the reasons why I think Masem is correct in that Wikipedia really needs to be more cautious about RECENT political news. Springee (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the specifics out of the WaPost correction/redaction [133] - where Trump did not use a few specific passages, but used phrases which have, on broad terms, very similar meaning, the story itself doesn't change as much (in that Trump still urged this official to look for dishonesty in the GA election) and more about the reliance on specific quotes claimed on the call. In other words, there was still corroboration among sources this call was made, and its general contents, just not its specific quotes which the WA Post got wrong on first publication. --Masem (t) 13:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what to do, because . . . My biggest concern is -- was this a screw up? Or a system designed to allow this to happen? There's a reason courts don't allow hearsay. Per the OP, apparently the WaPo and CNN do. The same for ABC[134].Adoring nanny (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we need two separate discussions on CNN.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• When a news source issues a retraction thats generally a positive indicator for their reliability, not negative. nableezy - 15:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• WaPo and CNN misquoted the president's words, and later issued a correction (something extremist right-leaning media never does) but the story itself is factual; the ex-president abused his presidential authority in an attempt to unduly influence people working for SoS Raffensperger. This is the proverbial nothingburger, albeit a raw-meat nothingburger a certain type will love. ValarianB (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• No It's fairly common for major news media to run misleading and dishonest stories in order to promote a political agenda, then retract them when it no longer matters. They did this most effectively before the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, promoting false information about Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Desctruction and links to al Qaeda. (I disagree btw with Masem's view that what Trump was quoted as saying and what he actually said were substantially the same.) We have to accept that misinformation will creep into Wikipedia stories because these are after all our best sources for current events. However, policy and guidelines can help us in reducing this:

• Most of the news sources do not actually report the information as fact, but quote unnamed sources. In those cases we should use intext citation, for example, "according to unnamed sources speaking to the Washington Post."
• Where one or very few news sources have reported a story, we should assume that other sources consider it too unreliable or unimportant to report and hence per WP:WEIGHT, we should leave it out of the article.
• Per RECENTISM, we should be cautious in including recent news and should wait to see how significant and reliable the information is.
• We should also realize that there is a hierarchy of reliability and use the best sources available. Expert sources are better than articles written by journalists and peer-reviewed sources are better still.
• We should avoid using conclusions by journalists when they are outside their area of expertise. Journalists are experts in reporting what happened yesterday or today, not in what happened years ago or in political or sociological analysis.

TFD (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this part: Most of the news sources do not actually report the information as fact, but quote unnamed sources. In those cases we should use intext citation, for example, "according to unnamed sources speaking to the Washington Post." Not only is TFD correct, but this also needs prominence in a guideline. What is the best place for it, and how would one go about achieving that prominence? Adoring nanny (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• No. If your mother . . .[135] goes triple for us because we have time -- WP, etc. should be handled, thus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• No. For one thing, you're wrong on the facts (the story was corrected, not retracted; the substance of the story was accurate - the corrected wording of the quotes changes nothing about the story's conclusions.) For another, we don't expect even the best sources to never make mistakes; what's important is that they be willing to issue corrections, as in this case, and that those errors not form a pattern that suggests systemic issues. Since the correction doesn't affect the thrust of the story, it's hard to see how it could be systemic in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Of course not - As ElKevbo and Aquillion already wrote, retractions and corrections are normal part of processes in reliable sources, —PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Is NHK World-Japan reliable?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Is this source reliable?

I found this source on the internet when I was trying to find a source on Rubetsu, Hokkaido. Is it reliable because its some news company and I'm not sure? SVcode(Talk) 15:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's NHK World-Japan, the international wing of the Japanese state broadcaster. So I would count it as reliable as other major news media, particularly for Japan. TFD (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable. Spudlace (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable: This site meets all the policy requirements for WP:RS as a secondary source. That doe snot mean it cannot contain many normal biases found in news reporting.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Collider

I stumbled upon Talk:Alien (film), where some editors discuss the reliability of Collider. It is concluded there that it is a blog and not a reliable source. However they seem to have an editorial team, and has an extensive fact-check policy. This and this is also a green light to trustworthiness. What do you think? GeraldWL 03:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what general consensus (while not definitive) tends towards it not being reliable in previous RS/N conversations they're referring to over there, but the only discussion about Collider's reliability was a fairly recent one about a report on the appearance of Andrew Garfield and Kirsten Dunst on Spider-Man: No Way Home, and it was only notified on RS/N (here). The many discussions about it can be seen at Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home and its archive, but this whole issue isn't solved yet. Other than that, Collider is generally considered a very reliable source when it comes to films and TV shows, and constantly used in film-related articles. —El Millo (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, thanks for that! I was doing Jojo Rabbit which has vital Collider refs, and panicked when I saw the Alien talk page. Relived to know it's reliable. GeraldWL 05:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! —El Millo (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just be wary of any potentially contentious claims about BLP or the like - they just don't have that strong a reputation - but that said, I've never seen Collider even go towards that type of direction. They are about how films/etc. are made and avoid gossip, hence why they are reliable. --Masem (t) 05:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

A unreliable source tag as been added to the lead of Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran [136]. The reference supports the statement "also known as Israeli–Sunni Coalition". The reference is to an article from the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy [137]. This phrase is the title of this article from this source a reliable source for the use of the phrase "also known as Israeli–Sunni Coalition". I am asking specifically in regard to supporting the use of the phrase and nothing else.

I have not reverted the addition (or made any reverts to the article), this article is discretionary sanctions and has a 1RR restriction, so I wish to have clear support before asking the editor to remove the tag.  // Timothy :: talk  08:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a partisan think-tank, but a well known one. It shouldn't be used for facts, but can be used for its opinions (attributed). If it is using the phrase, I think that is good evidence that the phrase is used, and it is fine in this context , unattributed. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)user disallowed from commenting here per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

The reference is NOT The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, it is Fikra Forum

an initiative of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The views expressed by Fikra Forum contributors are the personal views of the individual authors, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute, its staff, Board of Directors, or Board of Advisors.​​

Therefore it is an opinion of a named individual and whether it is useful or not depends on an assessment of that individual as an "expert". Abdullah Sawalha is described as "Founder and Director of the Center for Israel Studies in Amman, Jordan." and I would recommend locating a better source for the intended usage.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So you’re saying that the author, Abdullah Sawalha, is a subject matter expert but you wouldn’t use them? Or you would use them but you would keep in mind that we always want to upgrade to the highest quality source imaginable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Who said he is a subject matter expert? nableezy - 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Founder and Director of the Center for Israel Studies in Amman, Jordan.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I stand by "I would recommend locating a better source for the intended usage" regardless of whether one considers him an expert. And "better" does not mean "highest quality source imaginable".Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m glad you stand by it, I agree with you. We should always be striving to include better sources regardless of whether or not the one we currently have is adequate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok? And? He made a little known think tank that isnt cited by much of anyone. Again, who said he was an expert in the field? nableezy - 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate. Theres no reason to treat this as a battleground. Either engage with basic respect and civility or don’t engage at all. If you aren’t mature enough to make that decision the community will make it for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

In what world was that immature or a battleground? You made an appeal to authority when the person isnt actually an authority. I asked you a question as to why somebody who made a think tank that isnt cited by really anybody is an expert in the field. You want to answer that or continue making things personal for reasons that are not readily apparent to me? nableezy - 16:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Could people please desist from mechanically repeating 'battlefield mentality' on multiple pages when serious editors such as Selfstudier and Nableezy, to name two, are discussing, quite calmly and with an array of sources, some contested issue. The repetition of the claim itself is a token of a dismissive approach to fellow editors, a way of not responding to quite specific and legitimate queries. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Again the only question is can this source be used to support the phrase "also known as Israeli–Sunni Coalition" in the lead of Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran.  // Timothy :: talk  18:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Its an opinion article by a non-expert in the field (expert meaning somebody with peer-reviewed works on the topic or having written books published by respected academic presses), published by an extremely partisan think tank, and as such it shouldnt be used for anything factual. nableezy - 19:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that one person no matter how much of an expert uses a description is not sufficient to say it is also called that. If an expert referred to the war in Syria as a horrible situation, we wouldn't say that the war is also known as "The Horrible Situation." TFD (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right. Also the phrase "Sunni-Israeli coalition" appears only in the title of the source, which was not necessarily written by the author of the source (titles tend to be written by copy-editors of unknown expertise). So I'd say that the source does not support the phrase even if the author is an expert. Zero^talk 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals

Content issues are being dealt with on the article talk page, conduct issues are being dealt with at ANI; nothing to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two editors make arguments about this reference handbook, Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals and seem to insist it is unrealiable and/or WP:FRINGE. The book status is at an impasse on the Talk page. I can find no deviation from Wikipedia RS / MAINSTREAM criteria, this needs commenting please. Lorandos, Demosthenes, Ph.D., J.D.; Baker, Amy, Ph.D; Campbell, Terence, Ph.D.; Freeman, Bradley, M.D.; Lowrance, Hon. Michele, J.D. (2013). Slovenko, Ralph, B.E., LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.; Bernet, William, M.D.; et al. (eds.). Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD. ISBN 978-0-398-08881-1. LCCN 2013011346.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) A Google Books sample is available. More than one option may apply. Option 1: reliable for factual reporting Option 2: Reliable WP:RSMED source Option 3: Reliable WP:RSLAW source Option 4: WP:QUESTIONABLE for factual reporting Option 5: WP:QUESTIONABLE for RSLAW and RSMED Option 6: The resource is WP:FRINGE but reliable. Editors feel the content should be excluded or marginalized. The discussion about admitting the book is being held here, your opinions are appreciated. @Arllaw, Slp1: --Frobozz1 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Frobozz, could you please explain what this means? "I am the owner of this resource: Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals".[138] Are you saying that you own the copyright, or just that you own a copy? In my opinion the book pushes a fringe theory that is often found in divorce lawsuits but pretty much never used by any mental health professional (it isn't in DSM-5) outside of being a paid expert witness in a divorce lawsuit. It fails WP:MEDRS but would be OK -- with attribution -- on a page about a legal topic instead of a medical topic. In the Parental alienation article, the claim "The American Psychiatric Association (APA) added a relational problem into the DSM-5 which causes PA but chose to include only the concept of PA into the new manual without using the words 'parental alienation' " appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It should be removed along with any other claims not directly supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Certainly. It is an expensive professional reference which I own. I hold no connection to the content, authorship, editing, publishing, copyrighting, etc. I own the resource (book) only—and only a copy thereof. I didn't consider my choice of words would weigh so heavily; the point was to differentiate my citations from those of casual Internet search results of the book. --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC) RE: The statement [was taken directly from the book], there is no WP:SYNTH. The statement comes from the Associate Director of the American Psychological Association, Dr. William E. Narrow and his committe assembled for the purpose of organizing the DSM-5 relational disorders: “ Members of the WGRP participated in Dr. Narrow's committee, which ultimately recommended that the concept of PA should be in DSM-5, but not the actual words parental alienation. ” — Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals This is what the book in question states to be a fact, so the book itself is being RfC'd for factual accuracy. You may not have known this without reading it, but that quote in question is on the Google Books sample. The claim that this theory is fringe leaves what seems like a circular problem. A theory in psychology is assumed to be WP:FRINGE while the theory's manual cites that the WP:MAINSTREAM APA Associate Director acknowledges that the concept of the theory has been published in the APA's DSM-5? The paradox is that a mainstream authority is stating that he has acknowledged a fringe theory "in concept" but not "in name" within the DSM-5; while that same APA director has collaborated on and published a peer-reviewed article which advances a known cause for the theory "in name": “ Reactions of the child may include the onset or exacerbation of psychological symptoms, somatic complaints, an internal loyalty conflict, and, in the extreme, parental alienation, leading to loss of a parent–child relationship. ” — Bernet, William; Wamboldt, Marianne Z.; Narrow, William E. (July 2016). "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress". Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 55 (7): 571–579. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2016.04.018. PMID 27343884. Retrieved 7 October 2017. The circular logic cycle seems to only be broken by a substantiated and cited claim that Director Narrow did not make the statement, IOW; that the book in question is not WP:RS as a "factual reference". Even so, should such a referrence be found, it still leaves Director Narrow's choice to collaborate with the "fringe theory" researchers and publish in peer review as fact that an APA disorder "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress" will causes the fringe theory "Parental Alienation" by name. Lastly is the consideration that other peer reviewed researchers have published the exact same conclusion, corroborating a professional consensus. I hope I have painted the paradox well. Thank you. --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC) If the question is supposed to be, "Can this book be cited as a reference", although as Guy Macon it is problematic as a reference, it was actually being referenced within the article -- so any suggestion that it was being excluded from the article is false. If you look at their publication record, the authors of the book have been anything but quiet in subsequent years, and some of their subsequent works are also used as references within the Wikipedia article. The actual objection here seems to be that some editors objected to the introduction of an incorrect claim into the article, predicated upon a fringe claim made within this specific book. The first question is thus one of whether incorrect claims, not supported by any references, should be placed within an article, the answer being "no". The second is whether the material inserted within the article is in fact supported by the referenced book. As documented on the talk page the answer is "no". The matter can thus be resolved without even reaching the question of the book's quality as a reference. More broadly, leaving aside that the book is a work of advocacy, it is also at this point eight years old. (See WP:MEDBOOK). Falling back on an eight-year-old book instead of up-to-date material seems to highlight how unsuccessful the authors have been in convincing others to support their claims or join their theories. WP:MEDSCI: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field". Getting a claim published does not of itself mean that the claim should be included within the Wikipedia. The concern voiced by editors is that it would not be appropriate to fall back on one aging advocacy book to make fringe theories dominant on the article page, and less so given the many more recent and better sources that address the same subject matter. Arllaw (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC) arllaw the statement [was taken directly from the book]. "The second is whether the material inserted within the article is in fact supported by the referenced book" — Yes, on Page 498. “ Members of the WGRP participated in Dr. Narrow's committee, which ultimately recommended that the concept of PA should be in DSM-5, but not the actual words parental alienation. ” — Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, p.498 Are you reading replies at all? References Here are two book reviews. Mroczkowski, Megan M.; Bates Billick, Stephen (2015). "Review of "Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals," edited by Demosthenes Lorandos, William Bernet, and S. Richard Sauber". The American Journal of Family Therapy. 43: 99-101. The authors are on the faculty at NYU and Columbia: Overall, this is a comprehensive book on the concept of parental alienation and provides excellent historical perspective, definitions, cases and legal underpinnings. The book does read biased at times, as the authors write in an impassioned style about this concept. For example, many of the cases described do not actually include all of the facts of the case in favor of placing blame on one parent. The most interesting chapters are those outlining the new Brazilian law and the attempts to include DSM-5 and ICD-10 as these describe relatively unknown processes and do so in a comprehensive and fascinating way. Even though scientific reliability and validity are not fully established, nonetheless, it is clear that active alienation occurs in some custodial and visitation disputes. This book is a valuable resource for any mental health professional, attorney or judge who works in this area. It would also be valuable reading for mental health professionals in their clinical work with children and adolescents who have divorcing or divorced parents. This book is a welcome addition to our understanding and to the literature on parental alienation. Wills, Cheryl D. (2015). "Parental Alienation: The Handbook For Mental Health and Legal Professionals". The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 43: 258-259. Cheryl D. Wills is on the faculty at Case Western University: This book, which advances efforts to establish consistency in terminology, classification of, and standards for PA, is a valuable resource for clinical and forensic mental health professionals and for legal and social service professionals and their trainees who work with children of divorce and their parents. Long story short, the book is reliable, but, where it is used, opinions that are contradictory may be WP:DUE per WP:MEDSCI. JBchrch (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Seriously? parental-alienation-inc.com? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Guy Macon, who are you talking to?--JBchrch (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Do a search on this talk page for the phase "the consideration that other peer reviewed researchers". Look at the references cited in that comment. Then go to Parental alienation. Search the article for "theories of parental alienation that have been proposed". Look at the citations supporting that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Option 1, 2, and 3 By definition it is a reliable source. Every user in this discussion has said it is reliable. There was even a psychotherapist who said it was reliable. --Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Hi Hotornotquestionmarknot... this is your first edit in 3 and a half years. Based on your previous edits you are very interested in this same topic. How did you find this discussion? Why was your first edit recently to say 'Hi' to Frobozz1? [139]Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Yes, I have really been editing only two months and try to soak it all up. My hope is to resolve this finally and get it properly classified on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources This is a professional reference book, as the reviews state, and as the discussion on the site has gained consensus for. However, there are exactly two editors who have made a determination with no source that the content is not appropriate. That is a fine position. We as editors are not permitted to have a position, however. We are required to locate WP:RS to make our points. This is the only purpose of this RfC: Answer the question. To date, the book review above is the only criticism: in some areas such as court hearings it omits opposing arguments. If this book is misleading, that is very important to all the victims who may be hurt. If this book is authoritative and reliable, that will also be important to the victims who may be saved. The Wiki community has the voices to answer this finally. I invite broad opinions and consensus as to the status of this alleged legal/clinical reference handbook. Thank you for your time and consideration. @AnnSec, Viewmont Viking, Lova Falk, Beyond My Ken, Shrinkie89, Memills, WLU, Pttno, Dmcemaverick, DrPax, Bali ultimate, Yohananw, Jaydubya93, Krb19, Skythrops, Luis, Linda Rosa, Ignytemedia1, Find bruce, Strawberry, Shawnwygant, Hotornotquestionmarknot:--Frobozz1 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Please do not frame this debate in terms of "victims" being "hurt" or "saved". Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Are you WP:CANVASSING other editors?--JBchrch (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC) I’m getting a strong feeling that Frobozz1 is WP:NOTHERE and is trying to use wikipedia to further their professional or personal goals rather than work collaboratively to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC) The ping list is both sides of psychological and legal discourse. Clearly my "opponents" were included. Clearly I am not advocating one side or another. Clearly there is an immense POV problem through years of personal attachment to one article, which casual editing cannot surmount. But create the wall, or opine. I asked for the latter.--Frobozz1 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC) "Clearly I am not advocating one side or another."' Clearly, that is not true. Clearly, you are a POV SPA. Clearly, you are here to RiGHTGREATWRONGS. Clearly, you are NOTHERE with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Clearly, you should be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Our Town St James

Our Town St James appears to be one of those local publications that get delivered via bulk mail to residents in specific postal areas. One the cover it says "Keeping you up to date on SALES, HAPPENINGS & PEOPLE In Our Town - St. James". In my experience, these publications are largely just vehicles for advertising with a little bit of local content sandwiched between the ads. In the masthead, it lists an "editor" and "associate editor" but most of the pieces with bylines are written by people who also have ads in the issue. The "advertising sales manager" is the husband of the editor and also runs a real estate company. Both magazine and real estate business are run out of the same location. The circulation is about 6.5 thousand issues (i.e. the number of residents in the particular zip code). Is this considered a reliable source for BLPs? Mo Billings (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It fits the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source in that it's a professionally written and edited publication, and additionally one that has been in publication for years.

Being a free local publication doesn't make it non-RS. The Village Voice was among many free local publications. The circulation figure is a bit of a red herring — a free local publication targeted to one town, like most alternative arts/culture weeklies, for example, would naturally have a circulation roughly equivalent to the population. I don't think we should be biased against small local publications — often, they're the best source for information about local residents. And even if one doesn't accept it as RS for, say, international news, it would certainly be RS about local goings-on and local residents.

Additional point: Ilana Glazer on her social media and magazines including Fast Company confirm she was raised in St. James. And Smithtown High School is the high school that serves St. James.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This really really ain't the Village Voice. Mo Billings (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I worked at a large county newspaper and there were three sets of married people working there and all had different functions. I think just because married people work there shouldn't mean it's non-RS.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't making a generalisation, just a statement of fact about this specific publication. Did you look at the sample issue linked above? Mo Billings (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I did look at it. It's a community paper with real estate ads, obits, upcoming events, upcoming celebration announcements are free per their page 80, they have lots of ads, and one "useful" story (I could find) on page 30 - with the history of "Smithtown Hunts" by a local historian. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In cases where subjects have essentially written an article about themselves (or paid to receive coverage), the story couldn't be used to establish notability and would have to follow the rules about self-published sources. It's hard to tell what is an advertorial in the publication, because many of their stories do not have bylines or special marking to indicate that (which is a normal editorial practice). On the other hand, the article on pp. 30–34 is likely to be OK, as its feature article written by a local historian. I do think that the editor being married to the magazine's ad/sales person makes editorial independence, one of the main criteria for a RS, seem unlikely—I wouldn't consider most anything about real estate in the publication to be reliable. Also this statement on the masthead is worrying to me: "We reserve the right at our sole discretion to edit or refuse to print editorial or advertising material deemed detrimental to Our Town’s public image or unsuitable for its readers." —Wingedserif (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That statement indicates to me that it is biased rather than unreliable (although there other issues that may make it unreliable). Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Everything development interviews

I've asked this question at WT:VG but wasn't really satisfied with the answer.

Nintendo Everything is considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS, namely because it's a fan blog site in broad terms. However, they often interview video game developers, and more often than not I see these interviews trying to rewrite an article (this time around Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam). So, would these interviews be considered WP:PRIMARY and allowed, or would they still be unusable? And follow-up question, would it meet WP:GA standards?

Examples:

[140] (Turned down for a kinda unspecified reason at GA nomination by User:Sergecross73, and was a translation of an interview at Famitsu)

[141] (Original site is no longer available)

Panini^🥪 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For the first link it could potentially violate WP:COPYLINK to use nintendo everything's translation of the Famitsu interview, given that it is unlikely to be authorised. I don't see any issue with directly citing the Japanese language Famitsu interview (there's nothing against citing non-english language sources), as for the second, it's probably OK under aboutself, as long as other sources corroborate that the Miiverse Miiting happened. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Yes, there's A Nintendo Life source that covers it. So I could use it? Panini^🥪 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Interviews at unreliable sources combine all of the limitations of WP:ABOUTSELF with any source-specific issues. That could be a general lack of fact-checking all the way up to fabricating interviews. Nintendo Everything is your average unreliable VG fansite: anonymous/amateur writers and editor(s), unclear editorial policies, repeating rumors, not issuing retractions (that I could find), and so on. Thankfully, I'm not aware of them fabricating stories or interviews, but then we're still back at ABOUTSELF. WP:UNDUE also becomes a factor. So maybe we can fill in some basic details, but we certainly shouldn't write the article around an interview. And if that interview is the only source to mention some fact, we really need to ask if it's important enough to repeat on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Input requested on pubpeer.com

I removed some content from a BLP that alleged irregularities (image manipulation) in papers published by the BLP, sourced to comments made on pubpeer.com. At least some of the comments were made by Elisabeth Bik, a respected scientist. I've been told that pubpeer.com is quite strict about comments, and was pointed to their FAQ. Question: should comments on pubpeer.com be considered reliable? If the comments are by a known, verifiable expert, should they be considered reliable? (I'm not considering WP:DUE yet, as it's moot if the source isn't acceptable.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation is as follows. Whatever the overall reliability of the scientific literature, there are certainly erroneous and fraudulent papers published. Many journals do not have robust procedures for correcting such errors, especially "predatory" journals. When problems are detected, the information is often posted to PubPeer. PubPeer posts must be supported and verifiable/falsifiable, and those that are "obviously erroneous" or "unclear" are removed, because of site policy and legal strategy. Although accuracy is not guaranteed by site operation, in practice comments suggesting issues are on average highly accurate. Thus, a paper with negative comments on PubPeer is far more likely to be erroneous than not. What probability of correctness does Wikipedia require to qualify for a controversy? Some PubPeer users have established themselves as world experts in the detection and analysis of manipulations of scientific images (in particular Elisabeth Bik), and PubPeer comments posted from her verified account carry particular weight; certain pseudonymous accounts have also accumulated acknowledged expertise. (I am connected with PubPeer, but haven't created a Wikipedia account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.173.191.76 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PubPeer is a interesting resource, but from what I have seen in practice a crazy mix of legitimate questions (as, yes, raised for example by Elisabeth Bik[142]), and howling woo by quacks and charlatans upset at a scientific paper questioning their beliefs. It is never reliable for any content in Wikipedia articles (unless covered by high-quality secondary sources), but it may - with extreme care - sometimes be useful in evaluating source quality. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

These are message board comments. While the site may have some standards for rejecting some, they are not the standards of full editorship. A user's comments, even an expert one, are still effectively a self-published source, and the article they are being used on is a WP:BLP. So no, not sufficient in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to explain that statement a bit for the PubPeer contributor to this discussion, who may be new to Wikipedia editing and these concerns: we have varying standards for reliable sources depending on the topic. For example, if I write a blog post that says that in cooking brownies, you can include walnuts, peanuts, or hex nuts, that shouldn't be included in the article on brownies, because a blog is a self-published source and I am not an expert in brownie baking. If Time magazine publishes an article I've written making that statement, then it can be used as a source, because Time is a reliable outlet with solid editorial standards, so their approval of my article marks its reliability. If renowned brownie expert Elizabeth Crocker publishes on her blog that one should never include hex nuts in brownies, that too is a reliable source for the brownie article, because Crocker is an established expert. But, if Crocker blogs that "Nat Gertler is wrong when he says that hex nuts can be used in brownies", that cannot be used as a source for the Wikipedia article about Nat Gertler, because that article is about a living person, and we do not allow self-published sources for articles or statements about living people. We set higher standards for those, because of the damage that erroneous information can cause. Similarly, we set higher standards for medical statements, because it's the sort of thing that the popular press can be sloppy on, and bad information can cause harm. By these sources being used in an article about a living person, at least those higher standards are required, and given the specific topic, the medical higher standards may be as well. PubPeer appears to provide a valuable service, but in this case we need editorial standards higher than "not obviously erroneous". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

An just an addendum: PubPeer is nearly always concerned with primary SCI/MED sources, so its applicability to Wikipedia sourcing is moot (since those sources are not generally reliable anyway). In general, while post-publication peer-review can be a great thing, it is also a vector for the disgruntled tactics of some with ulterior motives. In sum: not ever usable as a source on Wikipedia, but maybe interesting otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(PubPeer person) Thanks for all your comments and explanations. We aren't going to push for PubPeer inclusion at this stage, it just came up in a discussion. I'll reply to a few of the comments and we'll leave it at that for now:

- "... crazy mix... howling woo by quacks and charlatans" Untrue and unjustified. Examples on the site?

- @Nat the standards are higher than "not obviously erroneous" for anything misconduct related (in fact, it needs to be convincing enough for the site to be prepared to defend a defamation suit on a truth defence), but I understand accuracy has not been well documented

- on average, comments are much more reliable than the papers commented; that's the practical result, whatever your prejudices about site operation

Finally, it seems you do accept expert opinion. You should consider Elisabeth Bik to be an expert on the integrity of scientific images. When she affirms there is a problem, whether on PubPeer or elsewhere, her opinion carries real weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.182.89.196 (talk • contribs)

I certainly accept that Bik is to be respected in this case, and it is not a reflection on her expertise. There are very clear guidelines when it comes to sources that we can use for biographical articles on living people, and they reflect more how the item was published rather than who wrote the material. But thank you for explaining PubPeer from the inside! --Nat Gertler (talk)

Primary source, primary sources even by subject matter experts should never be used for claims about living persons. Clear exclude unless this gets picked up by other sources like Retraction Watch or something like an expression of concern is published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable and am I able to use it?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Is this source reliable and am I able to use it?

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ834219.pdf

Is it? Romblelimer (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't in the WP:RSPS list but "this source". says it is peer-reviewed and the journal has clearly been around for some time, so it should be fine. Be prepared to discuss this on the Talk Page of the article, if anyone reverts your use of it as a reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull, I have the impression that the International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 1443-1475 published by the University of Sydney is not the same journal as the one published by Shannon Research Press. Both use the same ISSN though : 1443-1475 per [143]. Not sure what's going on there. Vexations (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• This has a couple of redflags. It's not listed as predatory in Beall's list for example, but that just might be an oversight. Shannon Press is either defunct as far as I can tell, or rebranded as IJDRI, where they advertise scam citation indices like (Index Copernicus and the fake Scientific Journal Impact Factor) and non-relevant ones like ResearchGate and Google Scholar (see http://ijdri.com/iej/indexing/). It's also a student paper. This does not look reliable to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Context matters... to know if it is appropriate, we would need to know two things: 1- which article do you want to use it in? and 2- what is the specific statement you are trying to verify with it? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Greenpeace

Is Greenpeace a RS for statements of fact? Context: I'd like to use this as a source at 2021 North China sandstorm. In particular, see the "What caused the sandstorm?" section on the article. It details events that the article should include, but typical RS (journalists) aren't covering (instead, they focus mostly on the colour of the sky etc). Skimming, I can't find this information on news sources. I don't really have a reason to question its reliability, but Greenpeace is an NGO so I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable secondary source without attribution? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Having read it, my instinct is yes. Greenpeace has a good reputation for factual accuracy, and this article is very measured in its tone. It would depend on the exact wording you wanted, but I think the section "What caused the sandstorm?" is probably ok to use without attribution, using the following sections would need attribution imo. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

They have anti-science stance on GMO so I am not sure how accurate they on other stuff --Shrike (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

They are opinionated, but I don't think they actively spread false information. Certainly there is nothing concerning in the article linked, it may be that their comments on GMO might be considered less reliable, but reliability does not need to be shown for every subject. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If we take a Greenpeace article on GMO like this one, they are not spreading disinformation. They correctly say that genetically modifying plants to be resistant to herbicides encourages their use. There should definitely be attribution here, but I don't see any "anti-science" perspective.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, full of obviously false claims like "[Industrial agriculture is] only a few decades old" , or assertions of political positions like "It’s quite simply unsustainable." It is about the farthest from a reliable source for facts as one can think of. It is only good for presenting Greenpeace opinions on the topic. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the accuracy of the statement depends on our definition of "few" and "industrial agriculture", neither of which is straightforward. There are no obvious falsehoods in the opinion piece, and it is fine use with attribution. The article we are actually discussing at the moment is much less opinionated, especially the section the OP asked about. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not unless you want to stretch the meaning of those two words beyond any reasonable common usage. Machines have been used in agriculture, for industrial production, since at least the early part of the 19th century. That is an obvious falsehood, and the rest is opinion. The only thing this piece can be used for is for Greenpeace's opinion that GMO-based agriculture is bad. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The section we are being asked to analyse, "What caused the sandstorm?", consists of only two paragraphs. All but the final sentence of the second paragraph are factual and not an matter of opinion, whether that is about industrial agriculture or anything else. That final sentence, "Moreover, long-term deforestation and soil erosion in southern Mongolia have led to more severe air pollution." is also purely factual but I'm not immediately certain how relevant it is (this is a genuine unknown not me stating an opinion it isn't relevant). Indeed, I can't find any mention of "industrial agriculture" in the entire article ("overgrazing" is the closest it comes, but industrial agriculture is only one of at least several possible causes of that) so that appears to be a complete red herring. Thryduulf (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Greenpeace’s article or report length content is a RS for statements of fact with attribution. I would avoid using them for an extraordinary claim (like the definitive cause of a sandstorm) in wikivoice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• I believe that ALL advocacy orgs should be used with attribution. Whether to mention what they say (or not) should be a function of DUE WEIGHT, and not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Depends on the usage, I feel. Basic statements of facts on events? I guess so, though I feel you should be able to easily find better sources in that case. On subjects of science? I'd go with rather unreliable, since Greenpeace has repeatedly pushed pseudoscientific stances on topics (such as biotechnology) and promoted various conspiracy health claims that were not science-based. Silverseren^C 20:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• For anything but the most basic facts, it would be unreliable. And for the undisputed facts, there will be better sources. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)