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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451

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

RfC: Xinhua News Agency

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

There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.

Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try and find better sources to use in its stead; use inline attribution if you must use it. It is nonetheless a generally reliable source for views and positions of the Chinese government and officials. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

---

What is the reliability of Xinhua News Agency?

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

Responses (Xinhua)

• Option 4 Xinhua has promoted the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 originated in a US Army lab in Maryland. [7][8][9]. For another fine example of Xinhua "reporting", see [10]. We should not make an exception for "non-controversial" topics or the like. For example, for the critical first few weeks, Covid-19 was not considered "controversial". Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• The difference is that NPR is WP:Independent of Donald Trump. It is free to, and frequently does, say that Trump is talking nonsense. By contrast, Xinhua is not WP:Independent of the CCP. NPR-style reporting would be to say something along the lines of "The CCP is promoting the theory that Covid started at a lab in Maryland, but we found no evidence to support this." But that's not what they do. Per my The Atlantic source [11], "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really." That's how Xinhua promoted the Covid conspiracy. See the article which as of yesterday was here [12] and can (as of now, but possibly not for long) be found in Google's cache here [13] and archived here [14]. Unlike what NPR does, I can't find anything from Xinhua saying that the theory is nonsense. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

[15] does it precisely in the manner described by [16] - "We're just asking questions, really". Adoring nanny (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). To list just a few, The Sunday Times (generally reliable) had a long report that repeatedly hints that SARS-CoV-2 might have leaked from the WIV: [17]. The Independent then wrote its own article based on The Sunday Times' story, including new quotes from Richard Ebright, who has been promoting the WIV leak theory non-stop for months: [18]. The Independent quotes Ebright as an expert, even though his expertise is in bacteriology (not virology) and the claims he's making about mutation rates of the virus are WP:FRINGE (for example, they're completely at odds with Boni et al. 2020). The Washington Post (generally reliable) played one of the largest roles in the promotion of the WIV leak theory, with its publication of Josh Rogin's column claiming that the US State Department had uncovered severe problems at the WIV in 2018: [19]. Though this was nominally posted under "Global Opinions," it was written in the style of a news article, and was widely referenced by other news outlets (and later by the Trump administration). For example, the BBC wrote it's own "We're just asking questions" article that speculated on the lab leak theory, based on Rogin's piece: [20]. The BBC article extensively quotes Filippa Lentzos, a promoter of the WIV leak theory. Even the venerable Columbia Journalism Review (itself often used to determine reliability of news sources) wrote an article that while criticizing some of the right-wingers commenting on Rogin's story, also posed the "What if?" question about the WIV: [21]. In other words, if "We're just asking questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" is a basis for judging a news source unreliable, get ready to deprecate The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Washington Post, the BBC and Columbia Journalism Review, and possibly many more sources. Xinhua is really a very minor offender in this department. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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

  The problem with that is that it is not always immediately obvious that something is controversial. For example, who could be opposed to a reduction in terrorism, an increase in stability, economic prosperity, and an increase in happiness? [22] (now dead link, here is Google's cache, at least for the moment)[23][24] Adoring nanny (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Per the article, "As a professional in medical education, he said he was especially impressed by such figures that from 1949 to 2017, the population mortality rate in Xinjiang decreased from 20.82 to 4.26 per thousand . . ." So the article is approvingly quoting him being impressed by mortality "figures" of 4.26 deaths per thousand people per year. Sure sounds like an alternate universe. One wonders what the mortality rate is in the camps.[25] Same story for the "happiness index" he approves of, whatever that may be referring to. Are the camp inmates happy? Lastly, the article describes him as an "expert." That part is the article's statement, not his. Is "expert" really an appropriate way to define him? Does his expertise include the camps? Does it include the ability to distinguish real data from fake data? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  They do have a lot of similarities, as sources say. For example, according to US senators [26], "Similar to Russia’s state-controlled RT and Sputnik news services, the People’s Republic of China controls several media organizations that disseminate news and propaganda domestically and internationally." So, they are placed together. Also, they both appear in the controversies about the "foreign agents" in the USA. Now, according to the letter above, Xinhua is not just a propaganda organization (like RT). “Xinhua serves some functions of an intelligence agency by gathering information and producing classified reports for the Chinese leadership…”. See als o here. Yes, that appear to be a difference. In Russia such reports for "the leadership" are compiled by the GRU and SVR (Russia), not by RT. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 1, a good source.--RuiyuShen 03:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1I think Xinhua News Agency is reliable. If you say it is non-neutral, then Fox News, CNN, Voice of America and other media also have non-neutral phenomena. For example, Fox News exaggerates Mr. Trump’s political achievements and CNN has fake news. Voice of America is not neutral in some matters, and my English is not very good, so use Google Translate, please understand!Jerry (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — 城市酸儒文人挖坑 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 1-2: Most of the time, Xinhua Net is a good source for Chinese news, even it is the best one in all nationwide news agency of China.--Xiliuheshui · chat 04:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, as I know it is serious and accurate when reporting the facts, and more neutral than RFI, VOA (especially when reporting China). Compared with NYT, BBC, it has less doubts, assumptions and implies which is trying to lead to conspiracys in its reports. Maybe you dont agree with its ideas for it has a Chinese offcial background, but it doesnt mean it is unaccurate when reporting the facts. --“ ROYAL PATROL ” ^{☎ 911} 04:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 when the reports are not about China's politics. KONNO Yumeto 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 and 2 - Xinhua is a reliable source with special considerations. This is pretty clear cut to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time citing their articles: they are more reliable than many national and international news providers, except on certain topics where there is an incentive to propagandize — and likewise for SCMP. Prohibiting either of these two would have completely unnecessary and wide-reaching consequences across the project, and I would strongly oppose a blanket restriction even on politics because there are dry, non-controversial political stories where they are literally the most reliable source tangible.   — C M B J   04:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - A lot of political decision/policy from China Mainland government and China Mainland NPC are published via Xinhua News Agency as official policy release channel, thus needed to be Option 1. For non-politically news, Xinhua News Agency is fairly reliable. For political decision articles that is not marked as "Official Release", they can be in the scope of option 2. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for controversial topics and international politics and Option 2 (situational source) for general topics. Per Newslinger ([27]) Flickotown (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, mostly per Newslinger. It is a state propaganda source, so must be used with caution and attribution except the most basic information, such as the dates of Xi's trips (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Xinhua is owned by the government of P.R. China and hence they are, or could be, biased when reporting around topics like China's international policy and so on. When reporting most of China's internal news, they are still pretty reliable. Itcfangye (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — Itcfangye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 2/3, it is a state propaganda source which should be used with great care.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Xinhua News Agency can be regarded as a relatively reliable media in China, and it is actually relatively neutral except for political reports. --⌬Yxh1433 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2-4 depending on subject. Like RT is a state propaganda mouthpiece. For boring insider baseball it is probably fine. The more the CCP dislikes something or needs spin, the less likely it is to be reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 depending on topic. I came here wanting to argue 2/3 but was convinced by the arguments that (a) RT is in category 4 and (b) actually I have never written about any topic for which Xinhua was a reliable source I depended on - for topics about Mainland Chinese culture and events there are more specialist sources; for anything vaguely political they're firmly in category 3+. Deryck C. 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. As an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, use should be attributed by default, which is how their reporting is generally handled in reliable sources I've seen. Reporters Without Borders calls it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" and "at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party". Some straight news and the fact that independent original reporting from China is hard or impossible to come by for certain topics doesn't make it reliable. I think this is most important when considering due weight – if other sources don't cover something they've said, we shouldn't either, and if they do, we should be able to cite those sources instead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for most cases, while Option 4 for global news/politics of regional/global concern . It should be generally reliable in local (China) news, but when it comes to global or regional news, like that in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even that in Xinjiang, it becomes a propaganda service rather than a global news service. I can't agree with what most Chinese editors think of putting it a direct option 1 because it is the official mouthpiece of China. Being a mouthpiece means some reliable sources for news related to the location, but at the same time, can raise doubt of neutrality and factuality if the thing that they report is of global concern that doesn't align with the country's values.--1233 ( T / C） 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is state-run media, how about Yonhap, Tanjug, Anadolu Agency? If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is communist country media, how about VNA, KPL, Prensa Latina? As for Covid-19's source, Xinhua is just quoting rumors on social medias, just like some media (including US-based) said Covid-19 originated in a Wuhan Institute of Virology. I think Xinhua is generally reliable as a news broadcaster, though its political words and opinions are left-wing. 隐世高人 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of those would indeed also be unreliable. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 1 for all African and Central/South American and uncontroversial Chinese topics per MarioGom and King of Hearts. The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (and to a lesser extent Central/South America); in these regions, Xinhua has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. Specifically, I should note that English-language reporting in Africa is relatively scarce and Xinhua does help to somewhat plug this void of African-based reporting. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, there will definitely be a pro-China bias, but I don't know if this bias affects their reliability for such cases so Option 2).

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

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

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

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

@King of Hearts: With regards to uncontroversial events inside China, I agree with you, so I've amended my !vote accordingly. Xinhua is a good source for non-political matters within China and should be treated as generally reliable for such topics. As for African politics, examples like | this, | this and | this show that Xinhua is relatively unbiased so long as the Chinese government does not have a conflict of interest. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I guess for any international news reported by Xinhua it's always going to be on a case-by-case basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 It is generally reliable when the reports are not about politics.--BlackShadowG^★（talk） 09:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. Might occasionally be useful for documenting government statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. As Thucydides411 noted: If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). I also agree with Darouet re Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. A biased implementation of policy that ranks Western-aligned media that walk in foreign-policy lockstep as somehow more 'independent' and 'reliable' than non-Western-aligned media does our readers a disservice. Humanengr (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1' Option 2. No evidence has been presented of poor journalism, just criticism of the state. It has been demonstrated that there are some issues around Xinhua reporting about China. I think if we are using them as a source on say Tibet, Xinjiang or the South China sea we should look to other sources. That being said it is generally reliable, at leat as much so as a rubbish western outlet like Fox News. If being in step with the CCP makes them unreliable then surely all of Murdoch's papers are unreliable, he once ordered his editors to "Kill Whitlam" our democratically elected Prime Minister during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis which lead to the un-elected opposition taking power. We still consider his rags reliable, and many of them are despite their notoriously partisan owner. Do we have evidence of Xinhua publishing falsehoods? I've seen none. This debate is mostly just pro-china vs anti-china opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Many of Muroch's papers are also considered unreliable by our standards. I feel the issue here is less one of verifiable outright lies and more of what to do when Xinhua is the only source we have on a topic, as is frequently the case given the heavy restrictions on press freedom in China. In those cases, reliable sources I've seen make clear in the body of the text where the information came from (for both plain and dubious claims), and we should as well. That said, they also publish lies and deliberately misleading information, such as that "There are no so-called "re-education bases" in Xinjiang." or that "There are no so-called "wildlife wet markets" in China." even though the market where COVID-19 originated sold wildlife at the time. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Australia Yahoo link contained no references to wildlife wet markets. If you cannot provide a link that does, you ought to redact the entirety of your comment, lest be considered in violation of WP:SOAP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ReconditeRodent Thanks for your considered response, as always. You've convinced me there are issues with this outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 I'm no fan of the CCP by any means, and I find quite a few false equivalences between this and various Western media among the Option 1-ers, but per KofH and Horse Eye Jack I find that this is an at least tolerable Chinese source (esp. compared with stuff like China Daily) so outright deprecation would give us a systemic bias. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2. When the reports aren't about politics, it's reliable, as China's national news agency. When talking about politics, you should check their reliability separately, not deprecate. --Rowingbohe♬(Talk/zhwiki) 02:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is definitely not reliable for any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim made or any claims where the Chinese government is known to lie (COVID-19, Uyghurs, Hong Kong etc). But it can be a valuable source for non-controversial news in China as well as the views of the Chinese government. Like it or not, that government runs the largest country on earth.VR _talk 05:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I explain my rationale in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Rgr09 and Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is part of the propaganda apparatus of the Chinese Community Party/Chinese government, which does not value press freedom. Per it's article, Xinhua head is a member of the party central commitee. They will prioritize supporting the party/government's political views over truthful reporting (which has been clear to me since I came upon a clearly propagandistic article of theirs about Tibet in Google News results about 15 years ago). They should not be used as a source on any topics that are subject to those political views or are otherwise considered "sensitive" by the party/government. Those topics include, but are not limited to: Xinjiang, Uygurs, Tibet, Tibetans, the Dalai Lama, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Democracy Activists, Protests, Human Rights, COVID-19, any organization or person critical of the party/government, party/government accomplishments, actions of "rival" nations, views of the Chinese people in general on any political topic, Chinese terrtorial disputes, etc. I agree with King of Hearts that there are certain noncontroversial areas where its reporting can reliable, but the number of caveats that have to be placed on it are so great that I think it needs considered generally unreliable, and when it's used a good argument for the reiablity of a prticular article needs to be made on a case by case basis. In most cases, a better source can be found and should be used instead. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Xinhua News Agency reports on the facts. There's very little editorializing in its articles, and when there are opinions, it's just quoting government figures, (which are especially relevant, being it's news from China). Deprecating Xinhua would take away a prominant source for news in China. I also agree with some of the other comments, in that a lot of the criticism seems to come from its ownership rather than its reporting. I ask, should we deprecate Deutsche Welle because it's owned by the German government and receives all of its funding from the state? Conflict of interest with DW reporting on German affairs, politics? To me, there just isn't enough evidence that Xinhua should be deprecated based on these facts. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  At least Option 2-3. Germany is a full democracy with laws ensuring journalistic freedom, the PRC is a one-party state with laws restricting it. Their state-funded (and even public) journalism systems are nothing alike. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are here to discuss the reliblity of the source. Is there any specific issue regarding factual reporting. Not liking the Chinese government is not a reason to question an oulets reliablity. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I simply stated that you can not possibly compare Deutsche Welle to Xinhua News Agency, because such a comparison is meaningless. In an authoritarian state like the PRC, you can never fully disentangle journalism from the political system in which it exists. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 leaning towards 4. I'm surprised that we are even having this discussion. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Shellwood Any reason? Remember, this isn't a democratic vote, you are supposed to provide a reason for your vote. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Yeah, nope, no reason given for Xinhua just a simple "democratic" vote. It is annoying when people disagree. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it's not annoying. Just thought you might have a reason as to why you think the source is generally unreliable or should be depreciated. Bacondrum (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2-3. Page 2 of this study says: "Although the credibility of Xinhua is often undermined by its perceived role as a propaganda platform for the Chinese government, the newswire can and does provide foreign journalists with key insights regarding China not available through western sources." The source, like most others, should be evaluated with a case-by-case basis, as in not reliable for political or overly contentious topics, but possibly acceptable outside of that. For instance, what about journalists who have worked for both Xinhua as well as acceptable news outlets (like these people to name a few)? We should deprecate/censor all their articles as well, regardless of their quality or relevance to a Wikipedia page? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Judgments about reliability should be made on a case-by-case basis. In line with WP:GLOBAL we shouldn't be over-generalizing about reliability or unreliability of Chinese media based on Western perspectives. For example, the term pro-democracy movement for Hong Kong opposition to PRC control is the standard term in the Western media, but it's really a political spin term that ignores the complexities of the situation (and the fact that many thoughtful and intelligent Chinese people disagree with that movement). NightHeron (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I think Xinhua is a good source for the Chinese space program and the Chinese government's new policies. E.g. [28] or [29] (and similar news reports) might be important in some articles, which need exact citations of the Chinese government, data of the space program, or Chinese foreign policies on tariffs and such. The source has some opinionated contents when it comes to subjects that bear political interest to the Chinese government, but Wikipedia has also allowed some other opinionated media to be used with caution. I think it would be fair to do the same, as not to take any political position. I think there should be a bigger discussion on what to do with the various government news outlets. Whitehouse.gov also publishes fake information these days and it is also partially propaganda, should it be also banned? Senate.gov also has some opinionated contents. Why should the Chinese government's news be treated any different than the American government? Mur (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Xinhua)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caixin does good investigative reporting, as proven by their coverage on Wuhan ([30]), but because you assert that their reporting is actually illegal in China, you want to ban their use on Wikipedia. Where's the logic in that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caixin's founder and president is a she not a 'he'. And foreign praise of its investigative reporting is not hard to find. These are only two of the multiple examples out there. And like how Xinhua has a partnership with AFP, Caixin is also partnered with the Wall Street Journal Financial Review, BBC, and other accepted outlets. Just a glance at some of the journalists shows a good number of their articles have also been featured in several highly-accepted foreign new sites after all. The NYTimes/Georgia State U piece I linked also suggested at least several other Chinese news organisations to be worthy enough not to warrant a blanket ban. To call for their deprecation (not to mention just Caixin's, one of the most respected out there) based on your opinions without specific evidence against them is at best, well, highly prejudiced. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

buidhe we might as well do CGTN too as its between Xinhua and Global Times in reliability, that would be our direct analogue to RT. They also publish straight up disinformation like this gem: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020. I suggest you do as they say and "Click the video to find who's spinning a lie for the audience.” [31] TBH this one video is probably grounds for deprecation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All you have is somebody else has said this, it is really not that helpful. Do you have the link to an actual article that is in the Xinhua news network's domain that is not reliable? VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• "it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics". Here is the problem: with sources like that you never know if this is really a personal opinion by a state official or a scripted disinformation he was asked to promote, and you do not know if this is something really "non-contentious" or this is a "kernel of disinformation" about something you know little about. such tactics are generally well known [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Like this kernel of disinformation put out by gov't official, broadcast by Xinhua: [33]. Or: this bland propagandizing or this. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• A concrete lie by Xinhua I've seen repeated statements in the RfC that Xinhua doesn't lie, they are just selective. I'd like to point to a counterexample. In this article[34], Kaiser Abdukerim is described as an "expert." The remainder of the article consists mainly of quotes from Kaiser. The choice of word "expert" is therefore crucial in framing how the reader understands the article. And Xinhua introduced that word. The article then goes on to describe his reaction to various "statistics" about death rates, poverty rates, the "happiness index", and so in in Xinjiang. These "statistics" all claim to show dramatic improvements. But the Xinjiang re-education camps hold a large number of people who are utterly destitute, die with considerable regularity, and are surely unhappy.[35] A true expert would notice that the "statistics" could not possibly be correct. For example, it is not plausible that there is a death rate of only 4.26 per thousand in a region where a significant portion of the population is held in such camps. Therefore, Xinhua should not have used the term "expert" to describe Kaiser Abdukerim. But it's actually worse than that. A quick control-F shows that they use the word four times -- once in the headline, and three times in the body. So they are hammering the usage home. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• Per CNN: But Tursun's story of detention and torture -- which she also delivered in full to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in 2018 -- fits a growing pattern of evidence emerging about the systematic repression of religious and ethnic minority groups carried out by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Those are CNN's words, not mine. Based on what do you conclude that her account is "spurious"? See also [36]. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• Toned down the bolding. You are arguing that nine deaths in a single cell does not support "considerable regularity"? What about this? [37] I am still interested in your assertion that the nine deaths statement is "spurious". Based on what? Does evidence that one person lied support an assertion that a different person lied? Or do you have something more? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• That is interesting. Note to closer: people living in mainland china who don't want to be blacklisted, arrested, or otherwise punished, may not feel free to write something bad about CCP organizations such as Xinhua. People living in China are subject to punishments up to and including disappearance for expressing the "wrong" opinions.[38] See also [Ren Zhiqiang]. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The USA runs Guantanimo Bay, can you tell me how many people went through that camp, what their names were and what crimes they had been accused of, what they were eventually charged with, how much time they served? We will never know how many have been disappeared after being subjected to "extraordinary rendition", the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another with the purpose of circumventing the former country's laws on interrogation, detention and torture (A crime against humanity in international law). The USA has been disappearing people with collusion from British and Polish security agencies since the 90's and they continue till this day. Do we suggest US media sources are unreliable based on these well known facts? Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems to me that Xinhua's reporting fits the description of WP:QUESTIONABLE, so should be considered generally unreliable and fall into option 3. Consider "a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight": here is a Xinhua article that states, without qualification, in the headline, lead and article body that 'over 470,000 people gathered on Saturday in a rally held at Tamar Park'. A factual source would at the very least attribute this number to the rally organisers, and to be accurate and reliable would also say that the police estimate of turnout was 108,000 (contrast an accurate report of the same rally).

I've seen three main lines of reasoning for treating Xinhua as option 2. Firstly, per @Hemiauchenia:, that there's no strong evidence that Xinhua sometimes acts as propaganda à la RT. I point back to the linked article above. Considering the topic is a pro-police rally in Hong Kong, sentences such as 'people from all walks of life take part in a rally to voice their opposition to violence and call for restoring social order, expressing the people's common will to protect and save the city', and phrases such as protestors 'say "no" to violence', are clear, blatant propaganda. As Xinhua is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the CCP, it's fair to presume that the article is intended to mislead readers about the scale of pro-police protests, amount of popular support for pro-democracy protests and promote an image of pro-democracy protestors as only seeking violence. ReconditeRodent linked a report that confirms how the CCP controls/influences Xinhua's output.

The second argument is one that @MarkH21: and @Newslinger: make, that Xinhua isn't fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting, but simply skews, manipulates or otherwise misrepresents facts. Essentially, because it's a news agency it's the 'gold standard' for factual reports within China. However, as Horse Eye Jack has rightly pointed out, the sad truth is that there is very limited media freedom in the PRC and therefore can be no factually reliable large-scale WP:NEWSORGs, Xinhua is no exception. Returning to the above article, it's obviously unrealistically generous to account for its inaccuracy as a gross failure of fact-checking. For this reason, I think it's worth looking back at WP:QUESTIONABLE, which also says "beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking that this guideline requires" per the 2017 Daily Mail RfC. There seems to be a presumption that Xinhua, because it has less commentary and analysis, is factually accurate. How can there be evidence for this, even on non-sensitive issues, if it has no independent editorial oversight or reputation for trustworthy fact-checking?

The final argument, made by @Darouet: and Mark H21, is that Xinhua is a reliable source for illustrating the Chinese government's position. On this point I agree with Wug·a·po·des - the political concerns of the Chinese government will be analysed and discussed by political science journals, current affairs magazines and well-respected research groups such as Brookings or Chatham House in a much more reliable, neutral and rigorous way (and without having disinformation mixed in), while factual claims by Xinhua can be confirmed by more reliable news or statistics sources. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Brookings Institution is closely connected with the United States government (similarly to CSIS, Heritage, CFR and RAND). We should not have to rely on the US government and organizations that make up the Washington policy establishment to summarize the views of the Chinese government. Chinese sources will give a fuller and more direct expression of these views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References (Xinhua)

References

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.

RFC: China Global Television Network

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

There is a strong consensus to deprecate China Global Television Network. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

---

What is the reliability of China Global Television Network (cgtn.com  )?

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

(t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CGTN)

• Option 4 known for lies and propaganda: "It has a consistent record of blatantly and egregiously violating journalistic standards and encouraging or justifying hatred and violence against innocent people." The Diplomat, September 2019 Reporting things they know to be false is my benchmark for deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is an opinion piece, for what that's worth, much of the piece is dedicated to the reporting of CCTV in mainland China, not just CGTN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Sarah Cook is a subject matter expert, she’s Freedom House’s Senior Research Analyst for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and the author of their 2020 report Beijing's Global Megaphone [39] which features CGTN heavily. Also the 2019 report China Central Television: A Long-standing Weapon in Beijing’s Arsenal of Repression [40] which is what The Diplomat re-published. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note that Freedom House is funded by the US government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (Contentious issues relating to China) Option 2 for Africa Bureau. I can understand why deprecating CGTN for stuff like Xinjiang is necessary, for stuff like this piece. CGTN has repeatedly aired forced confessions, see 1 2, which has been found to violate UK broadcasting rules 3 The Arabic language version of CGTN also ran a video pushing COVID 19 disinformation. 4. However, I think that it's coverage of issues unrelated to China like for instance its African Bureau are okay and can be probably treated in the same way Xinhua can. Over 1/8 of our entire references to CGTN are to its African Bureau per africa.cgtn.com  , there's not much reason to doubt their reporting that Singapore exploring feasibility for direct flights, as cited on Kenya–Singapore relations, is accurate, maybe these stories are be covered in other African outlets and therefore citing CGTN is redundant I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Having had a second look at their Africa stories, many of them are syndicated from Xinhua and Reuters and the stuff that isn't has only two authors, is quite shallow and likely to be adequately covered by other sources. I don't think CGTN provides particularly unique or valuable african news coverage, at least in their written stories, and I have no issue with wholesale deprecation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Re: your Xinjiang link, simply stating it as "deprecation-worthy" does not make it so; the only remotely objectionable quote begins with Can you believe your ears? "This is apparent"…Such sentences should never have been the language of a researcher!, which is clearly the opinionated voice of Liu Xin, not an attempt at "factual reporting". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: It's clearly an attempt at analysis, rather than just straight opinion. Stuff like Western media lies about China's Xinjiang is more blunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can overlook the "bias" and "negative media" soapboxing, Barrett is wholly correct about the metholodogy: Quartz admitted themselves that the common estimates of 1M+ detained first derived as follows: The estimate used most widely for over a year—of a million Uyghur Muslims held in Chinese camps—was arrived at using similar methods by a group called China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), and by Zenz. But how many CHRD interviewees actually provided estimates of detention ratios? Follow thru to the CHRD link, and navigate to The following table presents the data we have compiled based on interviews with eight ethnic Uyghurs. Their families reside in eight different villages in counties in the Kashgar Prefecture. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on Africa Bureau, per Hemiauchenia, on non-contentious issues in mainland China (snooker, opening of the Baoji–Lanzhou high-speed railway) and issues wholly unrelated to the PRC government, such as this piece on Fair Wayne Brant's life sentence in Louisiana, comparable to The Guardian. No opinion on contentious issues. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 due to a complete lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories like "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020 [41]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe. Cavalryman (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 1 Per CaradhrasAiguo. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for topics related to East Asian politics; Option 3 for other coverage. I don't think I need to rehash all the disinformation CGTN has purveyed in any topic related to the PRC/CCP. Beyond China and her neighbours, CGTN isn't much better either - for example CGTN Europe regularly cherry-picks and misinterprets evidence in order to present a narrative that unduly emphasises internal division within Europe, which fits CCP's strategic interests in the region, and often get their facts wrong in the process. Today CGTN churned out this sensationalist piece about the UK government's internal deliberations about refugees crossing the English channel, which tries to paint the UK's plan to deploy the military as more confirmed than it actually is, and France's response as more antagonistic than it really is (compare e.g. The Guardian (which is usually pro-refugee) and BBC (which is usually pro-UK gov't)), and seems to have misattributed Priti Patel's opinion to her colleague Chris Philp. Deryck C. 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• CGTN is effectively China's equivalent of the BBC foreign service and Voice of America. The BBC isn't exactly a reliable source to deprecate with here. One state funded news source shouldn't be used to deprecate another especially when they have a strong incentive to say that CGTN is unreliable. I would agree that CGTN has significant bias in favour of Chinese goals and opinions but that's only warranting option 3 and not full blown deprecation. There are many cases where CGTN can be used as a source, such as opinion pieces by Chinese writers, domestic Chinese news, or possibly its Africa bureau. For example this analysis piece on the China Basketball League [42] might be a good source and their coverage of Africa might be useful as well considering systemic bias in western sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Well said: "lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories". No, this is not BBC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-4: CGTN's reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. CGTN inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think CGTN should be split into multiple entries in the perennial sources list when it gets added there:

Option 1 for all African topics (except topics related to the Belt and Road Initiative). The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (with the exception of topics about the Belt and Road Initiative); in these regions, CGTN has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, Option 2). CGTN does not touch much on Central/South America as compared to Xinhua, so it is not included here.

Option 2 for topics about China's allies, the Belt and Road Initiative and CGTN documentaries. CGTN can be used for such topics but must have in-text attribution. Where other sources are available for the same topic, other sources should be used in lieu of or in conjunction with the CGTN source.

Option 4 for all topics where China has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and Western European topics, the politics of East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. At this point CGTN tends to go full-on propaganda mode and should not be used. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that China doesn't have an interest in Africa. They after all want African countries to sign on to the Belt and Road Initiative. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: That's true, but for other African topics not related to the Belt and Road Initiative, like | this, CGTN provides factual reporting instead of propaganda. Nevertheless, I've amended my !vote above. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI Africa is currently the primary focus of China’s information operations etc outside Asia... We call contemporary Chinese diplomacy Wolf warrior diplomacy after the Wolf Warrior series of movies, specifically Wolf Warrior 2. Where do you think Wolf Warrior 2 is set? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's implied in the article. Wolf warrior diplomacy is a result of backlash towards constant bombardment of Chinese criticism from Western mainstream media as well as refusal for China-based media to have any say or defend Chinese actions due to perception as biased for being state-based. An example would be this, and no other mainstream media pointed out the obvious bias and double standard NYT portrayed. It naturally leads to the perception that Chinese must have a strong narrative to defend themselves. NoNews! 10:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Buidhe and also per [43]. Per the NYT, It is controlled by the Communist Party and serves as part of what Mr. Xi has called Beijing’s "publicity front." We should not indulge such outlets by granting exceptions in certain areas. It is impossible to predict what might become important to lie about when, and our policies should recognize that. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: Echoing what I said in the recent RSN discussion about CGTN, it's a source that should only be used in limited circumstances, e.g topics that are non-political contexts like tourism information or uncontroversial cultural highlights. It should generally be WP:INTEXT-attributed and should not be used for anything remotely contentious. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe and Adoring nanny. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, as China's emulation of RT. feminist (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per buidhe. Willing to lie and misrepresent information, and impossible to use for due weight due to its lack of independence. Airs forced confessions. Also applies to Africa, where China obviously has interests. Some straight news doesn't make it reliable – the Diplomat analysis even mentions this: "While it initially aims to build local audiences with attractive and innocuous content, it can be mobilized at key political moments to attack CCP opponents." Genuinely notable events will be covered elsewhere. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• Options 1-4: as per User:JaventheAlderick -- but with additional stress that no press (including UK or US-based media) has any monopoly on truth or moral high ground when they report on any contentious topics; all such reports need to be attributed and cross-checked and not automatically assumed as factual. NoNews! 10:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 4 per above Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 4 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per buidhe and Deryck C. GretLomborg (talk)
• Option 4 Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-controversial Mainland China news (e.g. they opened _____ train line or whatever), option 2-4 for controversial issues such as HK/Macao/Taiwan. Félix An (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for the broadcasting of forced confessions, which produce unreliable information. In July, Ofcom concluded that CGTN breached British broadcasting regulations when it aired a forced confession from Peter William Humphrey, who was researching the GSK China scandal. Ofcom is also investigating the Simon Cheng incident:

Cheng's account of forced confession

In his 14-page complaint made public on Thursday, he says he was shuttled between detention and interrogation centers while hooded and handcuffed, and interrogated while bound in a “tiger chair,” a metal seat with arm and leg locks. He says he was also shackled in a spread-eagle position for hours and forced to assume stress positions for lengthy periods. Eventually, Cheng says he agreed to confess to the minor offense of soliciting prostitution to avoid harsher treatment and a heavy sentence on national security charges. He says his captors filmed him reading out two letters of repentance that they made him write, and then filmed him multiple times making his confession, based on a script they gave him. “CGTN was well aware that the recording they used in their broadcast was extracted under extreme duress and distress,” Cheng said, adding that the broadcaster falsely said he went on trial, when in fact he was in extrajudicial “administrative detention.” "Hong Konger complains to UK about China TV forced confession", Associated Press (RSP entry)

As I mentioned in a previous discusion, Ofcom has started at least five investigations on CGTN's use of forced confessions. CGTN is modeled after RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), a propaganda outlet that was deprecated in May. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. State propaganda outlet, including broadcasting of disinformation, forced confessions, etc. Neutrality^talk 18:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per Deryck Chan. An unimportant person (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - first choice was option 3, but having seen the comments by user Newslinger about Mr. Simon Cheng, I have changed it to option 4. Fortliberty (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 source of state-sponsored propaganda like RT. Despite some attempted parsing above, I don't think we should be relying on it for anything. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CGTN)

• @Buidhe: Thank you for writing this! I notice Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn't include CCTV so I'm not sure if this RFC should cover CCTV too, or if that should be separate, or if it's worth doing? Also note CGTN was once CCTV's English operations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  WhisperToMe, I noticed that CCTV has dozens of stations so I was worried that it might become a WP:TRAINWRECK if one or two of them turned out to be not as bad. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe Ah, I see. I was thinking in regards to the internet presence (it's less likely people may use TV clips for sourcing). The foreign language CCTV pages are all now CGTN anyway and CCTV now only covers Chinese language content. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't actually true english.cctv.com   exists, some of the content is syndicated from Xinhua, but other stuff like this piece appears to be original reporting. We also appear to have a large number of chinese language citations to CCTV per CCTV.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have an RSN discussion on CGTN three months ago? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  That wasn't an RfC and doesn't appear to have settled the issue, with multiple users calling for an RFC above. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe, Buidhe, MarkH21, and Hemiauchenia: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack and Anachronist: Based on your contributions to the Global Times thread, can you two take a look at this one as well? Flaughtin (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist and Newslinger: In relation to this and this comment, can we deprecate this source as well? Consensus looks pretty clear to me to do so, at least when it comes to its reporting on any politics related issue. I can go ahead with the deprecation closure but I am not sure if that's allowed (I voted in the discussion). Flaughtin (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

​It's usually best to leave closures to an uninvolved editor, especially when the topic is contentious. Feel free to file a request for closure for this RfC. I usually prefer to wait until the RfC is archived before filing the request. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Is there a reason why you prefer to wait for the rfc to be archived before filing a request for closure? Wouldn't that make the closure process more difficult because the discussion isn't as prominent if it's archived? I'm seeing quite a few sources here being closed even though they (obviously) haven't been archived yet and, to repeat for the record, the consensus in the thread is to me clear enough to warrant deprecation without needing administrator's intervention. Your input on this would be welcomed as as it's my first time encountering this whole closure process. Flaughtin (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

​Any RfC here can be closed after seven days of activity, or earlier if the snowball clause applies. In my opinion, there is not enough unanimity here to justify making an involved closure that can later be challenged and overturned. I prefer to wait until the automatic archiving kicks in (after five days with no comments) to ensure that everyone who wants to participate in the RfC gets a chance to express their opinion, and that they are not cut off by a closure that occurs while the discussion is still active. This is not a requirement, and any uninvolved editor (regardless of whether they are an administrator) can close this RfC right now. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: After doing my first deprecation, I can also understand why it's best to wait for archiving: I have to go back to the pages I had to edit in the deprecation process and update the RFC link to the archive link. So there's a bit more of a maintenance burden on the closer if closing the RFC direction from WP:RSN instead of waiting for it to archive. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

RFC: New York Post (nypost.com)

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

I'm closing this, though I hope someone else will do the macro for me properly. The general consensus seems to be 3, Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police. (personally, I think the nonpolitical coverage is best described as variable but the consensus was more negative than that.) DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

---

  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 

What is the reliability of the New York Post?

• 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 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (New York Post)

• Option 3  Option 4 – The Post has a generally unreliable track record of fact-checking. In one particularly memorable example, the paper's coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing shows several instances of failure to fact-check before rushing to print. The website is of particular concern. Online articles are rarely to almost never corrected. To this day, the website claims that "12 people were killed" in the bombing. (Only 3 people died) There are several instances from the bombing that show its lack of fact-checking. (Criticized in [44][45][46][47]) In the space of a few days, the Post had ruined the lives of at least 3 innocent people which it had accused as suspects in the bombing, going so far as to post a photograph of two of them on the front page with the headline "BAG MEN: Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon". Mistakes happen but the Post has an almost "I don't care" attitude on fact-checking. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Relabeling a clear false story about COVID-19 as opinion, instead of retracting it, takes the cake. This shows irresponsible and dangerous intent to misinform and no regard for truth. I have to change my !vote to Option 4. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence of fakery means they should never be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I’m concerned about deprecating the Post entirely, because we would be losing a valuable source for New York politics and news. Not to mention that yet another conservative leaning news outlet is being brought here. We should use caution but not entirely ban it. -- Calidum 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Infrequently valuable, but not never. Mainly replying to the latter. If you can find the sort of evidence C+C has presented here about the Daily News, an RfC may be due to talk about that one, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the evidence from Coffeeandcrumbs below. I'm not worried about the balance of outlets that we depreciate. If right-leaning outlets would like to be seen as reliable, they can report the facts and make corrections when they get things wrong. I would be more than happy to re-allow the Daily Mail if their standards increased. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Coffeeandcrumbs's evidence, New York Post#Controversies, [48][49], and my personal impression. Rightly or wrongly, high quality sources do occasionally cite New York Post. I'm not really opposed to option 4, but I would prefer that we don't deprecate sources that may be useful in rare cases. - MrX 🖋 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.5 per MrX. They are rarely the sole source of first-reporting on any meaningful factual story, they have a reckless disregard for fact checking, and evidence that they may even make up stories out of whole cloth. I would rather use better sources for anything that is widely reported, and I'd be suspect of the veracity of anything that only the Post is reporting. I may carve out a VERY small exception for where their initial reporting is vetted by an actual real source, but even then I'd like to see both sources side by side as a minimum. --Jayron32 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Qualified Option 3. Absolutely never should be used for controversial claims about living people (it's a tabloid after all). Beyond that, the subject they struggle with most seems to be crime and crime-adjacent topics. The Post's NYC is a scary place filled with "thugs" and "gang-bangers" and violent homeless people/protesters/immigrants, with politicians who won't do anything to protect you. Their willingness to jump into a story without doing their due rigor is pretty well documented, and the evidence C+C provided about missing retractions/corrections is problematic. When covering politics in general, they have a bias that's strong enough to affect their factual reporting, sometimes blurring opinion and news reporting. That said, there are times when the Post's coverage of local NYC topics is useful. For the most part it's better cited to the other sources which make use of the Post's reporting but do their own vetting, but I feel like there have been stories about NYC public projects, local institutions, what's going on in local agencies, etc. that are useful enough and innocuous enough that I'd hope there would be room for an occasional exception. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - The Post is a tabloid, and like all tabloids should be used with caution because it runs to sensationalism in how it covers news stories. That said, it is usually accurate once you get past the sensationalism of its format. The print version does contain an “errors and retractions” section (which is one of the ways we differentiate between reliable and unreliable news outlets). From some of the comments above, it sounds like there may be problems with the website that are not found in the hard-copy paper. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 like The Sun. Ample examples of outright fabrication of facts and quotes on all sorts of stories to the point that it just seems like the way they operate. I can’t say to what extent the print edition issues retractions but almost none of the online versions of false or misleading stories listed in the discussion below have been retracted or corrected. After falsely accusing people of involvement in the Boston marathon bombing, the Columbia Journalism Review said of the paper that it “deserves no benefit of the doubt. Any pretense of professionalism—as thin as it might have been—is gone.” ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 3: I don't think The Post is that bad for general reporting. Gossip and speculative articles notwithstanding. As always editors should use their good judgement. ImTheIP (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 generally unreliable for factual reporting but ok for film reviews, music reviews, tv reviews and similar, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 provided evidence gives us the US equivalent of the DM. --Masem (t) 22:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 for factual reporting: I am just seeing too much fabrication and lack of attention to truthfulness to rate it any other way. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3.5 - Per MrX, Jayron32. Their news section is generally tabloid trash, and increasingly so. Analogous to the British rags (Sun, Mirror, Express, Daily Mail). Should not be used when challenged, should not be used for any contentious subject, should be avoided as a source on living people. And Page Six should never be used. Maybe OK for attributed movie reviews, music reviews, op-eds, or the like, or for uncontested statements on noncontroversial topics for which no better source is available. Even then I would exercise extreme caution. (If the only source for a given statement is the NY Post, I think due weight is questionable.) Neutrality^talk 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for NYC area coverage, option 3 for everything else. I've found their local news to be mostly reliable (though of course with a political lean); it's when they get into national politics that they go totally off the rails. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Additional considerations apply as with any tabloid, and it's not particularly strong source, so due weight needs to be considered if it's the only source reporting on something. But that should be considered individually, not at RSP. Examples of errors are mostly old: Lady Gaga story from 2011, Boston bombing from 2013. Breaking news coverage can be wrong in any source (w/ Boston). As WP:BIASED sources can be reliable, I just don't see enough evidence that they mispresent news, except a few cases within the span of a 10 years. Despite being a tabloid, clearly they operate much more professionally than, say, Zero Hedge. Quite comparable to the left-wing Salon, except I suppose some may find the latter to be ideologically more reliable. --Pudeo (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. It's a tabloid, so starts at a default 2, but its place in the right wing media bubble with the asymmetric polarisation and perverse incentives that produces has resulted in a markedly worse record for accuracy than erstwhile competitors. It's not quite the Epoch Times yet, but it's pretty bad, often enough that it should not really be used here. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 as Coffeeandcrumbs provided examples of fake news and there are more reliable sources that provide a right-wing and populist American perspective.VR _talk 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2|3 useful for local NYC reporting and film/tv etc. reviews. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 as it looks generally reliable for local reporting. WP:HEALTHRS is a thing so an opinion article on COVID 19 should not be used to deprecate this source. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. The Post's publisher once forced out an editor who was trying to make it more credible with the infamous quote "credible doesn't sell ... Your big scoops are great, but they don't sell more papers." A 2004 survey found it the lead credible news outlet in New York (perhaps unsurprisingly given that the above); and, as noted, they have repeatedly published false information with no indication that they care. What pushes it from 3 to 4 to me is the constant indications that they are not trying to be a reputable source or to build a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any news source can make errors, and a source that fails to correct them is simply unreliable; but a source that doesn't care whether it makes errors or not should be depreciated. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Aquillion, did you mean "the least credible"? and also can you cite the page number? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I found it on p. 18: "On net, New Yorkers consider THE NEW YORK POST to be incredible (as in not credible), by 39% [believed it is credible] to 44% [believed it is not credible]. Among the most recognized media outlets, only THE POST earns a higher negative than positive rating on the credibility scale." I added clarification in [brackets]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3+ -- I don't read it. But I live in Manhattan and seeing the headlines in the grocery store reminds me of the Enquirer. I see no reason to use them for local reporting given the excellent sources available in NYC. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per arguments above. The only thing that made me hesitate is that sometimes it has actual reporting on NYC local news, but as others pointed out, there are plenty of other NYC sources available. Given the track record of rushing to print without fact-checking, it shouldn't be used as a source at all. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - I was hoping for option 3, but the discussion here is convincing me this source should absolutely not be on Wikipedia. Fabrication and direct disregard for fact-checking make it unusable as a source for an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - They make a considerable number of mistakes, but they do have a corrections process. For all the users who argue that this mistake or that is a reason for deprecation, my concern is double standards, due to this[50] from the NYT, with the flagrantly false thesis that there was enough evidence for Mike Nifong to take the Duke lacrosse case to the jury, and that the files in the case did not give a clear answer as to whether or not the defendents were guilty. The story was never corrected. How can we deprecate the NY Post for uncorrected false statements, but treat the NY Times as our gold-standard source, even though it is guilty of the same offense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)
  • This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE argument. If you want to RFC the New York Times, you'd need to start an RFC about the New York Times. Unless you have an argument that is specifically about the New York Post, which is what we're talking about here, then you're not making an argument to be taken into consideration in the discussion about the New York Post - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You had to go back 5,119 issues to find an error in the NYTimes? O3000 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It's more than just an "error." It's a lengthy, front-page story, with a thesis that the NYT has every reason to know is wrong, yet they still have not corrected to this day. Worse, it is about individual criminal defendants, implying that they could be guilty of the crimes as charged. If found guilty, they would have likely faced many years in prison. I don't see any reason to cut the NYT a break based on the age of the story. In regard to WP:FALSEBALANCE, I would note that that policy applies to Wikipedia articles. This page is not a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, that policy states, in effect, that one should not give equal weight to truth and lies. But that's not the situation here, is it? The falsehood of the NYT's thesis in that particular article is a fact. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • 5,119 issues. Andrew Englehart (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2: Extremely weary of yet another conservative news source being excluded. They've covered a lot of stories factually which other left learning sources either don't cover or cover with bias. I think users need to ask themselves the true reasoning for this source being depreciated and whether they would apply the same scrutiny to other sources. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • A culture war argument and whataboutery aren't actually claims about the New York Post's quality as a source in itself, and probably wouldn't be worth considering. This is not a forum - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As pointed out above they have published many falsehoods and have a reputation very poor journalism, I wouldn't even call the work they produce journalism, it's a trash outlet like the Daily Mail. As Chuck D from Public Enemy said "Here's a letter to the New York Post - The worst piece of paper on the east coast - Matter of fact the whole state's - forty cents in New York City fifty cents elsewhere - It makes no goddamn sense at all - America's oldest continuously published daily piece of bullshit" Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - as their history shows, they have a poor reputation for fact checking and often print false or sensationalized stories. Lev!vich 18:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Option 3 - ^{Changed as a result of the responses to my question. 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)} same as the other sources in this class of news reporting. I need specifics regarding the allegations that they repeatedly failed to fact-check. Has the NYPost suddenly become a gossip tabloid? Can somebody please point me to the actual failures that support the claims I've been reading? It seems more like this downgrade may be based on anecdotal evidence or worse, POV, so before I downgrade a source, I want to be sure that I'm doing the right thing based on factual information. I mean, look at this if we're going back in time to 2013 to downgrade a source. Thanks in advance... ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I will give you one recent example described here in GQ. The story was published on June 1, 2020, under the headline "Looters swipe $2.4M worth of watches from Soho Rolex store". Other reporters immediately noticed it was bogus because, for one, there is no Rolex store in Soho. But that maybe semantics, but the bigger problem is that nothing was stolen. The article, to this day, still quotes "a police source" saying, "The Rolex store is empty"... "They stole like $2.4 million in Rolexes."

  Now, what does the Post do after they find out the store owner's said, "no watches of any kind were stolen"? They add that bit to the story and change the headline to "Conflicting reports of looting at Soho Rolex store". This is a dishonest headline and shows their unwillingness to correct the record. (See also this for a past example of obstinate editor behavior). I am arguing this situation can only mean one of either two things happened:

  1. They did not fact-check the "police source" at all. They made no effort to go look at the store and speak to the store manager.
  2. Or, the "police source" Does. Not. Exist! Knowing their history, not an unlikely scenario.[51][52] From what I have read, they have made up quotes before.[53]

  Both of these above scenarios, in combination with their long history of bad journalism, seems to me that they should at least be considered generally unreliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  IMO they were always a gossip rag; they're mostly known for Page Six. In terms of evidence of shoddy journalism, the first example that comes to mind is the infamous 2013 "Bag Men" front page misidentification after the Boston Marathon bombing, see e.g. [54]. Lev!vich 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you - I have adjusted my iVote accordingly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 A news agency doesn't have to be a gossip tabloid to be totally unreliable as a source for use in the 'pedia's articles. Their reputation very poor journalism is well established. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Fabrication and direct disregard for fact-checking make it unusable as a source for a reputable authority such as WP. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per King of Hearts, for any coverage of the New York metropolitan area and, really, anything that doesn't have national-level political connotations or implications. For those I'd go down to Option 3.

  I have used the Post without reservation as a source on true-crime articles; I just don't see in their articles on that subject any evidence of the embellishments that you see in the Daily Mail on the same incidents. Nor have I seen the kind of evidence of outright fabrication, i.e. tell-alls by disgruntled former staff, that finally prompted us to deprecate the Mail. If someone's got that ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 Just look at this: "Newly Discovered Planet Could Destroy Earth Any Day Now.” [55] [56]. This NYPosts track record is definitely one marred by many factual inaccuracies that just proves they are really just doing it for the attention. Bar NYPost citations like these as they could influence reader's trust of Wikipedia. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Its a tabloid. It makes mistakes, but it is not a work of fiction. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 "Publishes false or fabricated information" is a bit much. It's a tabloid, not a work of fiction as Billhpike put it. However, I generally try to avoid using media outlets as sources at all, let alone tabloids. The Post's journalism is certainly sub-par, and they are known to have political biases. That isn't to say they should never be used - I'm sure they have decent articles on culture, fashion, entertainment, etc - but we should not be using them for anything political or scientific in nature. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to be case by case. A lot of media today is unreliable in some cases as we move away from paid media to crowdsourced. I would think not an WP:RS for WP:BLP but for some other general topics, could be ok. Where do we draw the line? TMZ is useful sometimes, and we use huffpo. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 I had the impression going in that this would be an option 3, but looking over the evidence provided, I have to up my !vote a notch. Their process is dishonest, in a deep way. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. It's clearly not "generally reliable" but we should save the ban hammer for the worst of the worst. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated sources can be used "when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources". It also usually means editors are notified about its status when making an edit that includes it. As it happens, two of the sources you link are blacklisted, so there must be a sliding scale between sources deserving deprecation and "the worst of the worst". ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. As a tabloid, most NY Post references could and should be replaced with more reliable sources. Too often, their sensationalist and selective takes on issues are misleading. Given recent reminders of the ongoing racial bias in their coverage, I'm inclined to think that a formal stance is sadly necessary. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Thoroughly rubbish. Also, I disagree with pythoncoder that only the absolute bottom of the barrel should be banned — the minimum bar for sourcing for news and BLPs (which is all the Post would be relevant for) should really be higher than it is at present. There are plenty of reputable sources in existence, so if the only available source for a statement is in a dodgy source, then said statement is not really verifiable and most likely some combination of "trivial" and "false"; if it is important it will eventually get picked up by real sources. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. I think I may have once commented here on RSN defending the NYPost, but that was based on an outdated and possibly superficial old impression I had of the paper. I've looked at recent editions and find them increasingly concerning. The links in the discussion section document some serious problems. I want to say there's usable stuff in there, but once you scratch all of the problem-categories (crime, police, politics, BLP, controversial issues) that pretty much adds up to "generally not reliable". So... it's not banned and it's usable for uncontroversial things... but if there is a dispute then the person wanting to use the NYPost will have to explain why the challenge is frivolous or unreasonable. Alsee (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 They're often a helpful source for articles related to New York City. Just look at their coverage of Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Beyond that though... ~ HAL333 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - consistency to deprecate tabloids appears to be key here. Fortliberty (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - It's not the best source. It uses sensationalism in its reporting. Generally, there is no reason to use this newspaper for US national or international news, since there are far better sources out there. However, in the case of New York metropolitan news, they do provide relevant content. Each story needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - gutter press, good for wiping yer arse, but that's about it. Acousmana (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. Depends on context. Obviously “Generally reliable” in usually does fulfill most RS criteria of editorial controls and publishing norms. Sensationalized headlines, not too unusual. Meh, for many things you might find BESTSOURCES elsewhere, but this is usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Speaking as an editor based in NYC, the Post is actually quite reliable for NYC metro area news, despite being biased for politics. Like Daniel Case, I don't see fabrication on the level of the Daily Mail. I don't think Option 4 is a viable option, because even our other local media often does not cover topics such as real estate to the extent that the Post does. I want to see evidence that these local stories are also error prone before I even consider option 3. However, I would consider context in deciding to use the Post as a source. epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'd like to clarify that I do agree the Post can be biased in politics and other world stories. I would consider supporting an Option 3 for politics and other controversial topics, but for NYC related topics I would support Option 2. epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Use Common Sense Research the article's claims and provide additional citations supporting it. It's a tabloid these days and we should probably treat it as we do many of them; but we should also be aware that they can and do occasionally provide reasonably reliable content. So as long as people use sense and don't try to cite them for every silly argument; then it's fine.♥ Melody ♥ 00:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2.5 per Epic (although I do not live in the metro area - I will have to trust him there). In my experiences with the Post, they are generally quite biased as far as politics go but cover a lot of things that other media outlets might not. I'd say keeping them as a "last resort" source, in cases where there aren't conflicting stories, would be beneficial. I don't think 4 is a good idea, because they do cover real estate minutiae that are hard to source elsewhere. -- a lad insane (channel two) 01:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 The number of articles being linked here is overwhelming. I have an example of my own. I found this article where they claim that detectives told the parents of Madeleine Mccann that they had concrete proof that she was dead [57]. In this article, they used The Sun as a source. Also, this article was published hours AFTER other news articles revealed that the girl's parents received no such confirmation. It appears that they do not care all that much about getting things right. However, I am avoiding choosing option 3 on the basis that they issue corrections and seem to have reliable local coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, the Post has clearly shown a complete and utter lack of even the most basic respect for factual coverage, since they have been clearly shown to publish completely false information they cannot be trusted as a source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 / 3. The Post is a tabloid, always has been. It's not completely uncitable and deprecation is probably too far, but it should be used with a lot of restraint. Per Epicgenius, the Post's metro reporting is Mostly Fine if often politically slanted. I would have a lot more hesitance citing it for celebrity "scoops" or criminal accusations, though. SnowFire (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (New York Post)

• commnetWhilst I am getting a red top vibe, I would need to see evidence of deliberate lies (rather then incompetence) before making a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, here are some instances of fabricated stories.[58][59][60][61][62] AFAIK, none of them were corrected. What they most often do is make up quotes or fabricate sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Here are two more people that accuse the Post of fabrication: [63][64]. This story [65] is more of a bias than fabrication, but it is the modus operadi of even their stories that are true. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• More examples: False story that COVID-19 virus possibly leaked from a Chinese lab,[66][67] false claim that singer Lady Gaga met with radical leftist Slavoj Zizek,[68][69] and printed an entire interview with a person falsely claiming to be the brother of Adam Lanza.[70] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Note, the Lady Gaga story was on Page Six, the paper's gossip section, which is worse than the parent. The fake Lanza brother story is one of the few instances that I have seen that were corrected.[71] There was also a made up story of a high school student making $72 million in the stock market which they reprinted from New York Magazine without any double-checking but they at least corrected.[72][73] All the rest from my examples are still live and never corrected. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The COVID link you posted is an opinion piece, not a news article. -- Calidum 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  My bad. Sorry, I missed that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  It was published as a normal article and relabelled an opinion piece after being criticised. [74], [75] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The COVID-19 lab leak theory is not an example of misinformation. There are two angles a) the virus accidentally leaked from the institute that studies them b) the virus was engineered by humans. The former is quite clearly less conspirational, and indeed was something that leaked US State Department cables and the UK government suggested may be the origins of the virus. The Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that the accidental leak origin is a plausible theory and quoted experts who think that. Nowhere in that NYPost article they report it as a fact. --Pudeo (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  The claim that it leaked from a lab has been discussed at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and rejected time and time again for no evidence.

  Unlike WaPo's opinion piece that is careful to attribute such claims to their source, the Post's opinion piece sure attempts to characterize lab as the likely source in author's own voice:

  It turns out that in all of China, there is only one [microbiology lab that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus]. And this one is located in the Chinese city of Wuhan that just happens to be … the epicenter of the epidemic.

  That’s right. China’s only Level 4 microbiology lab that is equipped to handle deadly coronaviruses, called the National Biosafety Laboratory, is part of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

  How else are we supposed to read this besides the implication that COVID-19 came from a lab? As the article was not labeled as opinion for 4 days, we can only conclude it was not fact-checked before publication and, only when experts protested, was it marked as opinion. The Post's piece, later relabelled as opinion, also falsely claims that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a "one of only two bioweapons research labs". As discussed at length at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, this is simply a conspiracy theory. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  My assessment of the issue is similar to the USA Today "partly false" fact check from April. It stated that claims about COVID-19 being a bioweapon are untrue; but that circumstantial evidence suggests the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan lab due to a lapse in safety measures. A lot of new studies have been published since February and Apil. That also means you can't anachronistically judge an article from February with present knowledge. --Pudeo (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  (1) The Post concludes much more than what the USA Today suggests. (2) The Post story was fact-checked by a sources in March. This narrative they presented was immediately debunked and then they labeled it as opinion. The "bioweapon lab" implication is also a fabrication. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, if the article about the high school student who supposedly made $72 million is to be held against the Post, shouldn't it be held against New York Magazine which actually reported the story to begin with even more so? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• More examples to add to the pile: [76], [77], [78], [79] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  This bit is so telling: "Needless to say, the Post hasn’t corrected [the] piece." ─ "A bogus NY Post piece sets off a frenzy". Columbia Journalism Review --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

L:Even if it was not originally labelled as opinion, an article by Steven W. Mosher of the Population Research Institute clearly is not a news story. A news story is what happened today or what someone said today written by reporters. It's not an activist's analysis of how a virus originated. ReconditeRodent's first example is reported in their source as by "columnist John Crudele" so it would not be rs in any case. Mainstream media also publish opinion pieces by conservatives, and even articles by liberals can contain questionable logic and facts. For example, the New York Times and other major media pushed the Bush administration lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. What I find disturbing about this process is that we are basing it on anecdotal evidence and even then not looking at actual news reporting. What we should do is use sources that compare the reliability of various sources. While I am sure the NYT would rank higher, there are lots of other local newspapers I imagine that would rank lower. Why not just have a general rule that right-wing newspapers cannot be used as sources? TFD (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Because there are many good reliable right-wing sources, like The Times of London and the Wall Street Journal. Merely because some right wing sources push bullshit out (and oddly enough, they're the only sources people who want to push that bullshit on Wikipedia can find that support the bullshit) doesn't mean they all are. It isn't helpful to say that right-wing = unreliable in all cases. Unreliable = unreliable. I don't particularly agree with the editorial stance of sources like The Times and the WSJ and the Weekly Standard and the Christian Science Monitor and sources like that, but insofar as they report actual news, they have the sort of integrity and editorial oversight and commitment to truth that means I would never doubt their reliability. It's not "having a conservative editorial stance" that makes a newspaper or other source unreliable. It is being unreliable that makes a source unreliable. Don't confuse the two. --Jayron32 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

And any editor who implies - or sometimes says outright - that we need more right-leaning unreliable sources for "balance" is fundamentally misunderstanding why Wikipedia concerns itself with reliability of sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. If the correct view is "XXX is bullshit", then it would be incorrect to provide "balance" by hunting for sources based solely on whether they say "XXX is not bullshit" rather than on their reliability. Reliability is the first concern. If genuinely reliable sources disagree, we can handle that disagreement explicitly. But where shitty sources are the only ones presenting a particular side of a narrative, then they're still bad sources and we shouldn't be citing them at all. That also may be a sign that that particular side of the narrative isn't correct. --Jayron32 16:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Times and the Wall St. Journal also publish opinions by conservatives. John Fund for example was a columnist for the Wall Street Journal for 20 years where he wrote about climate change. The white nationalist Peter Brimelow has written for many respectable publications such as the Financial Post, Maclean's and Forbes claiming among other things that whites were more intelligent than blacks. Some conservative writers are even published in liberal publications. In general though comparing The Post to The Times is a strawman argument. The Post is local middle market tabloid, while The Times is an upmarket publication with international reach. The Post should be compared with other local newspapers. TFD (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I.e., the most obvious point of comparison, the Daily News, which has taken on a sort of liberal bent in reaction to its competitor's rightward tilt (There is a huge irony in all this ... half a century ago the Post was an outspoken liberal paper that fought McCarthyism, while the News occupied the niche the Post does now, printing any McCarthyist slur Robert Moses leaked to them about Joseph Papp in the early days of the New York Shakespeare Festival when the two were feuding over Papp's use of the park). Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much of an opinion on the NYP but I do wonder if there are outside sources making this reliability claim or if this is just the views of editors here? I was curious and looked up the NYP on the various media bias sources. It looks so-so but I find it interesting that Adfrontsmedia puts it at about the same level as CNN, Slate and other sources we are frequently happy to cite. [[80]] Still, some of the others such as the often maligned MBFC say it's mixed. Springee (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of bias. For example, no one would dispute that Jacobin and Democracy Now! have a strong left bias and are partisan publications. However, you could not provide evidence that they are fabricating quotes or framing false stories. I have provided ample evidence that other RS publications have found that the Post has published false and fabricated information. This is not Wikipedia editors' opinions. It is the analysis of RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I would feel better about that type of argument if third party sources were making the case. Still, you make a good point, unbiased and accurate are not the same thing. I will freely admit I don't know much about the NYP so I won't comment in the survey. Springee (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The examples presented here are approaching "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" territory. So many of the alleged examples are wrong in one way or another that it detracts from the credibility. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Consider just this one story that ruined two men's lives -- how can we trust a source that considers this as enough evidence to publish photographs of people implying they are terrorists? And then says, well, we didn't really say they were suspects, just that the police were looking for them. Why put the photo on the cover, no less, if not to imply they are terrorists?

I do not believe this whole headlines don't matter bullshit people throw around thse days. The veracity of the headline and how well it represents the story within shows the motivations and trustworthiness of the editors that oversee the production of the paper. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Question for some of the "option 2 for NYC news" !voters (e.g. King of Hearts and Daniel Case). Could you say more about where it's unclear or where additional considerations apply within that option 2? The Post is fine sometimes, and on some topics, but they're really pretty terrible on matters of crime/policing and a lot of their other local political coverage includes opinion or a clear slant. The latter is the sort of thing I'd expect to read next to an "additional considerations apply" but I feel like we should exclude crime/policing from the Option two-ness of the NYC news carve-out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I'd probably agree that any coverage of alleged police misconduct, particularly in the use-of-force area, in the Post is increasingly slanted in the police's favor. I would advise not using anything in those stories sourced solely to unnamed police sources. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Post is indeed largely uncritical of police and generally sides with police unions, sometimes becoming indistinguishable from their talking points and always a reliable outlet for printing their opinions. Police are just-doing-their-jobs to protect us from violent thugs and vagrants, while politicians and anti-police rioters want to see the city burn or don't care. There's a reason why the highest profile examples of them getting it wrong have to do with crime, and it's not limited to what's outside the city. It's most visible now because there's a lot of attention on policing, but it's not really new, either (unless we're talking about the full scale of the paper's history, in which case decades are short). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites and Daniel Case, my thing is that it is more than just bias. See my example above in response to User:Atsme, where they fabricate a story to support their strong pro-police stance (both a local and national issue). It is not only that they have a bias but that their bias also influences them to either fail at fact-checking or maybe worse fabricate stories. Either they made up this "police source" or, as soon as this source satisfied their confirmation bias, they published the story about looters. Yes, the store was vandalize in protests but it was certainly not looted by rioters for $2.4 M??? Bullshit! They simply wanted to perpetuate a common racist trope about protesters of color, that they are "rioters and looters", and did not care if the story was true, which it was not. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Oh, I'm not arguing with your point. I'm trying to distinguish the baby from the bathwater here. And one way I would do that with the Post is to consider unreliable any fact in any story they do about, well, let's say, anything involving tensions between the NYPD and local minority communities that is not sourced to anyone named. But that does not mean I consider anything and everything the Post reports to be fabricated and/or embellished. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Case, that does seem pragmatic. If I were to carve out any portion to keep, it would be their art and film reviews. Everything else, parochial, national, or global, I simply cannot trust, especially for a BLP. At least with art and film, they cannot do much damage. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I would say stories like this real estate story should still be fine. They do hype up the crime and policing aspects (not to even mention national and global news), but they're also an invaluable source for local real estate that isn't reported in other reliable sources. epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is the sort of exception I was getting at with my !vote above. I don't agree with a blanket OK for all NYC topics as some have suggested, but local topics other than politics, crime, and policing seems fine. I'm just wary to downgrade to a flat option 2 without a clear carve-out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Should we be talking about a year range? The New York Post has been around for a while, and has had various different owners. The highly respected Murray Kempton used to write for them. I think we need to pinpoint a date at which they started becoming garbage, much like we did with Newsweek. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  November 1976, when Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, certainly comes to mind. But that means the entire nypost.com online catalog. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Post-close discussion

@DGG: Thanks for closing, and sorry to put this here -- I would've gone to your usertalk but it was so long it crashed my browser tab. May want to archive. Two questions: (1) I don't disagree, but since 1976 came up only once, it's probably worth elaborating on that. (2) Several people suggested having some sort of carve-out for apolitical NYC area topics. Could you address that (whether or not there was consensus for as much)? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, and i will make some adjustments. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone wondering why the New York Post wasn't depreciated: the false information problem there isn't as prevalent as the Daily Mail, for example. Therefore why consensus likely was gauged to be for being marked as unreliable. If you disagree, wait a bit before reopening this discussion. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm a RS

Good evening I was reading something about Military Frontier and stumbled upon wikipedia article and after that upon a Noel Malcolm book about Bosnia [81] also I've noticed that he is quoted a lot here but still has some controversy behind him with his other books [82]. There is probably a discussion about every historian in the world ,but still there is a lot of opposite opinions about him. So is he a RS and why is he so lets say controversial ? Thank you Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC

The history of Lodhi Rajputs

The history of Lodhi Rajputs is associated with Sanatan Gharma. It is a branch of the Chandra dynasty which is found all over India. In ancient times there were many royalty. like- Rani Avanti Bai Lodhi, Ramgarh, Madhya Pradesh Hirdeshah Lodhi, Panna, Madhya Pradesh Rao Indrajit Singh, Kamatha State, Maharashtra

RFC: HuffPost

What is the reliability of the HuffPost?

• 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 MailHemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (HuffPost)

• Option 1: perfectly reliable. Opinion pieces are opinion pieces, same with any other news source. "18 Reasons Why X Is Y"- and "As An X, Here Is My Opinion On Y"-style articles may be of little use to us but are harmless. Relative to the United States, it has a liberal bias; it does not contain misinformation or factual inaccuracies, just a selective bias in topics a little bit stronger than our most reliable news sources. It's particularly useful for interviews, entertainment (e.g. television reviews) and internet culture but not always useful for showing notability or due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2½. More or less OK for general reporting but distinctly biased, so less reliable for politics (like Faux News) and it gives a platform to people like homeopathy shill Dana Ullman. The default should be not to use HuffPo. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG: Dana Ullman writes as a "HuffPost contributor", right? We list that separately at WP:RSP. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • yeah, the blogs are often random trash much as they are on Forbes - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Similar to Fox. There will always be a better source for WP:DUE article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fox is ranked Option 1 for general topics and Option 2 for politics and science. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as reliable as legacy media. TFD (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as reliable. Wouldn't call it "legacy media" as TFD does, but it was one of the first new sources in "new media" in the midst of Internet that established itself based on standard journalism models, and has proven themselves reliable (with the usual cavaets with its contributor model, already called out), and thus no reason to question it without any evidence to challenge that position. --Masem (t) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff written content although opinion pieces should be attributed as usual. No evidence presented of unreliabilty, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I have generally found it to be reliable. Draws a clear line between staff-written content and advertising. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. HuffPost is certainly WP:BIASED but not unreliable. I have not seen evidence of poor journalism or fact-checking issues from them. Obviously this applies only to the publication itself, not to its contributor content, which is separate and correctly treated as WP:SPS at RSP. Armadillopteryx 00:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option2: I would consider it of questionable (or, more exactly, erratic) reliability even now, and one cannot prove it generally reliable, by showing it has been reliable sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per JzG. Not a great source, but not awful. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news content - it's a perfectly normal WP:NEWSORG on this level. Watch out for blog posts, though - these are not WP:NEWSBLOGs - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • note: the blog posts are "Contributor", "Contributor Network" or explicitly marked "Blogs" - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, totally reliable, issues corrections, has editorial oversight. Abductive (reasoning) 13:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, especially for c. 2012 to present. Its coverage in its early period of existence needs to be looked at more critically, (Option 2). I also think they have a partisan bias, so extraordinary claims may need attribution. I say all this as someone with a strong left bias myself. But biased is not the same as unreliable. Fox was not considered unreliable (for politics and science) because it was biased and neither is NYPost being discussed for that reason, while it is a contributing factor. I have not seen any evidence presented of fabricated coverage. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 given the complete lack of evidence given to the contrary. I suggest this be speedy closed soon unless some rationale is given. -- Calidum 18:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Looking at the arguments above I was leaning towards 3 but I think 2 is a happy medium. Extra consideration should be given using them as the sole source for something politically controversial. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Bias? Meh, everyone is bias. Having said that they run super sensational headlines all the time, like a leftwing Fox News (as pointed out by other editors)...they've gotten the facts really, really wrong many times. One example I can think of his when the claimed 80,000 people died in the UK after being kicked off welfare. In reality 2,600 had died and no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Department for Work and Pensions actions had actually caused any of the deaths. I remember reading the article as someone who is very sympathetic to those being forced off welfare and thinking "That's just insane, as if that really happened" the numbers were just completely crazy and didn't add up at all. They corrected the numbers, but the article is still crazy and implies that the department for Work and Pensions killed more than 2,600 people. They run a lot of sensational crap like this. I don't consider it a serious news outlet, they get stories from dubious sources like blogs and forums, it's a sensationalist left-wing tabloid. Definitely not a 1 editors shouldn't be letting through such wild and obviously false claims, but they do correct their mistakes so not a 4 but they come very close to being completely unreliable for statements of fact - they may have corrected the wild claim that British welfare agencies killed 80,000 people, but the article still claims that a British government department killed nearly 3000 of it's vulnerable citizens with no real evidence to back that claim other than a very flimsy correlation. [83] Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There's good reason to believe that the change to Universal Credit under Ian Duncan Smith probably has killed many people indirectly. See [84] [85] [86] Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to Hemiauchenia's excellent sourcing to back up their argument, I'll give a topical analogy: COVID-19 doesn't just cause deaths by COVID-19, but excess deaths too, and when considering the effect it has had it would be wrong to omit calculation of those deaths. However, as to the specific article in question, HuffPost issued a correction almost immediately: An earlier version of this story incorrectly claimed [...] This was incorrect and was changed within 15 minutes of the story being published. Issuing corrections with such speed is an indicator of reliability, not a strike against it. All publications make similarly mistaken claims from time to time, but it is only the reliable ones which correct them speedily and effectively. — Bilorv (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article is essentially correct after that amendment, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

True, I just think they are quick to publish sensational stories and the fact that such a wild figure made it past the editorial staff is evidence, the story still isn't straight reporting it has a sensational tone and looking at the guardian story, the numbers still seem off...and there's a lot of correlation/causation being presented rather than straight reporting. They are too quick to go for the sensational story or run a certain narrative, like Fox and other trashy outlets. I don't reckon they should be deprecated but we can find better, less sensational sources with tighter editorial controls. Bacondrum (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 — tabloidy and sensationalist clickbait; willingness to put homeopathy nonsense on the same site — even if it's "just a blog" — exposes a willingness to promote misinformation for clicks; and it's only been around since 2005, which is substantially less of a track record than reputable sources like AFP, Reuters, AP, etc. Best avoided in favor of better sources. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for political news (American and international), Option 1.25 for non-political non-controversial news. I would have given a 1.5 for political news, but the Indian HuffPost website has even more biased wording and selective reporting than every Indian left-wing paper and news site besides Bloomberg Quint, which is actually owned by an American company. 45.251.33.169 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1½ for news content — not a blemish-free record, but not one indicative of an irredeemably flawed process, either. Potentially useful as a supplement to legacy media, e.g., if they quote someone at fuller length than the WaPo did. "Contributor" content is often random trash much as they are on Forbes, as David Gerard said above. XOR'easter (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. ~ HAL333 07:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Has become increasingly well-established with evidence of editorial control. The inaccurate story flagged up was fixed within 15 minutes and a correction is still appended to the article. Care should be taken over clickbait-y headlines, and the entry should clarify that blogs/contributors, previously much of the site's content, should be treated separately (as WP:SPS). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Has moved over the past decade from trashy listicle factory and clickbait mill to reputable journalistic institution. (Like Fox in a mirror.) Obviously usual caveats on bias, blogs, opinion pieces, etc. The idea that IDS and his crew of incompetants managed to leave 3,000+ to the wolves with their purely ideological "reforms" (cuts) to welfare is not extraordinary and should surprise no-one. GPinkerton (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per above comments. Only reason why it should be treated differently than "legacy media" would be because there is a lot of blogging content on the website from previous incarnations, which had perhaps less quality control than opinion sections of other reliable sources, so we might need to more prominently emphasise our usual caveats about opinion content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per their 2016 practice of attaching a note to every article about Donald Trump saying Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. In particular, the "regularly incites political violence" part is just plain false. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

e.g. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are talking about the man who recently encouraged extrajudicial mass murder with the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"? He has encouraged and incited racist state brutality since before HuffPost started commenting on it. I notice you find it Generally unreliable for factual reporting but unfortunately your one stated "factual" objection is just your opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• 1, it's fine, just the usual case of dividing opinion from news. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - unreliable per the above, and following are a few more samples of unreliability: EPA - "Huffington Post Report Filled with Biased and Misleading Claims", WaPo, Poynter, and libel suits. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Trump administration's EPA press release is a response to an article about itself which attempts to "fact check" insinuations that are not only not in the article but don't seem to be implied or even relevant. It doesn't offer any evidence of poor journalism or unreliability. The WaPo story involves a quote from someone who had falsely claimed to be an eyewitness to a shooting, which was corrected and withdrawn, though it is a sign of suboptimal standards (at least back in 2014). The Poynter article is about an amusing typo. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Basically that any such categorization is an over generalization and we should stop this type of thing. Actual reliability means objective, unbiased reporting, not just avoiding clearly false statements. By those standards their extreme bias means that in many contexts their reliability is very very low. In other contexts their reliability is fine. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 for staff-writer content - XOR'easter is correct. For contributor blogs, WP:RSOPINION applies as usual. For contentious content, I would prefer to use higher-quality sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, etc.), but the track record on news reporting is decent and they do make a delineation between commentary, advertising, and news. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 How are they any different from Fox News? They are equally as political (or "polarizing" as some would put it) Fortliberty (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG, Bacondrum, and other points raised above. They don't have a reputation for vigorous fact checking or editorial oversight; rather, they have a reputation for sensationalism (e.g. click bait headlines) and bias, though not outright fabrication AFAICT, and they do correct errors, hence not option 4. This is an encyclopedia, and we can do better than citing to a source that has basically never outgrown its origins as a group blog and news aggregator. For anything we could cite HuffPost for, there is a better source available. Lev!vich 14:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; not seeing any indication that they're generally unreliable. The examples cited above fall into two categories - first, stuff where they issued corrections (often fairly minor details, which covers all the WP:RS coverage); and second, people who were described unflatteringly taking issue with that description, without any actual secondary source backing up their objections (the Trump Administration EPA, the libel suit - which does not seem to have succeeded yet? Anyone can sue for any reason, doesn't mean they'll win.) Those seem like a case for WP:MANDY - obviously people are going to object to unflattering reporting about them, but if it is untrue there should be secondary coverage saying so. Much more importantly, none of these sources suggest any long-term or systematic problem with the Huffington Post's reporting. Some editors here have taken issue with its tone, or disagreed with stuff it says, but no actual coverage about that seems forthcoming, and in any case we don't classify sources as reliable or unreliable based on their tone unless there is a reason to think that this influences the accuracy of their reporting... which, again, nobody has actually produced any evidence for. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, every source is biased, I'm not seeing any evidence they have a reputation for factual inaccuracy or that they have categorically published false information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for general reporting and Option 3 for their contributors. Read this article where a contributor appears to promote homeopathy [87]. Things may have changed in recent years, but older articles (regular articles and blogs) need to be used with caution. I'm not so sure about their recent general reporting though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think everyone agrees their contributor content is trash. I also suspect the pre-2012 content is in the same boat. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Tendency towards tabloidy clickbait and a sketchy record on fact checking.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - depends on context and excluding any user-generated blog or video parts. Seems obviously “Generally reliable” in having editors and publishing norms in the usual parts, for the context of popular press. And certainly a noted site. A bit sensationalized, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - For articles which are not of a political nature, Huffpost is as reliable as any other legacy media source. On subjects of political significance, there can be some spin in the presentation of facts—the facts themselves are usually accurate, but there are exceptions—so it's important to view what they say on those matters with a critical eye. When possible, corroborating with a second reliable source can be good practice. -- ExParte ^talk 06:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Far too many poorly sourced and sensationalised articles littered with inaccuracies or glaring omissions. There are good articles but not nearly enough consistency to be accepted as a source without very close scrutiny. They don't seem to have investigative staff so it would be rare for them to have coverage which is not available elsewhere in a much better and more balanced prose. Cambial Yellowing❧ 06:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - HuffPost is basically the ying to Fox News's yang in that it seems to have a major left-lean bias per what has been said above. It should not be considered a factual source. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (HuffPost)

• @Hemiauchenia: Are you specifically referring to articles written by HuffPost staff (and not HuffPost contributors)? — Newslinger talk 23:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Yes, HuffPost contributors was sunsetted in 2018. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't true for the UK edition, the statement in the article by the UK EiC that "The US platform allows bloggers to self-publish, creating an unregulated, unedited and unrefined stream of noise into the noisy space that is the internet. In the UK that is entirely different - we do monitor, edit and curate the blogs before they launch.", is telling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please present evidence for the (un)reliability of the source, otherwise these discussions become rather impressionistic/opinion-based. (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Some editors may be confusing political with factual reliability. While the Huffington Post has been unreliable in its support for the Democratic Party, it's facts have been reliable. For example, they published articles about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations against the Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden weeks before legacy media. But that's an objection about what stories they chose to report, rather than their accuracy. There's no need anyway to ban every publication that doesn't support Joe Biden 100%. For broadly covered stories, weight prevents us from including stories that legacy media ignores. TFD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• The confusion is that there are and were blogs (or "contributor" articles, or similar names), of varying degrees of editorial review. The US ones included the likes of Dana Ullman. The UK ones claimed greater editorial oversight, but they were unpaid for-exposure blogs on a Forbes-like model (I know people HuffPost tried to talk into giving them copy for free). These aren't NEWSORG content - and I wouldn't even call them NEWSBLOG content. They're just blog posts, and only RS insofar as they're expert opinion - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• They publish falsehoods and wild exaggeration: In this 2015 story they imply that the DWP killed 3000 vulnerable welfare recipients with no evidence to back that claim, initially the article claimed it was 80,000 dead. No reliable source with proper editorial over-site would run that story: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/27/benefits-death-claimants-welfare-ids_n_8047424.html?guccounter=1 2009 they promote magic healing water as evidence based homeopathy? That's an oxymoron, it's pseudoscience and while this might be a blog, what reputable source would dabble in this kind of crap: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-wisdom-of-symptoms-re_b_299070 And that's just a small sample of crap they publish. Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bacondrum, The first story looks similar to a Guardian story[88] As for the second one, it's marked "contributor". This discussion is only on staff content. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the story doesn't have any merit, the DWP was and is cruel and unreasonable, no doubt there are massive issues. The Guardian had to correct their story too, but the tone is much more akin to straight reporting and they never claimed 80,000 had died - how did such an outlandish and wildly wrong number make it through the editorial process?. Overall the Huff is sensational, while it might lean my way politically, it's a trashy sensationalist outlet. I don't think it should be depreciated, but I find claims that it's a totally solid reliable news source a bit hard to swallow. The Guardian is solid overall, the Huff does a lot of...huffing. Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One story for which they issued a correction and one by a contributor 11 years ago don't really amount to a lot. Compare to e.g. the pile of evidence in the New York Post RfC. Not saying you're wrong, but for being the first real evidence presented here... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There's heaps more issues, those were just two I could think of off the top of my head, I often find the Huffs output pretty cringe worthy so I only really read it when it makes the news for the wrong reasons. I remember them being in the news a number of times for publishing crazy psuedoscience stuff. Salon ran this in 2009: https://www.salon.com/2009/07/30/huffington_post/ pretty mental stuff, the Huff was recommending "deep-cleansing enemas" to treat swine flu??? Fair bit of dubious reportage by the Huff documented in other outlets used in our article if you check the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost#Criticism_and_controversy Bacondrum (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That story was long ago and the nature of the media organization and their content has changed immensely since then. They started as clickbait, now are a mainstream news medium. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Any evidence they have recently published outright lies as news, not opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oregon Encyclopedia

Source: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/voodoo_doughnut/#.X1lVYHlKi03
Article: Voodoo Doughnut
Claims that the box of doughnuts by Voodoo is the biggest in the world and that it has been confirmed by Guinness world records.

I can't find it on Guinness' official page https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com or news articles stating it has been confirmed. For example, this one published in 2011, and updated in 2019 doesn't say it has been confirmed. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2011/08/that_gigantic_pink_box_of_vood.html Another source at https://www.today.com/food/worlds-largest-box-doughnuts-weighs-666-pounds-1C9004976 doesn't say confirmed. I am wondering if this is an exceptionally rare case or if they're not diligent about sources, thus not really reliable. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on their contributors page[89] it seems to be a legit website, many of whose authors would pass SPS for non-extroardinary claims. I would guess that it's generally reliable, but oddly enough the author of this entry, Amy Platt, is not listed on their contributors page. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on a search in the Guinness World Records Application Search (all you need is a free account), the record for the largest box of donuts was set by the Kuwait Food Company in 2009. Public record page for reference. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The above is correct. I am wondering if this is one of thing or if they're just lousy in fact checking. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday the prevailing opinion (summarised by Andy Dingley) is that the ban does not cover the Mail on Sunday namely because it is not stated to apply.
2. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Daily_Mail_(sigh,_yes,_again) Newslinger also notes that Mail on Sunday is unaffected by the ban.
3. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday? we have a discussion that explicitly tackles this question, but does not explicitly answer it. Mazca observes that the two publications are editorially independent. He also comments that there is an argument that MoS shares many of the same reliability issues as its sister publication, and that the ban that applies to the online platform acts as a "de facto barrier" to MoS.
4. We now have a situation with David Gerard purging Mail on Sunday references from Wikipedia: see [90], [91], [92] just for a few examples. There are dozens more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Mail on Sunday

What is the reliability of The Mail on Sunday?

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

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

Responses (Mail on Sunday)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

list for clarification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 article and correction as 3

9 article and correction as 3

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

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

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

References

• Option 2 - depends on context and whether the discussion is conflating items. The article says this the largest WEIGHT such publication so seems a bit much to exclude it, and seems in the category of popular press so I’m thinking it reasonable to cite for that context and folks are trying to consider it outside the context it would/should be used. Seems obviously “Generally” reliable in the sense of usually having the criteria of editorial control and publication norms and accessibility, and the bulk of stories factual correctness is not in particular question. I don’t think anyone here has put it as the category of 3 generally self-published or blog or sponsored pieces. Category 4 seems excessive - false or fabricated doesn’t seem a correct characterization if people are having to go back to 2012 and 2014 for cases to discuss. Also, much of the discussion above seems to be confusing https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/ with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ or that none of these are actually The Mail on Sunday. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Categorise the same as the Daily Mail: there's no substantial difference between the two paper's journalistic values and fact-checking processes, and hence this RfC should not be able to override the stronger, more global consensus to deprecate the Daily Mail. As a second resort, if we are to categorise the Mail on Sunday differently then we must categorise it as option 4 per the compelling evidence presented by ReconditeRodent and David Gerard that it is established practice at the paper to lie and suppress corrections wherever legally possible. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – 2 - Requires scrutiny but a respected paper that has done much serious reporting unavailable elsewhere. The majority of advocates for "deprecating" the MoS are the same "it's the Daily Mail" line even though it in fact has its own website i.e. Mail on Sunday and a totally separate editorial staff. Ownership by the same company has little if any relevance. Basing your vote on carefully ignoring the facts seems unreasonable to me. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, same or substantially the same editorial policy and authors. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The Mail on Sunday has a completely separate editorial oversight, staff, office and so on. They are completely different newspapers that compete with each other, but simply have a similar name. I do, however, see the risk of their content being hosted on the MailOnline/DailyMail.com, as they do not have their own website. In which situation I would endorse Option 2 with the condition that the Mail on Sunday remains a reliable source but that the print edition must be the one cited, with online links unacceptable. Ortolan57 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's hard to see how it's an option 1 given its cited record of fabrication - surely this should be addressed in an opinion worth taking into consideration - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, just as completely divorced from the truth as the regular Daily Mail, despite being nominally seperate. They clearly have the exact same record of lying constantly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 No evidence that this source is any more reliable than the regular DM, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Remember, the onus is on those who are arguing the source can be used to demonstrate that it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Although the MoS may not be in Breitbart/National Enquirer territory it is clearly generally unreliable as per above comments. A note on comparisons of complaints: if we look at the nature and scale of the inaccuracies in the MoS presented in the lists above and below, and not just how many there were in a given year, it is clear that most of them are serious and relate to central news stories not just marginal human interest stories (major inaccuracies about electoral candidates not corrected until after election, major mischaracterisations of data about climate change) and also that they fit into a pattern of repeating false allegations as part of an ideological campaign (e.g. around climate change, where false statements were repeated despite earlier corrections) or systematically misrepresenting religion/ethnicity (e.g. to generate clickbait buzz by plugging into anti-Muslim panic), and not simple mistakes such as mistyping the number of arrests at the Appleby fair. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 since not proof has been offered to show the Sunday edition of the mail any more reliable than the daily --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 I wouldn't want anything on Wikipedia based solely on a MoS article, it is too unreliable. If it is valid information it will also appear in more reliable papers like the the Guardian or the Telegraph. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1Putting aside the paper's politics, all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. Large parts of what the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) content are reliable and well-written and were the same content published elsewhere we wouldn't even question it - such as this for example [93]. This pogrom of Daily Mail content has already seen sources being blindly removed even when for our purposes they would be reliably sourced and well-written and it's often to the detriment of articles - and anyone who questions this is shouted down. Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis, I am firmly opposed to blanket pronouncements such as this related to mainstream media. WCM_email 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So you're fine with the list of blatant fabrications? - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 As per Curry above and the fact that MOS has a separate editor. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Mail on Sunday)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A pile of distorted and fabricated claims about the EU: [94]
• Fabricated front-page claims of "foreign collusion" by Remain MPs [95]
• Fifth in the list for PCC complaints, 2013 [96]
• Fabrication about claimed BMA guidelines for doctors [97]
• Capital gains tax fabrication, IPSO rules as "serious breach" [98]
• Fabricated claims of anti-Semitism [99]
• Defamatory attack on individual [100]
• IPSO: "significantly misleading" [101]
• Fabrication of quotes in interview (the MoS cannot be trusted for quotes any more than the DM) [102]

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

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

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

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

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

Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world is incorrect. See Independent Press Standards Organisation#Membership: "Several of the broadsheet newspapers, including the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, have declined to take part in IPSO. The Financial Times and The Guardian have established their own independent complaints systems instead." The latter has long had a "readers’ editor – who is appointed, and can only be dismissed, by the Scott Trust – [and] can comment on issues and concerns raised by the public. There has also been an external ombudsman to whom the readers’ editor can refer substantial grievances, or matters concerning the Guardian’s journalistic integrity." That includes a feature of corrections and clarifications, not waiting for months or a year for IPSO judgment on public complaints.[103][104] . . dave souza, talk 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sources
References

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

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

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

RfC: The American Conservative

What is the reliability of The American Conservative, theamericanconservative.com  —used in about 400 articles?

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

Survey: The American Conservative

• Option 3–4. At the last RfC in 2019, this publication was rated Option 2 because it published mostly opinion. However, unlike some other opinion-based sources, it has a record of publishing factually incorrect information, and cannot be considered to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy according to WP:RS. As TFD noted at the time, Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. This magazine was also one of the main publications promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which reliable sources say is a factually untrue conspiracy theory.
• The publication is cited on BLP articles such as Andrea Long Chu, The Myth of Persecution (recent book, living author, so BLP applies), Mike Lofgren, Allan Jacobs, Aleksandr Shchipkov (social scientist), Carl Prine, and Shamus Khan, and for facts about sensitive current issues, for which it is especially important to get the facts right: Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War, List of United States drone bases. Because of the track record of publishing falsehoods and conspiracy theories, I do not think it is usable on BLPs except in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner. (t · c) buidhe 11:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  The source is quite similar to FrontPage Magazine (deprecated) in that it routinely promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories. I don't know why we should treat it much differently. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Seems to tell outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 4 (first choice) or 3 (second choice). The Option 3 part is simplest: it's not a publication engaging in journalism, its purpose is advocacy. Everything it publishes is passed through a filter of die-hard conservative ideology, so it's no use as a source of fact for the same reason as Occupy Democrats or Alternet. Nudging it into option 4 is inclusion of opinion pieces by extremists like Rod Dreher - "a man who appears to view fomenting transgender panic more as a vocation than a job" - including "Robespierres Of The Sexual Revolution" which promotes the idea that doctors decide whether or not to kill babies as they come down the birth canal, and statements like "Colin Kaepernick can’t get a job on a professional football team, but he has been affirmative-actioned into virtual football by the woke capitalists at Madden" (Kap was, of course, unable to get a job because he was blackballed, as was well known at the time the article was written). That's not just bias, that's outright disinformation. So it's useless as a source of fact, and its opinions are sufficiently extreme that we should not include them from the primary source, but only if they are reported in a secondary source. That means we should not be citing it without an extremely good reason - i.e. deprecate. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'm picking this for two reasons. First, this effort to deprecate every source possible has gone too far. Even a so-so source can be usable from time to time. Second, what has changed that invalidates the previous discussion/consensus? I'm picking 2 because it strikes me as the most neutral option. Basically the option we might use when dealing with a relatively unknown/discussed source. Why shouldn't this sort of thing happen at the article level? With discussions like this the overall effect is green sources are anointed and treated as always reliable no matter how questionable the claims in a specific article. Conversely, a less reliable source might make a really strong set of arguments or point to important facts but, if the source is yellow, or worse red, a discussion of the potential validity of that source stops at the article level regardless of the merits of the arguments. This doesn't make for a better Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote, so if you intend a protest vote against the concept of deprecation, this isn't the place - the process of deprecation was ratified in an RFC, so if you wanted to protest it you'd need to mount a new RFC. If you have anything to say about this source in particular, you haven't done so. Thus, this is so far a null post. Do you have anything to say about this source in particular? - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3–4 - I just read a dozen stories or so. They are basically opinion, and rather extreme opinion, with sprinklings of conspiracy and misrepresentations. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Agree with Springee. There may be be limited situations where it is appropriate to use this source, but in those situations, it is fine. Deprecation needs to be balanced with situational appropriateness. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per Blueboar and Springee. Strongly oppose option 4 at the current time as no evidence to support this has been presented yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agree with Blueboar, Springee and the Emir of Wikipedia. There might be cases where it is useful as a source, but the onus would be on the editor adding the material to show that. We really need to do more to ensure that opinion pieces are not used as sources and that not every opinion that has been published has sufficient weight for inclusion in articles. TFD (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  If you don't think it should be worse than 2, but also don't support citing opinion pieces, please give an example of non-opinion content from this source that would be suitable to cite (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, I can't provide one, which is why I don't think it needs to be banned. There are hundreds of thousands of comic books, novels, movies, songs, poems, plays, blogs, facebook pages, etc. that are not reliable sources for articles, but I don't see a need to add them all to the blacklist. It is only when sources present news stories that are inaccurate that we need to release the Manhattan project. TFD (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Springee's reasoning is spot on. Especially the consideration of why rerun this? Has anything changed in either the source or its treatment here? Not as far as I can see. There seems to be a drive to RfC every questionable source and deprecate as many as possible. As the person who closed the RfC on the header text that these deprecation RfC's are following, I can say that there were strong reservations expressed that the text would lead to a flood of deprecation RfC's that were unnecessary. Those reservations appear to have come true. These clog up this noticeboard and I think that unless there is an actual dispute in the use of a source, an RfC on deprecating that should not be started. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  In the first RfC, the actual accuracy of the source was not discussed very much—a serious deficiency in my opinion which led to a questionable outcome. Because the issue is not marked as unreliable, despite not having a track record of fact-checking or accuracy (quite the opposite), it still continues to be cited inappropriately. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Option 3 per the factually incorrect information highlighted by buidhe.VR _talk 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you expand on where you see “factually incorrect information”. Looking at the articles presented so far, I see some controversial opinions, but not outright falsehoods. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Fact checks: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/02/texas-professor-white-people/ https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20110501/NEWS/801252480 (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those look like clear cut "facutally incorrect" to me. The first is the stronger one since it sounds like the removal of context is problematic however, the original article seems to be more than the summary that snoops provides. The second one is debunking some email that was floating around. It was not debunking the AC directly. It suggests the quotes in the negative email might be based on a book review from the AC from 2007. It does not say "The AC said X and it is wrong because Y". So that should not be considered a false claim made by the AC. Unfortunately, sometimes "debunking" can tell us as much about the opinions of the debunker as the debunked. Springee (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: the comparison to Occupy Democrats or similar is apposite. Facts are secondary to ideological opinion, and are sloppy at best, fabricated at worst. This is not a source of content that would be usable in writing an encyclopedia. It's not even clear it can be trusted for statements about itself - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Springee. Controversial opinions are not the same as false facts. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: seems to dip into conspiracy theory territory. See, for example, this article: "Beware Of George Soros’ Trojan Horse Prosecutors: The left-wing billionaire has been funding the campaigns of prosecutors intent on creating chaos rather than doing their jobs". I checked the Soros page and it did not have anything related to prosecutors. According to TAC: "...wealthy radicals led by billionaire George Soros have poured over $100 million in hard-to-trace dark money to fund political activities in races for state and local prosecutors. Their goal? To install far-left prosecutors to undermine the American justice system at every level." And so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (maybe 3) I have used this as a source myself on a couple occasions where appropriate. For better or worse, it's an important outlet for a certain cast of characters whose voices come up a lot in right and far-right circles, so it seems valuable to have those perspectives (though perhaps red-boxed--we could base inclusion in an article on author more so than publication, perhaps). And I'm not the only one who uses the source in that way! Plenty of RSes look to TAC for a certain right-wing perspectives.

See The Atlantic: [105][106].

See The New Yorker: [107][108]

See the BBC: [109][110]

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who to be fair has himself come under fire recently, describes the site as having "occasional anti-Semitic undertones" as of 2007. Despite this, he recommended the site as an out-of-the-box mixed bag of unique conservative commentary: [111].

In 2017, The Atlantic described it as "paleocon", so maybe that's the perspective in play: [112].

In 2012, David Brooks called it "one of the most dynamic spots on the web" in a NYT opinion section. He names an array of specific authors he sees as valuable who have written for the publication, categorizing them into groups of paleocons, libertarians, "Lower-Middle Reformists", and "Burkean revivalists", Nieman Labs, a Harvard journalism center, classifies it as a "highbrow conservative publication" alongside National Review and Reason (at least in the views of Jason Wilson, a left-wing journalist who often covers the right).

Does this magazine at times publish seriously deranged material? For sure. But, for better or worse, it's also pretty important for getting access to certain perspectives on the right. Further, it's much better at avoiding saying the quiet part loud than other publications (it's not in the same league as Frontpage Mag in that regard). I don't find the examples shown so far sufficiently compelling, though I'll try to keep on top of this post and change my !vote if something more severe comes up. Jlevi (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1-2 To me it looks reliable. We need more than a couple of cases of an alleged fake news or extreme, controversial opinions to establish that this newspaper is a serial purveyor of fake news. From what I have seen of their reporting,they seem reasonably well researched and their contributors (some of whom seem to be notable personalities who have their own wikipages) are drawn from across the political spectrum (this is in keeping with their "paleoconservatism", so this isn't your typical "left-or-right-wing-nutjob" publication where it is just a giant echo chamber) Fortliberty (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 like Fox News (talk shows). Wouldn't use for factual statements but would be okay for attributed opinion where reliable sources (like those presented by Jlevi) or agreed upon context (e.g. discussing the views of a particular writer) establish due weight. In the absence of this, I'd be very cautious of assigning weight given their promotion of fringe views and conspiracy theories (per buidhe, Guy, etc). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 (also happy with 4): Because it has a sheen of respectability, I have seen some editors here assuming it is a reliable source for defence/international news, e.g. using Scott Ritter's highly fringe opinions on Syrian chemical weapons as if they are factual sources, so it would be good to flag it as needing particular caution. Re the question earlier about what's changed since the last RfC, one thing that has changed is the rise of disinformation around COVID and it seems that AmCon has played a role in disseminating this.[113][114] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC) I am striking my support for 4, having re-read the comments here and googled other reliable sources' commentary on AmCon and am persuaded that there are enough times when it might be due to include it as opinion so should not be deprecated, although I continue to think it should be flagged as inappropriate for factual claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 See my prior comments linked by buidhe. Cambial foliage❧ 11:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Jlevi --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

HYPR sources, are they good enough to start an article?

Hello, I have a couple sources and I don't know if they are considered reliable independent and sig coverage, I tried to create the article through AfC but it got deleted. I am not happy with the explanation. These are the sources I would like to know if they meet WP:NCORP, thanks to everyone :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)

Sources

Are government documents primary sources?

For example the source used in this edit. Would that be considered a primary source? PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The government produces all sorts of documents. Some are primary sources, some are secondary sources, some are tertiary sources, and some are a mixture. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report is a mixture, but it's a secondary source re: the letter Trump sent Putin (the letter is the primary source). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

So by that the Mueller report would be a secondary source? PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, a given document can be a mix. The Mueller Report is a secondary source re: the evidence it cites, but it's a primary source for the SCO's conclusions. Same with the SSCI Report; it's a mixture of primary and secondary (and there may be some sections where it's tertiary, but I've only skimmed parts, so I don't know). As WP:PSTS notes, "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement." I'm only saying that the SSCI report is a secondary source for the particular sentence that it was cited for. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the edit I gave as an example I am still not sure why it would not be primary since there is no analysis and just a picture of the letter in question. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The report cannot be a primary source for the letter itself because the SSCI didn't write the letter. They just referenced it. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question used a quote from the letter which is the primary, every time. The report did not mention that quote so again no analysis. In fact from what I can tell the whole report, similar to the Mueller report discussion is primary. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, the referent of "which" in your first sentence is ambiguous to me. Are you agreeing that the letter is a primary source when you say "which is the primary"? Whether there's any analysis of the letter in the SCCI report is irrelevant to whether the SCCI report is the primary source for the letter itself. The SCCI didn't write the letter and cannot be the primary source for the letter. The letter existed years before the SSCI ever wrote its report. The report is a secondary source with respect to quoting or printing a copy of the letter. The SSCI report is a primary source for the SSCI's own statements. Again: a given source can be a mixture of primary and secondary. The Mueller Report discussion you linked to was about Is the Mueller Report a reliable secondary source for its investigative findings? (emphasis added), and others correctly noted that with respect to its findings, it's a primary source, not a secondary source. But the findings are not the entirety of the report. The report also refers to a wide array of primary sources (e.g., FBI interviews, text messages, phone call records, Congressional testimony, newspaper articles), and when it's doing that, it's a secondary source. Returning to the question of the letter, the SSCI report reprinted the letter, including the quote. They do provide a brief interpretation of the letter in the context of "Sater's interest in pursuing a deal in Russia," as I noted below. The issue here isn't that it's a BLPPRIMARY violation (it isn't); the problem is that the WP editor who introduced the claim took the SSCI's use of letter out of context. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that is the wrong question. It is implicit synthesis to include this information in the article. You need to explicitly explain the connection between the letter and Russian interference in the election. How is it any different from the nice things President George W. Bush and Secretary Clinton said about Putin? TFD (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Only in the very minor inference that because the Senate report included it, they thought it bore on the matter. It's technically a secondary source recounting primary source material. Mangoe (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not analogous to an elected or appointed official saying something nice on the government's behalf. The letter was sent in 2007, when Trump was a private citizen. But the WP article's reference to it leaves out the SSCI's reason for mentioning the letter: it's in the section on "[Felix] Sater's History of Trump Development Work in Russia," and the SSCI used Trump's letter in the following context: "Sater explained that he pursued a large number of international deals which he pitched to Trump and the Trump Organization. As a result, he believed that there was not a 'special affinity' to Russia, but that a variety of factors made the prospect of a Russia deal 'interesting.' ... Sater's interest in pursuing a deal in Russia, however, did not occur in complete isolation. For example, in 2007, Donald Trump wrote a letter to Putin congratulating him on Putin's being named 'Person of the Year' by Time." If the article is trying to illustrate that Trump's longstanding interest in / efforts towards developing Trump Tower Moscow is relevant to our understanding of Russia's election interference, then it needs to do a better job. I agree that the letter in isolation isn't particularly significant. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The article in question is a timeline of who said and did what when. By its nature, it does not provide analysis of what was said or done. If you look at the talk page archive, you will find lots of discussions about the relevance of including Trump's pro-Russia statements prior to his election campaign, with the consensus being to include them because they are part of a pattern of behavior discussed in the press. It is a settled discussion for that page, so complaints about the validity of citing the SSCI report, whose non-summary sections are full of inline citations making it clearly WP:SECONDARY, are a red herring to suppress Trump's statements and actions that his supporters don't like. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Having citations is not relevant to if it is primary or not. Also things like to suppress Trump's statements and actions that his supporters don't like is not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• From what I can see the SSCI report would be kind of similar to the Steele dossier and all the things that go with using that as a source. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Websurfer2, it provides implicit analysis. The letter to Putin according to the sources shows that Trump had a good relationship with Russia. That's the conclusion reached in the report. It is not an example of Russian interference in the 2016 election, but evidence the Russians had a proclivity to support Trump or that he would collude with them based on previous interactions. If you don't explicitly explain the relevance then it is advocacy. TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No, they're not similar as sources, and frankly I don't understand why you think they are (you don't say why). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Because they are pretty similar in how they are put together and how they should be treated. Also my name is not Frank. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But they aren't "similar in how they are put together" (e.g., the Steele dossier is a compilation of raw intelligence, and the SSCI report is not; Congressional testimony is provided under penalty of perjury, whereas Steele's sources could lie to him without legal penalty; the SSCI gathered information from a much more diverse set of sources than Steele did). They shouldn't be treated the same way. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Both are pretty much raw intelligence. The perjury stuff is not relevant to reliability here. Neither is how diverse the raw intel is. Again I am not seeing any reason to treat them too terribly different. Honestly I would say you shouldn't use either for straight up factual reporting on their own, especially about a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the Steele dossier is raw intelligence, but the SSCI Report definitely is not, and I'm baffled that you think it is. And yes, when someone makes statements in a context where it's illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements (e.g., testifying under oath, an FBI interview), that does affect the reliability of the statements that are made. That's the entire premise of perjury being illegal (that being able to prosecute someone for lying under oath makes it less likely that they'll lie), and it's the reason that we have laws against making false statements to Congress, to the FBI, etc. Collecting evidence from a more diverse set of sources puts you in a better position to look at confirming or contradictory evidence across the entire set. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

when someone makes statements in a context where it's illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements (e.g., testifying under oath, an FBI interview), that does affect the reliability of the statements that are made I don't want to be that person but have a link to policy for that? None of the statements you just made are backed by policy. That is the fundamental problem here I think. On a personal level I would trust the SSCI more than that crap dossier, but as for writing an encyclopedia neither are particularly ideal and my personal opinions do not really matter since that is not policy. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't making a claim about WP policy. I was making a factual claim: we have laws that make it illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements in certain contexts (e.g., [115], [116]), people are sometimes prosecuted for these crimes, the basis for making it illegal is to reduce the likelihood of someone lying / increase the reliability of their statements in these contexts, and oaths do have an impact on lying (hard to assess, but here's an example of relevant research in a different context: Jacquemet, N., Luchini, S., Rosaz, J., & Shogren, J. F. (2019). Truth telling under oath. Management Science, 65(1), 426-438). Your claim "the SSCI report would be kind of similar to the Steele dossier" wasn't about policy either, so I was presenting facts to help you understand why your belief that they're similar is mistaken. Returning to your original question, do you accept that the SSCI Report a mix -- a primary source for some claims and a secondary source for others, per the quote I included earlier from WP:PSTS? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of public medical publications, all government documents, even "internal histories" are authored by an interested party to the situations they describe and are primary documents. That doesn't mean they can never be used, but it does mean they're not dispassionate secondary scholarly sources. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That kind of blanket claim simply isn't true. As a simple counterexample, the Congressional Research Service regularly publishes reports that are secondary or tertiary sources: https://crsreports.congress.gov/ -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No. CRS is a perfect example of why they are primary sources; as a department of a government, it produces documents which are not a product of scholarship - i.e. work by disinterested scholars. It's certainly useful, but WP would rely on a secondary source i.e. from an academic press of some kind (or from a reliable journalistic source) commenting on a document from CRS. Cambial Yellowing❧ 19:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Many official histories, including internal ones, are written by dispassionate authors, and for good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No. You only need read the first sentence of WP:PRIMARY to understand that you are wrong. They are primary by definition. Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It simply isn't true that "They are primary by definition." The authors generally aren't "close to an event" that they're writing about. For example, consider this CRS Report on The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy. The CRS staff who wrote this aren't migrants affected by the policy, aren't CPB/ICE/DHS employees enforcing the policy, ... And "secondary" does not require that a publication be "a product of scholarship" or "work by disinterested scholars." Lots of secondary sources are created by non-scholars (e.g., journalists). Here's an example of a past RS/N discussion about the CRS as a reliable secondary/tertiary source: [117]. FWIW, the CRS staff "includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical scientists" ([118]), so many do have a scholarly background. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's usage of "primary" and "secondary" is not based on who published the information, but the treatment of the information. Raw reporting of information is considered primary, and from a government point of view, would the things like Congressional records, court transcripts, and the like, where there has been no transformation of that information. A secondary source transforms that through analysis or synthesis of some type, more than simple summary. That would be what most CRS reports do, or what a court decision will involve, or what many executive branch rule making decisions lead with in the Federal Register. That the government is reporting on government stuff makes these dependent and/or first-party sources which do have concerns related to notability and neutrality, but that's not the same as the primary/secondary distinction. --Masem (t) 22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually, Cambial Yellowing the first sentence of PRIMARY identifies such sources as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Many official histories are neither close to an event nor written by those who were involved in the events recounted; some official histories are SELFPUB and others have editorial oversight, but unless they are written by interested parties they are not PRIMARY.

And many government publications are subject to peer review and are SECONDARY RS; this is not at all limited to the medical field. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Until, of course, the material from which the government document was compiled disappears (so all we are left with is the government document)... at which point historians would classify the remaining government doc as “Primary”. In other words, a document can change its classification over time. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?

The following online article is used in a Wikipedia BLP, Aliza Ayaz which is up for AfD: Pakistan’s First And Youngest Student, Aliza Ayaz Speaks At WUF By The UN Habitat.

Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?

Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites

We have an AfD going on for list of fatal dog attacks in the United States and one of the questions people have about the page is about reliable source coverage of the subject as a group.

Among the websites offered for evidence of this coverage are dogsbite.org, dogbitelaw.com, daxtonsfriends.com, animals24-7.org, nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org, and fatalpitbullattacks.com

Not looking for opinions on notability here, of course, nor for people to weigh in at that AfD. Just for opinions as to whether advocacy websites, law firm websites, etc. like these should be considered reliable sources in this context.

It's very much not my topic area -- it just seems like I keep coming across thinly veiled anti-pitbull advocacy on Wikipedia lately, and I want to make sure I'm not missing something about these kinds of sources. I know that in some areas there are advocacy organizations routinely do high quality work, and perhaps these are among them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

All unreliable - self published sources by non-experts whose statistics and inference from said statistics are at odds with the expert veterinary literature. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite some examples? ImTheIP (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure - Animals 24-7 states that "Of the 210 fatal dog attacks occurring since January 1, 2010, 138––66%––have been inflicted by pit bulls.", and dogsbite.org makes similar claims that "From 2005 to 2019, pit bulls killed 346 Americans, a rate over 6.5 times higher than the next closest breed, rottweilers, with 51 deaths.". Dog bite statistics are not collected by the CDC by breed and dogsbite.org's statistics are disputed by some groups as misleading - this article cites the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior as an example. Dog bite statistics by breed are fraught with error, as noted in a 2006 Journal of Veterinary Behavior paper which states Attack data are often seriously flawed with respect to collection, reporting, and analysis. In the United States, the term “pit bull” does not mean APBT: it is a generic term that includes all the bull and terrier breeds, and sometimes the other bull breeds such as boxers, bull mastiffs, American bulldogs (Rowan, 1987). Breed identification is seldom ver-ified or consistent (Beck et al., 1975), and even experts cannot always tell whether a dog is a pit bull (Rowan, 1987). More seriously, breed identification often is based upon newspaper accounts. A 2013 paper in the JAVMA analysizes all US fatal dog attacks from 2000–2009 and notes that breed was only reliably identified for 17.6% of cases. Likewise, in a 2017 Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science paper, the authors found that large portions of hospital intake statistics are incomplete or unknown with regard to the breed, an example is For example, Dwyer, Douglas, and van As (2007) claim that “pit bull terriers” and German Shepherd dogs—presumed to be correctly identified—were the most common breeds in their study to “attack” children, but they note that only 1% of their sample reported the presumed breed of the dog, a percentage far too low to permit generalizations about the other 99% of the sample.

Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AVMA and the AVSAB, two of the major veterinary bodies in the United States on the grounds that it is not effective at reducing overall dog bite incidences, the AVSAB position statement in particular references several studies that shows overall dog bite incidences do not change when pit bull populations approach near zero. Dogsbite.org doesn't seem to dispute this, and their claims that BSL is effective specifically states laws reduce only the amount of pit bull attacks - not overall dog attacks or hospital intake.

Dogsbite.org was also critized for their use of the term "science whore" to describe members of the scientific community. This mentioned by author Bronwen Dickey in both her book Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon and in an interview with Psychology Today. Radio Canada also criticized dogsbite.org for the use of the term - the site responded to this criticism saying that this term has only been used three times since the creation of the site in 2007, which is not a particularlly compelling defense. Perhaps more worrysome is that after a great deal of discussion in Feb 2019 on the Talk:Dogsbite.org page about the term "science whore", dogsbite.org scrubbed all the logos and branding off the maultalk "Science whore" entry as of the April 23 2019 snapsnot, indicating some kind of off site coordination to influence Wikpedia discussion. PearlSt82 (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But the specific claims you are objecting to are not contradicted by the literature. I did a literature search and found that it is not implausible that, currently, most fatal dog bites in the US are inflicted by pit bull type breeds: "Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. " Essig Jr. et. al 2019 "During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths." Sacks et. al 2000 Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities 1998 It is of course possible, as you suggest, that this research is based on faulty statistics, but that wouldn't make the conclusions false, only unproven.

My point is that if you object to "Of the 210 fatal dog attacks occurring since January 1, 2010, 138––66%––have been inflicted by pit bulls" you should challenge the statement directly. Phillips publishes the data he supports his claims with so whether he is doctoring the data or not can be shown. For example, you could go through his list of dog bite fatalities for 2018 and show that he has incorrectly listed the breed as pit bull on one or more entries. To me, that would be conclusive evidence that the guy is a crackpot. ImTheIP (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Radio Canada source does exactly this. Through Google Translate: Here are a few cases that Animals 24-7 considers to be pit bull deaths: In 2009, in Wisconsin, a 55-year-old woman, Louanne Okapal, died after being punched in the face by her horse. The horse had been frightened by a pit bull. In 2009, a 48-year-old Connecticut woman, Teresa Foss, died of a head injury after being hit by a pit bull. The dog hadn't bitten her. In 2010, 64-year-old Texas man Richard Martratt stabbed a pit bull and shot a catahoula after the two dogs attacked a border collie on his property. The man was not attacked by the dogs, but when authorities arrived he collapsed and died of a heart attack. In 2010 in Georgia, 14-year-old Miracle Parham fled after being frightened by a dog that witnesses described as a pit bull. She was fatally hit by a car. In 2013, 63-year-old James Harding was hit by a car after trying to pull away from two pitbulls. A 6-year-old girl was strangled by a chain to which a pit bull was attached. The year and location are not specified. and Another case cited on DogsBite.org concerns a 57-year-old man from Tennessee, James Chapple, who suffered serious hand injuries from pit bulls in 2007. Four months later he died of atherosclerosis and alcoholism problems. Even so, DogsBite.org counts it as a death caused by pit bulls.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Another case, Julia Mazziotto is reported by dogsbite.org as a pit bull fatality, but page 204 of Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon states The Lee Institute’s forensic experts determined that Julia Mazziotto’s wounds had been inflicted postmortem and that the elderly woman had actually died of a cardiac arrhythmia. The dogs had not been involved in her death, but after the fact they had pawed, scratched, and bitten her body. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

PearlSt82, your blind hatred for Clifton and Lynn comes out yet again. ImTheIP was referring to attorney Kenneth Phillips "doctoring the data or not" and you go on and on about Clifton and Lynn. By the way, according to the website DogsBite.org, Lynn doesn't "count" Chapple as a dog bite related fatality. See here where it says it isn't counted in the statistics and here where it discusses (in 2013) the dispute over the official cause of death. Julia Mazziotto was killed in 2002 and that pre-dates DogsBite.org's collection (which started in 2005, I believe), so that is not counted. From the New York Times article: "An 80-year-old woman was fatally mauled in her home here on Monday by two pet pit bulls, the authorities said today. The woman, Julia Mazziotto, was bitten or clawed over 80 percent of her body, and the Bergen County medical examiner found that she had died of severe mutilating wounds inflicted by the dogs, said the county prosecutor ... the older of the two dogs ... was covered with blood..." Allegedly, according to Dickey pages 176-178, the daughter of the victim wanted her dogs back and so hired a third party (Lee Institute) to reevaluate the findings. Despite Lee's opinion that the dogs didn't kill the victim, a judge in the matter was unconvinced. So why are we second-guessing a judicial opinion on Wikipedia? This isn't helping Dickey's reliability (the evidence keeps piling up). By the way, here is a video of Mr. Phillips testifying before the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 on changing their dog bite law after Mr. Chapple's death. Chapple's testimony was video'd from his hospital bed to present to the committee. The committee changed the Tenneessee law. Normal Op (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Phillips heavily bases his statistics off of dogsbite.org and Animals 24-7, so they're all connected together. From the link you shared: The results are reported below. More details about these attacks can be found on the authoritative and comprehensive web site of DogsBite.org, in the section on bite statistics.. Dogsbite.org does indeed count Julia Mazziotto as a pit bull fatality - see the New Jersey Section here. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And Chapelle is indeed listed as a fatality by dogsbite.org here. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument ("heavily bases"). I could say the same thing about ACF/NCRF/NCRC/Delise/AFF and every single one of their "commissioned" studies which you trot out with regularity. Good grief! The first link you point to is talking about legislation in each state, compared to fatal attacks in that state. Doesn't mean that DogsBite.org "counts" these in a statistics report, which is what you are inferring. And the second link was created in 2009, long before the stink in 2013 over Chapple's 2007 cause of death. I can't even begin to imagine maintaining old information on a several-hundreds-pages and over ten-year-old website to cater to nitpickers. And if you actually READ the page about the Chapple conflict, you would understand why the average person WOULD count him as a dog bite related fatality. Need I quote from it? Or will you actually read it? Normal Op (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org is counting the Chapple in its statistics though - in the page you linked here, it has an explanatory note about the controversy over cause of death, but does not say at all it is withdrawing it from the list of fatalities. On that page it says 35 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2007., and there are 35 incidents on the list, of which Chapple is one. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

[I wrote this commen before Normal Op and PearlSt82's latest exchanges so excuse me if some things are not relevant.] It's unfortunate that Rhododendrites listed many different sites under a common heading. They are not published by the same groups and it's very possible that some of them are reliable while the others are not. For example, your Radio Canada report (reproduced on the AntiBSL Reddit sub) mentions multiple inaccuracies in Merritt Clifton's data but only one in Colleen Lynn's. These series appear to be different; Clifton lists pit-bull-related deaths while Lynn lists dog-bite-related deaths.

Regarding James Chapple. In my opinion, counting it as a dog bite fatality is correct. From the reporting: "Chapple's left arm was amputated to the elbow after the dogs tore his hand off in an attack ... Chapple's right arm was severely injured. He is recovering at the Regional Medical Center of Memphis."The photo of him in his hospital bed is gruesome. The dog attack clearly contributed to his death even if he was an alcoholic.

Regarding Louanne Okapal. She is listed here under the heading Notes on unusual cases: "Louanne Okapal, 55, of Sauk County, Wisconsin, suffered severe facial injuries on February 14, 2009 when a pit bull attacked a horse she was saddling and the horse kicked her in the face." She didn't die, and contrary to Radio Canada's allegation, Clifton doesn't claim she did.

Regarding Julia Mazziotto. Bronwen Dickey in Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon doesn't cite any sources and she most definitely underplays Mazziotto's wounds: "Alaimo contacted the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science in West Haven, Connecticut, and asked it to reevaluate the medical examiner's findings. The Lee Institute's forensic experts determined that Julia Mazziotto's wounds had been inflicted postmortem ... The dogs had not been involved in her death, but after the fact they had pawed, scratched, and bitten her body." It's clear from context that Alaimo was the owner of the dogs and that s/he contacted the Institute in order to avoid having to put them down.

If these examples are the best the "pro-pitbull" side can come up with (and they clearly have a vested interest in finding errors in Lynn's and Clifton's data), then that tells me that the data actually is fairly trustworthy. Good enough to source statements like "According to dogbites.org, blah" or "According to Colleen Lynn, bleh" imho. ImTheIP (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Another difference between Clifton/Animals24-7 and Lynn/DogsBite.org is that Clifton covers "serious attacks", not just deaths. DogsBite.org covers fatalities. Their styles are completely different even if their coverage overlaps. Despite PearlSt82, Dickey and Radio Canada trying to paint them with the same paint brush in the same stroke, they are two separate individuals working different angles. PearlSt82, you're right about the 35 count; I was mistaken. You made me count the fatalities on that page (horrible deaths!) and I would count Chapple, too, as a dog bite related fatality. However, you still don't seem to have read the link I sent, so I will quote from it: "Ms. Delise discusses the death of James Chapple Jr. She states that “Mr. Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital.” Mr. Chapple’s left arm was amputated, his right arm was badly mauled. A full recovery is impossible in this circumstance. Mr. Chapple’s injuries were so severe that a bill changing Tennessee law regarding vicious dogs was introduced. Video equipment was set up in Mr. Chapple’s hospital room so he could testify to legislators. Mr. Chapple lived long enough to see the bill signed into law. As a hospital nurse, I recognize that there are several reasons for discharge from the hospital, one is recovery, and another is that there is no further treatment that can be offered to the patient, they are discharged home with family care and Home Health nursing care. The listing of cardiovascular complications on the death certificate would not be unexpected. As a Cardiac Rehab nurse, I would expect cardiovascular deterioration in a newly disabled person with underlying coronary artery disease." — Carol Miller, RN. ImTheIP is on the right track on the subject of discrediting others' work. Normal Op (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kenneth Phillips (dogbitelaw.com) is a well respected attorney and a subject-matter expert. Here is one write-up about him in the Washington Post. (free account signup required). Normal Op (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Even if he is excluded, the rest are sensationalist, and sometimes hypocritical too. Dogsbite.org, for example, crows about their opponents "killing dogs", and then turns around and says that certain breeds should be banned, which they admit kills dogs. And should someone with such a heavy financial stake in the matter, like Phillips, be considered reliable? - Sumanuil (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• DBRF lists are reliable; breed data is unreliable The issue with these "sources" is less about their lists of DBRFs (dog bite-related fatalities) which are fairly accurate; but instead, more about their claims and "statistics" related to the breeds attributed to the attacks. There are numerous studies that have concluded that breed information (without DNA) is subject to high rates of inaccuracy -- on average between 40%-60%. This study [119] determined that breed information in media reports differed from breed determination by animal control agencies up to 40% of the time; this study [120] determined that visual identification techniques for some breeds differed from actual DNA results up to 60% of the time; this study [121] determined that accurate breed identification varied between 10.4%-67.7% (depending on the number of breeds identified in a dog's DNA); and finally, this study [122] determined that DNA results matched visual breed identification only around 25% of the time. Essentially, the problem with attempting to identify and list the breed(s) involved with the DBRFs is that there is a high probability that either the shelter and/or the owner have not correctly identified the specific breed of their dog -- which then leads to inaccurate information in media reports as almost all media reports on dog bites simply identify the breed as reported by the owner/shelter (which again is likely to differ from the dog's actual DNA around 50% of the time, per cited studies). Regardless, there is a lot of evidence to support that breed information (especially in media reports, which is the *primary* source of breed data for these sources) is prone to high rates of inaccuracy without DNA. So while their DRBF lists may be fairly accurate, their breed data/information is highly suspect. The fact (per multiple studies on canine DNA) is that accurate breed identification by DNA highly contradicts casual breed assumptions by visual inspection (breed assumptions by owners, shelters, etc.). Furthermore, there are far too many bulldog-type (aka "bully-type") breeds (and even more bully-type mixes) with very similar physical characteristics to the 3-5 breeds commonly classified as pit bulls and attempting to classify every single one of these different, unique breeds (and mixes) as "pit bulls" is entirely inaccurate; therefore, the fact that these sites attempt to claim that their breed information is accurate/factual is highly problematic and leads to well-warranted questions around the agenda and biases of the sources listed above.Michael2468b (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is what the study Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States says For single dog incidents (148 incidents), on the basis of the strict definition (exact match), breed descriptors in media reports were discordant for 32 of 148 (21.6%) dogs; animal control or local law enforcement assessment of breed differed from the media account for 45 of 129 (34.9%) dogs. On the basis of the expanded definition (any agreement between alleged breeds and mixes), breed descriptors among media reports were discordant for 19 of 148 (12.8%) dogs; animal control or local law enforcement assessment of breed differed from the media account for 18 of 129 (14.0%) dogs. That is, in 21.6% of all DBRFs, media outlets reported different specific breeds. In 78.4% of all DBRFs, they were in agreement. But the most interesting part is the last figure; in only 14.0% of all DBRFs did animal control and media reports diverge on what breed of dog was involved. Furthermore With respect to pedigree or results of DNA analysis for single dog cases, pedigree documentation, parentage, or DNA information was available for 19 dogs. These data were discordant with media reports for 7 of 19 cases on the basis of the strict breed definition and 0 of 18 cases on the basis of the expanded breed definition. So, given the "strict breed definition", the media reports were correct in 12 out of 19 cases and in 18 out of 18 cases given the "expanded breed definition". It is obvious that someone who spends a lot of time investigating DBRFs can reach an even higher accuracy than what time-pressured journalists can. I.e, all else being equal, dogsbite.org must be a more reliable source for breed identification than media reports.

The three other studies find poor correlation between visual assessement and DNA testing (but a high correlation between assessors!). That is unsurprising because pit bulls are a hetereogenous group of breeds with similar morphological features. Taking the argument to its extreme, one couldn't ever know if a dog is a pit bull or not. But courts have ruled that dog owners can: In sum, we believe that the physical and behavioral traits of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog.

Regardless, there is a lot of evidence to support that breed information (especially in media reports, which is the *primary* source of breed data for these sources) is prone to high rates of inaccuracy without DNA. Lynn also collects breed identification photos for most dogs: Of the 48 dog bite fatalities recorded in 2019, a record 81% (39) had some form of an identification photograph, the highest percentage since we began our collection effort. Pit bulls and their mixes represent 74% of all images collected in 2019. Of the 39 cases with breed identification photographs, 59% (23) contained images captured or republished by news media; 59% (23) contained images located on social media pages of the dog's owner or family members; and 49% (19) contained images that were the result of DogsBite research and otherwise may have gone unpublished.

If breed identification is as difficult as you say, then dogsbite's data must contain tons of errors. Then it must be possible for someone to point out at least a few of them.

tl;dr: For List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, dogsbite.org is a good source. The page needs a disclaimer explaining why dog classification is difficult and somewhat subjective. Deleting the page and/or blacklisting dogsbite.org is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ImTheIP (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, that site can be a source for DBRFs -- but not for valid (true/factual) breed information. All 4 studies (and there are other studies as well with similar conclusions regarding visual breed identification vs. actual DNA) still validate the inherent challenges and inaccuracies of visual breed identification vs. actual/true breed determination by DNA. The Co-occurrence study still specifically concludes:"For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified. -- Valid breed determination for only 17.6% of the incidents does not infer confidence in the breed data attributed to DBRFs by any measure. The other 3 studies validate the discrepancies between casual breed assumptions by visual inspection vs. actual DNA results -- ergo pictures are not a reliable method for determining breed. Therefore, even if there were pictures for 100% of the dogs involved, that would still not serve to validate breed and any site/individual claiming otherwise is going counter to the conclusions in the studies on this subject matter -- importantly, the studies found that even those familiar with dogs and breeds (veterinarians, shelter staff, etc.) are prone to being unable to accurately identify a dog's breed(s). Furthermore, there are far too many bully-type breeds (and even more bully-type mixes) that look very similar to the 3-5 breeds classified as pit bulls to be able to assert (as a fact) that a dog is a specific breed based only on a picture or shelter label etc. If a site is going to make breed-specific assertions about risk; then that site needs to be breed-specific -- and what these studies have concluded is that without DNA, any breed-specific claims are likely to be inaccurate and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source (for breed information). The main issue with these sites is that while they are entitled to guess/assume/suspect the breed(s) of a dog, they cannot with any reasonable amount of certainly or authority claim that their breed assumptions are "facts" without DNA (as per cited studies) -- and doing so is at best disingenuous. Canine DNA is far too complex for visual breed identification to be accurate which is why DNA is needed and is currently the most accurate method for valid breed determination -- without DNA, breed is just a guess.Michael2468b (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Co-occurrence study? You mean "Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)" by Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD; Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Karen M. Delise; Donald V. Cleary, BA; Amy R. Marder, VMD. Two other Wikipedia editors picked apart the contradictions/paradoxes in that exact study recently — one here in this thread, and one on the Pit bull talk page. Now it's my turn. That 2013 study's conflict of interest disclosure simply stated "The National Canine Research Council supported the efforts of Karen Delise from 2006 to 2011 for assembly of case reports" with NO MENTION of her actual position within NCRC, which was Founder and Director of Research. Note that even in late 2012 (pre-publish) and still in 2014 (no changes there) Delise is listed on the website as "Founder & Director of Research". So how far do we go with believing NCRC and their commissioned studies when they lie on the conflict of interest disclosure? Or did it take two years to "shop around" for a journal that would take the study (explaining the discrepancy of 2011 versus 2013); in which case, do we trust that this is "good science"? Oh, I forgot to mention the earlier history. National Canine Research Council (NCRC) is a pit bull advocacy organization, formerly known as National Canine Research Foundation, closely associated with (and co-staffed) with former LOBBYING organization known as Animal Canine Foundation and Washington Animal Foundation. The first two were founded by and run by Karen Delise, who even copyrighted the NCRF website, and she co-staffed with the other two organizations. In 2004, Karen Delise self-proclaimed on her website "Karen also is the most versed expert on fatal dog attacks and consults the American Canine Foundation and other organizations. Karen has spent over ten years researching fatal dog attacks." And in 2014 is billed as "More than twenty years of research and investigation have led to Ms. Delise being considered the nation's leading expert on dog bite-related fatalities." In 2013 (the year the study was published), NCRC and its several predecessor organizations had all been run by the same person for well nigh 20 years with a deliberate and focused pro-pit bull agenda. And we're supposed to believe that her only contribution was "assembly of case reports" with no post title. And you want to consider that not-properly-disclosed 2013 study as a reliable source? At least three of those four studies you mentioned were commissioned and/or authored by persons connected with NCRC. I gotta say, in the same spirit as WP:BOOMERANG (but for debates) if you're going to drag one side of a divide through a reliable sources gristmill, you should be encouraged to look at the other side, too. Normal Op (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Point taken with respect to the "Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256..." study; nevertheless, the study's conclusions are similar to the conclusions found in multiple other studies (provided above) regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of visual breed identification vs. accurate breed determination by DNA. If needed, we can delete the Co-occurrence study entirely from this conversation and the point still stands that making assertions about breed(s) without DNA is proven to be relatively inaccurate. It's pointless for me to clarify this point further because that's exactly what the studies (sure, not including the "Co-occurrence..." study) have already done.Michael2468b (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I spent a long time reading through Co-occurence, trying to understand it so I don't think that it should be discarded. :) Regarding the numbers, 14.0% was the missclassification rate for single-dog attacks using the expanded definition. The high missclassification rate of 40.2% you cite is for multi-dog attacks using the strict definition. They define the strict definition as requiring an exact match. The example they give is illuminating: Thus, pit bull and American Staffordshire Terrier would be concordant, but pit bull and pit bull mix would be discordant, as would American Staffordshire Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier mix. In other words, if media reported pit bull and animal control reported pit bull mix, they consider that a missclassification. Such errors are completely unsurprising as journalists aren't experts. In their expanded definition, they lump different types of pit bulls together: For the expanded definition, concordances related to pit bull-type dogs were considered when reported as pit bull, pit bull terrier, pit bull mix, pit bull terrier mix, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any alleged mix thereof. Thus, yielding a much lower missclassification rate. The classification scheme used on the sites in question is, as far as I can tell much closer to the expanded definition than the strict one.

Breed determination was only possible for 45 dogs. That is low but given the expanded definition all dogs matched! These data were discordant with media reports for 7 of 19 cases on the basis of the strict breed definition and 0 of 18 cases on the basis of the expanded breed definition. ... For multiple dog cases, pedigree documentation, parentage, or DNA information was available for 28 dogs. These data were discordant with media reports for 7 of 28 (25.0%) cases on the basis of the strict breed definition and 0 of 28 (0%) cases on the basis of the expanded breed definition. And this is for the media reports which obviously are less accurate than the animal control reports. Interestingly the study doesn't report the breed of the 45 dogs determined, I wonder why!

You also have Toledo v. Tellings (2007) and other rulings telling dog owners that they indeed can tell if their dog is a pit bull or not. And a metastudy from 2019: Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed ... Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. The claim implies that breed determination without DNA is possible (or else the whole metastudy is bogus).

There are only about 30 to 50 DBRFs per year and they all lead to police investigations. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't be able to correctly determine the breed in at least the majority of cases. At least it flies in the face of common wisdom; telling a dog owner with a dog of breed X that they can't know it is an X unless they have had it DNA-tested will likely upset them. tl;dr The claim that breeds can't be determined without DNA-evidence is extraordinary and runs counter to conventional wisdom. ImTheIP (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood; however, respectfully I don’t think anyone is making an extraordinary claim of mistaking Chihuahuas for Bulldogs or Dachshunds for German Shepherds. The challenge is with specific unique breeds within breed types/groups - for example, accurate visual identification for specific breeds within the diverse bully-type (bulldog-type) breed group such as the various pit bull type breeds and other similar breeds and mixes such as Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Cane Corso, Boxer dog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, and many others. And unsurprisingly (per the DNA studies) there is a higher level of agreement/accuracy for purebred dogs than for mixed breed dogs. However, accuracy declines when attempting to identify the difference between, for example, an American Staffordshire Terrier mix and an Dogo Argentino mix or an American Bulldog mix and a Cane Corso mix. These are just a few examples, there are many breeds in the broad bully-type category that have similar physical characteristics that unless they are purebred, are harder to accurately identify their predominant breed and secondary breed(s) without DNA. Not an argument, just a clarifying point with respect to misidentifying dog breeds. Also, the "Co-occurrence" report is not a DNA study, it's admittedly a study on the discrepancies between media reports and animal control based only on assumed breed by visual breed identification (not DNA) -- which are discrepancies that are still important to study, but it's not a study on visual breed ID vs actual DNA. The studies that analyzed the accuracy of visual breed identification vs. actual breed determination by DNA did find larger percentages of discrepancies - especially for mixed breed dogs.Michael2468b (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you explain the result of the 2019 metastudy: "Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe."? Doesn't that imply that there is some reliable data on breeds and dog bites? ImTheIP (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotal/personal

** FWIW, as an anecdotal example, my neighbor has a smaller Dogo Argentino mix (it's 65 pounds whereas most Dogo Argentinos are around 100 pounds) and when she adopted him from the shelter, he was labeled as an "American Pit Bull Terrier mix". However, she bought a DNA test at the vet and the results were (if I remember correctly) something like 60% Dogo Argentino, 20% Labrador Retriever, and the balance of his DNA was a mix of several other breeds including Boston Terrier and Swiss Shepherd -- no mention of American Pit Bull Terrier in his DNA. So this is just an example of how dogs with bully-type ancestry and features commonly get misidentified as "pit bulls" just because of their physical characteristics. Also, I thought the dog was more of an American Bulldog mix - but I was wrong as well... and I'm pretty familiar with most of the bully breeds.Michael2468b (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Michael2468b: Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Normal Op (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; but to be clear, there was no "venting" - just an anecdotal account which I 100% made clear that it was only that -- an anecdotal account. Nevertheless, it is a real-world example of how breeds can very easily be misidentified.Michael2468b (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - to begin, it is already proven that attempts to identify dogs by their appearances only are not reliable. Breed identification requires a positive ID based on corroborating official breed registry records and/or DNA testing. WikiProject Dogs has started a list of RS that may prove helpful. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link, Atsme. I note that these sources aren't included there (as reliable or unreliable). Are they out of scope for that page? Maybe WPDogs wants to take on writing up some guidance about dog attacks? Of course, part of the reason I posted here was in the hope of attracting fresh eyes to this. There seem to be a few editors on Wikipedia primarily to argue one way or the other on this issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome, Rhododendrites. I posted notice of this discussion on the project page, and remain optimistic that we will be looking further into these types of sources in the days to come. We are a bit snowed-under right now trying to clean-up as much of the promotional material, misinformation and unreliable sourcing that our time allows. Cavalryman has been most diligent, and we welcome more volunteers to the project! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm missing this in the growing threads above, but is there really no source of these statistics that isn't an advocacy organization first and foremost? I have a hard time trusting the statistics of a website set up to make a certain conclusion which collects statistics that happen to support that conclusion (likewise a lawyer who profits from a particular view advocating for that view). It cuts both ways -- if someone were using statistics on, say, "savethepitbullz.com" (arbitrary -- no idea if it exists) I would likewise default to not considering it reliable.

I also think it's important to separate the reliability of the statistics from the reliability of, well, everything else. We don't typically treat a database/statistics the same way we do coverage of a topic that uses those statistics, and there's a reason we try not to use opinion pieces, PR, propaganda, etc. as reliable sources, even if its data collection seems ok enough (there are exceptions, but they're hard-earned). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statistics by breed aren't captured by veterinary orgs or the CDC due to their inherent unreliability - as far as I know these (DBO/A247) are the only organizations that publish these sort of statistics. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong! Even NCRC and its predecessor NCRF published incident reports and lists of fatalities. And you know that! [123] [124]. And your excuse about the CDC has no basis in fact. Normal Op (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of these sites, and would appreciate less WP:ASPERSIONS. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: To answer your earlier question, there's probably no neutral side publishing any related data because you can boil it down simply enough to two rabidly-opposed sides: (A) people who like or want to keep pit bulls as pets, and no-kill shelters full of pit bulls that need to offload them somewhere, and (B) people who view pit bulls as a public safety menace and want better oversight, accountability, and laws. Group A labels Group B as "anti-pit bull", most likely because pit bulls are over-represented proportionally in the collection of attacks so any efforts against dangerous dog hazards seems like an anti-pitbull agenda. Group A is well-funded (millions) and has created organisations such as NCRC, AFF & BFAS which can "fund studies" to prove their viewpoints (see AFF & BFAS Form 990s for proof that they are funding the studies that later show up on NCRC's website), then take their paid lobbyists to change legislation using their collection of studies as proof. Unlike Group A, Group B has no huge well-funded organizations, philantropists funding it, or lobbyists; this group includes DogsBite.org, Clifton, & Phillips. PearlSt82 posts only Group-A-favored studies (yes, I've checked) and vehemently opposes all medical studies that point to a higher incidence of pit bulls causing disfigurements or fatalities, and opposes any article that mentions favorably anyone from Group B. So sorry, no neutral middle ground to pull from, I'm afraid. Normal Op (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• All unreliable, as stated above they are a collection of data selected to support the preferred conclusions of website creators. Cavalryman (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC).
• Sounds unreliable. On the other issue, readers may be interested in this British parliamentary committee report, Controlling Dangerous Dogs, wherein appear the words The British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Kennel Club, and David Ryan, former Chair of the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors, were unanimous in their condemnation of the breed specific provisions in Section 1. of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1994 which banned dogs of "pit bull terrier type". (As noted, "pit bull terrier" is not per se a recognized breed in Britain.) The National Police Chiefs Council also said that "we would like to move away from a specific list [of banned types]" and told the committee "traditional fighting dog lines had been diluted” to the degree that such dogs were often now found to be ‘near types’ that fell outside the Section 1 classifications." One not-necessarily reliable source cites a weak methodology to claim Labrador retrievers attack the most or rather, that the most frequently owned breed is responsible for the greatest proportion of attacks for which insurance is claimed. (And maybe that Labrador owners are more likely have insurance than are pit bull owners.) GPinkerton (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not an international discussion, but a discussion related to US fatal dog attacks, and is a spinoff of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Normal Op (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes I know, just wanted to point out that the issues are international and there is a List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom which if its American equivalent is deleted will also require attention. GPinkerton (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds WP:NOTRELIABLE due to WP:SELFPUB. An advocacy source might be a WP:BIASED RS, but I think that self-published material would only be included where some other source that is RS used it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: DogExpert.com/fatal-dog-attacks is another website discussing and listing fatal dog attacks. (I just now found it.) What do you guys think about this one? Normal Op (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Another personal for-profit website by someone involved in dog bite litigation. This time a professional witness rather than a lawyer. Doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about, of course, but like some of the others there's (a) no editorial oversight, (b) the purpose is to make money, (c) advocacy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are we even discussing this here. No one is using those websites as citations anyway and this conversation is a FORK of the conversation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. The discussion belongs on that page. Any special angle of this conversation has already run its course and you've now circled back around to the AfD arguments. Normal Op (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• A linksearch when I opened this thread showed that some of these sources do appear in articles (though, granted, not many). I opened this because whether they are reliable transcends that particular AfD, and if they are unreliable they're not relevant to that AfD. Don't know if it was the most efficient approach, but it does seem to be attracting a couple people who were not previously involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment/request: In previous comments, Normal Op made several statements to the effect that the National Canine Resarch Council should be treated as inherently unreliable, including when people connected with them are published in journals. However, this source is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Reliable_sources. Since its somewhat related to the discussion at hand, would this be an appropriate venue to establish reliability of that organization as well? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  @PearlSt82: Was there any discussion that lead to it being listed? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there was discussion on this, but based on their about page, I would think it would be at least reliable enough to quote with attribution. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any as reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Company at which the individual works

[125] being used on George Richard Robinson. Here's the diff. Was I right to revert the change? Are companies at which the individual works reliable sources for information about said individual?

Reliable sources

I have been topic banned from articles related to India and Pakistan (see my talk page) and want to avoid any further sanctions. I want to edit the article on Kafir, so please let me know if this is a reliable source? What about this, this, this or this?—Dr2Rao (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Of those, the Oxford English Dictionary is the best source. This looks like a journal publication so it is also reliable, just keep in mind that it was published 61 years ago. The Dictionary of Spiritual Terms says its published by World Wisdom and edited by Dr. Joseph Lombard, Assistant Professor of Classical Islam at Brandeis University, so it might be reliable.

The op-ed in The Friday Times would be WP:RSEDITORIAL so it would have to be used with attribution. I don't think this source is reliable at all.VR _talk 14:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question? Do you think a convicted terrorist supporter (serving life) is a reliable source? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is that about? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Abu Hamza al-Masri. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's could be a little harsh, as your Q prompted me to look more carefully at this and I got triggered by the quote at the top. still unsuitable though, imho. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vice regent and Roxy the dog.—Dr2Rao (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you get topic-banned, it's a bad idea to move on to closely related topics. You were banned from articles about India and Pakistan because you were unable to edit objectively about Muslims. So you move on to articles about Muslim theology and Muslim immigration to Europe. Unless you change your approach, it could lead to a wider ban. TFD (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett article published in the Daily Mail

I know the Daily Mail is blacklisted as a source per WP:DAILYMAIL, which I support. However, the author Terry Pratchett wrote a piece for the Daily Mail describing his views on religion, which is very good material for the article on Pratchett. As the article is written by the subject himself, could this be an appropriate exception to the rule against the Daily Mail? (I note that the headline doesn't seem to reflect the content of his article, and so I suspect was supplied by the newspaper itself, which already makes it slightly dubious - but that's just my own suspicion.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF... but first see whether the material can be supported by a more reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't think it can, other than in sources reporting what Pratchett wrote in his Daily Mail article. Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If you start at [126] you can find some possible partial replacements. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, I did in fact find that thread, but the other articles (Times etc) are the articles that caused Pratchett to write the DM piece clarifying his views. Which is to say, they reported that he found God or had a religious experience, a misapprehension Pratchett wanted to correct. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The good news is that it looks like this article was reprinted as "The God Moment (2008)" in A Slip of the Keyboard: Collected Non-fiction, which I think would make it fine? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I was going to add this was a 2008 article (DM online version) so that would fall into the "historical" allowances that the DM RFC allows, but the reprinting above would be the clear-and-free replacement. --Masem (t) 17:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, that's a great find. Thanks! Popcornfud (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please use a compare utility or at least a word count utility to compare the two. We have caught The Daily Mail editing the words in interviews before. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, we should not be touching the DM version at this point, pulling only from the book version, and absolutely only using the book version if we are quoting. But I would still argued that as a 2008 article in the DM, it predates where DM starting going to hell and thus probably isn't "bad". --Masem (t) 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a profoundly questionable claim, and know of no actual evidence that it was not always bad - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As per the DM closure, historical DM use may be discussed (clearly anything recent is bad bad bad), but again, here, we have a clear replacement that eliminates any questions at all that should be used, simplifying the matter. It would be an issue to consider if there was not this books source. --Masem (t) 16:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you absolutely cannot trust the DM not to mess with text, any text. e.g., this diff is going from DM text to me looking at the actual book, which the DM mangled to hell to, ah, DM-ise it - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this example. I looked at the diff provided and didn't see the mistake made. Both the newspaper and book are written by the same person David Suchet. In both the newspaper and book, he is recalling how he got his role as detective Peroit. The recollection of the events are consistent. Suchet does not imply that he is quoting his book word-for-word, rather in the newspaper he is once again recalling the story with more detail. In both the DM and the book, his direct quotes are the same. Am I missing something? --Guest2625 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about Billboard

What information from Billboard should be considered reliable? I know it is great for music and entertainment news, but I just saw this diff which is kind of contentious information. Whether someone is straight or gay is something that ought to be backed up by reliable sources per WP:BLP. That said, would Billboard be a good source of information for that? Aasim 19:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Billboard is regarded as generally reliable for musical subjects. This is obviously a sensitive claim about non-musical personal life details - but Billboard is here writing up the subject literally saying it in a podcast interview, so this usage is fair enough I'd think, unless there's actually evidence BB misrepresented the interview or some other reason to question the writeup - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: I'd say Billboard is generally reliable, but the claim being made here should be edited or otherwise refactored. While I don't think it's contentious that Michael Passons is a gay man if he admitted it on a podcast reported by Billboard, he's making a very contentious claim about living people (unless the rest of the band is dead) by saying that his fellow bandmembers forced him out of Avalon because of his homosexuality. Right now the article states that "Parsons (sic) revealed that he was forced out of the group due to his sexual orientation as a gay man and his refusal to continue attending reparative therapy" in a factual voice when I would imagine that the bandmembers would dispute this. It should be rephrased to say that "Passons claimed that he was forced out of the group..." to make it clear that it's not firmly established as fact that he was forced out of the group for being gay. Heck I'm going to go do that now. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Chess, MOS:CLAIM makes it clear that, in general, neutral words such as

said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to should be used instead of those which imply doubt (such as "claim") when the factualness, or non-factualness, of the statement is not independently verified by a reliable source. Whether you find the statement plausible or not is irrelevant. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware. That being said I would be open to any wording that doesn't assume the truth of the statement. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The New Statesman

Is The New Statesman a generally reliable source? At a glance I can't find any prior discussions on it at RSN, weirdly, yet it's been cited to support other sources' reliability, and we cite it at WP:RSP for issues with the Morning Star. We use this source a lot across articles. It has sometimes been alleged that the paper has a slight left-wing bias, although the question here is is it generally reliable, particularly for statements of fact, as a source, and are there any areas where it is not reliable? Does attribution need to be given when used as a source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly it's an opinion source, but it's definitely an indicator for notability, and I've not known it to make stuff up, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Quite good from my perspective, with a long and solid track record. The NYT had a small section on its 50th birthday in 1963, saying: "The New Statesman, outspoken weekly reflecting the views of Britain's intellectual left, celebrated its 50th birthday today. In messages, President Kennedy praised its 'distinction of style' and Prime Minister Macmillan its 'presentation'" It was quite solid 50 years ago, and it remains good today. The NYT often references the source for facts, to reference their interviews, and to demonstrate notability of a subject in a different paper: [127][128][129][130]. Reuters treats it similarly: [131]. On the other hand, Fox criticized the paper in 2004 for its coverage of an alleged rape, saying that TNS was too credulous of the claims made by the alleged victim. Hmmmm.... though more recent investigations seem to imply that Fox may not have been on the right side of history on this one. Jlevi (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: Oh, right, with consideration for the boilerplate 'news vs opinion' caveat, of course. Jlevi (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It is reliable but as with any political magazine, editors need to distinguish between news and opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable but opinion needs to be attributed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Highly reliable although a lot of the content is opinon and needs to be treated as such. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable with the caveat that it is 75% opinion and reflects a centrist/centre-left perspective. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - apology to Roger Scruton No-one has yet mentioned that the New Statesman had to apologise to Roger Scruton for grossly misrepresenting his views. [132] [133]To me, this is the equivalent of ‘making stuff up’, and seriously affects its credibility. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like this has to do with social media, rather than the publication itself. The apology notes that "Sir Roger is quoted accurately in the article... After its publication online, links to the article were tweeted out together with partial quotations from the interview...". Though this seems like a gross social media strategy, I don't think we typically weigh social media posts in evaluation of sources. If other examples of this sort of thing exist, maybe there would be more to say. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Mr Scruton was quoted out of context to make it appear that he was racist against the Chinese, and that he was criticising George Soros without also criticising anti-Semitic hostility to Mr Soros. It was because he was misrepresented as a racist that he was sacked by the government, as stated in the BBC source, and then reinstated when it was realised that he had been traduced. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You're correct. I read the article [134] and also the full transcript [135]. The article was unrepresentative of Roger Scruton's position. For some editors such misrepresentation in a right-leaning publication would lead to deprecation. The article was written in 2019. The New Statesman is a progressive left-leaning publication and Roger Scruton is a conservative.--Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable I think the publication is well written and generally reliable. I read it sometimes. However, since it's a left-leaning publication there needs to be caution when it writes about conservative-related topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Book blurbs

Approving book blurbs (typically appearing on rear covers, but sometimes on the front or within, and anyway placed not to inform but instead to appeal) are often referred to dismissively hereabouts (example). No objection to the disapproval from me. But is their (non-) usability discussed in any guideline? I thought I'd seen a warning not to use them; but nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1ow that I look for this, I can't find it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the SPS nature of these I am not sure they are RS for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

But does any guideline say this? -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a specific reference to "book blurb" or "book endorsement" in any guideline. I found an old conversation on RSN. It seems like they would be a good "such as" to include in WP:RS since they are not independent and are promotional content. (I remember reading an article years ago in which a reviewer had written something like "X is nowhere near the Great American Novel" and the publisher blurbed it as "...the Great American Novel" credited to that reviewer. I can't find it online, but I did find articles explaining the purpose of endorsements/blurbs is to convince bookstores to carry the books, so advertisements basically.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Well "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject" WP:USESPS, seems to meet that and is thus SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Blurbs are generally bad for our purposes, I think. I've found a few recently that are lists of blurb quotes, claimed to be from various newspapers but cited only to the blurb text. The quote mining Schazjmd talks about is typical. These sections should just be cut unless and until they can be cited verifiably to the sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another lamentable effort to give a binary (approval or) rejection to a whole, wide, class of material, some examples of which which may be useful for our purposes. A blurb can, for example, be a reliable - and valuable source for the stated intention of the author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Per SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Book blurbs are self-published, affiliated, promotional and a whole lot of other things that Wikipedia should avoid. If you can find one that passes WP:NPOV then well done, even those for books I like a lot generally don't accurately reflect the totality of critical reaction. Andy's point about the intent of the author is, if anything, a point against him. Consider: The events of the war are related through Hitler's eyes from the Chancellery, Berchtesgarten, Rastenburg, and finally from the bunker, in a study based on ten years of firsthand research. A neutral and accurate description of a book by a holocaust denier? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Book blurbs are written by advertising staff. Neither the author nor the editor has any control of them. They make no attempt to evaluate critical opinion. They sometimes carry quotations from some well known figure, but they are almost always written by request, and are answered on the basis, of "if you can't say somethign nice, don't say anything", which could equally well be stated, as "you scratch my back, I'I'll scratch yours." If they are taken from some published news or review medium, they are normally extremely selective. In my early days of book reviewing I once found a publisher quoting a phrase from one of my reviews--had I been less naïve , I would have worded it much more cautiously . I differ a little from JzG--I would never use one in an article here, because determining it to be NPOV would be original research. If it were possibly genuine and important, I'd look for the actual source being quoted. The same goes for author bios on book flaps, or similar advertising copy. Pigsonthewing, a blurb is not a RS for the stated intention of the author. It's a source for what the publisher's PR people wish to say is the opinion of theauthor---which can be extremely different. A good source for the statd opinion of the author is an interview with a reliable publication, or the author's introduction. I agree we are often too glib in our characterizations, but this is one place where we can unambiguously reject the entire class of sources. DGG ( talk ) 10:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC) .
  • "Book blurbs are written by advertising staff. Neither the author nor the editor has any control of them." Yet more baseless assertions, made with no evidence to support them. On the other hand, the blurbs for each of my books were either authored by me, or by my editor, and then only published with my approval. And I don't have the clout of, say, a JK Rowling or a Bill Bryson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It's certainly been my experience that most blurbs are advertising copy written by someone other than the author, your experience notwithstanding. In any event, I'm struggling to imagine a situation where we would prefer the blurb to the work itself. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

DGG for the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely agree with this. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Aren't there two types of book content called "blurbs"? There are the synopsis-of-the-book-contents blurbs and the endorsements-by-other-people blurbs. I was thinking of the endorsement-type blurb specifically when I answered the question. Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

that Is what i Assumed was meant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

napolun.com

• napolun.com  

This looks to me like a personal website, but I can't tell because I don't read Chinese. Anyone shed any light please? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• The only usage is as a mirror of an early 2000s site for enthusiasts (see http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/index.html for the sort-of-about-page). The mirrored site itself is largely accurate, but not a WP:RS. Should be replaced with better sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source on Islam?

At Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Whether_to_allow_Ibn_Warraq_and_Swami_Vivekananda_opinions_in_the_article? there is discussion whether Swami Vivekananda can be used a source to claim, with attribution, that the Islamic prophet Muhammad suffered from hallucinations and these hallucinations later caused "fanaticism affecting humankind for centuries". While Vivekananda appears to be a notable figure in Hinduism, I don't think he's an expert on either Islam nor a recognized expert on medical conditions.VR _talk 11:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I would says its RS for him saying it, not for it being true. I think however there are other issues.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if Vivekananda is an established subject matter expert (don't think so) WP:DUE applies here unless this claim can be substantiated in reliable sources. One person even if they are a subject matter expert isn't enough to add a claim that Muhammad suffered hallucinations which I would imagine to be a rather contentious claim. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Ibn Warraq be used as a reliable source on Islam?

Ibn Warraq is a notable critic of Islam, and his use at criticism of Islam is probably appropriate. Can he also be used as a WP:RS at other Islam related articles? There is a discussion at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Whether_to_allow_Ibn_Warraq_and_Swami_Vivekananda_opinions_in_the_article? on whether he is a reliable source for the claim that the "rituals of the Pilgrimage to Mecca" constitute superstition. The source is Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim published by Prometheus Books. Warraq is controversial (Ibn_Warraq#Reception) and not an academic.VR _talk 11:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

He is reliable for his own views. Including his views in "Criticism of Islam" would only be appropriate if covered by a third party RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

He is reliable for his views, where they are noteworthy/due (e.g. his criticism of Islam), but he is not reliable as a source on Islam, including on superstition in Islam, and his views should be considered FRINGE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My view is that he should not be used as a neutral source on Islamic belief, and I can't really see a circumstance where his attributed views would even fit within the scope of Islamic articles. Possible exceptions might be criticism sections related to specific Islamic practices such as circumcision, halal meat or the niqab. But even then, I would proceed with a great deal of caution. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tribute.ca

Could anyone shed light on if Tribute.ca can be used as a reliable source? To me it looks very IMDb based but not sure where else to look. Ta Nightfury 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a page? Is it one of their news articles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia:, the Dana Gaier page uses it rather extensively. Nightfury 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nightfury, the page it references looks like it is WP:UGC. Even it is a RS I don't think it is appropriate to use the birthdate from one source like that, or to list what looks like a secondary occupation on the same level as her primary occupation. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Tribute.ca is Tribute (magazine), a Canadian magazine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Marc Couwenbergh

@Emigré55: claimed on the article Anna van Egmont that Marc Couwenbergh an art historian of note was. See this version of the article, and specific source 9 ([136]) and 10 ([137]). The same sources are used for Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus). Despite multiple requests for clarification (Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Couwenbergh_art_historian and Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Marc_Couwenbergh, no answer was coming forward. A check on the linkedin-page of Marc Couwenbergh made clear that he does not call himself an art historian. As Emigré55 is clearly upset about the removal, I like to hear the opinion of the community if these sources are reliable and if Marc Couwenberg is an art historian of note. The Banner talk 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Emigré55: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid The Banner does not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or wants to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page) --Emigré55 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??)--Emigré55 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources states that he is an art historian. Just that he write/blogs about art. The Banner talk 16:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So what?

Moreover, your accusation is not valid, since both these article in their present version do not quote him as an art historian, contrary to your very awkward (to say the least..) accusation. Harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

People can see what you have put on my talk page and what you have copied to your own talk page...

But still you avoid an answer, and that is why I have asked the community to step in to judge if the sources are reliable. The Banner talk 19:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

And here Emigré55 restores the dubious sources, as usual accompanied by threats. So please judge these sources. The Banner talk 19:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again: the precised page, according to the sources, is here. --Emigré55 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable unless evidence of him being a subject-matter expert can be provided. It's someone's personal website, so absent evidence he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications it's a failure of WP:SPS. FDW777 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • On "Evidence of him being a subject-matter expert": It is provided by the Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands, which The Banner voluntarily omitted to mention. The Rijksmuseum library website cites no less than 6 books on art and history written by Marc Couwenbergh and published in established publishing houses ;

List of his books in Research Library of Rijksmuseum

1/ August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 : een Rotterdammer in Kortenhoef / tekst: Marc Couwenbergh ; redactie: Désirée Koninkx. By: Couwenbergh, Marc [aut] Contributor(s): Koninkx, Désirée [edt]| Oude School Kortenhoef [his] | Kunst aan de Dijk [cur] Publisher: Kortenhoef : Stichting Kunst aan de Dijk, [2015] Description: 35 pagina's : illustraties ; 26 cm. Content type: tekst Media type: zonder medium Carrier type: band ISBN: 9789081403863 (paperback). 2/ De liefde voor het naakt : Theo Beerendonk 1905-1979 / Marc Couwenbergh By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Luinstra, E.A Publisher: Zoetermeer : Beerendonk Uitgeverij, 2011 Description: 95 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. ISBN: 9789081739504 (geb.). 3/ Tussen kunst, sociaal engagement en ironie : een kroniek van de familie Van Norden / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): MuseumgoudA [his] Publisher: Gouda : museumgoudA, 2008 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 9789072660060. 4/ A.J. Groenewegen, 1874-1963 : 'licht, leven en ruimte' / Marc Couwenbergh, Paul Groenewegen. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Groenewegen, Paul | Hoeve Rijlaarsdam [his] | Marie José Bies Fine Art [his] Publisher: Maastricht : Adriaan Groenewegen Stichting, 2007 Description: 96 p. : ill. ; 31 cm. ISBN: 9789090216355. 5/ Piet Zwiers 1907-1965 : schilder van Giethoorn / Marc Couwenberg. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Stedelijk Museum Zwolle [his] Publisher: Zwolle : Stedelijk Museum Zwolle, 2007 Description: 80 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9789073429130. 6/ Werkpaarden en dienstmeiden : het Rotterdam van August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Historisch Museum Rotterdam [his] Publisher: Venlo : Van Spijk Art Projects, 2006 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9062165214.

--Emigré55 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it shows that he can be hired to produce books. Not that he is an expert in the field or an art historian. And can you stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• On evidences that The Banner is ignoring voluntarily sources:

1/ He claims having checked Couwenbergh page on LinkedIn and that it does not indicate he is an art historian.

Whereas, one can read on this same page:

LinkedIn elements of presentation omitted by The Banner

“More than twenty years of experience in writing, especially about art, culture and history from near and far: - Monographs on artists from the past and present, including 'The love for the nude' - Exhibition publications and catalogs, including 'Art sprouted from adventurous brains' at' ... as a stream grows older ... 'by Marjolijn van den Assem in Museum Gouda, the three-part series about the history of the forgotten artist village of Rijswijk and' Een Rotterdammer in Kortenhoef - AW van Voorden 1881-1921 ' - A family chronicle of the artistic and socially engaged Van Norden family - The life story of the resistance fighter Jan van Borssum Buisman, Agent of the Swiss Road Commissioned by newspapers, museums, publishers and artists.”

2/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus):

He comes back claiming: “ journalist - political scientist - writes about; but no words about being an art historian. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) »

Thus doing, The Banner deliberately ignored the source I cited above his comment, and truncated it in his answer, which is a clear manipulation of the source, (source here): "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography: Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (Translated into English from the Dutch page; parts truncated by The Banner in bold characters).

--Emigré55 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Subject matter expert issue aside, I wonder why even using some self published blog, when there are books about the article subject? As of expertise of Marc Couwenbergh, are there any reviews of his books in respected art history related journals? That would solve this question once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Rijksmuseum is the most respected and authoritative institution and source on art in the Netherlands. It is very doubtful that its curators would have added to the Museum Research Library 6 of the books written by Couwenbergh on various art and historical subjects, if he was not a well regarded and respected author on art and history. And furthermore recommend them online, here. --Emigré55 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, my book based on my college thesis (not even a master degree) is in several libraries. That doesn´t make me expert on anything. So, no reviews in peer-reviewed journals? Pavlor (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken: there are no such "peer-reviewed journals" in art history, which examine articles or publications for verification purposes, like in the medical and pharmaceutical filed.

Furthermore, there is no need to be an expert reviewed by peers (hence with the very restrictive meaning you seem to give to this word) to qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is enough that the author work in the relevant field (i.e. in this case, art) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Which is the case, by numerous reliable and independant publications, such as the one mentioned here.--Emigré55 (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonesense. Every scholarly journal worth of that description has some sort of peer review (at least on the basic level of an editorial board). If one wants to cite some self published source, its author must be really expert in his field, his opinion would be undue otherwise. Back to my original question, any reviews of his books? Pavlor (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

He should not be an "expert" according to YOUR own definition (in addition a very restrictive one, which is also non existent in Wikipedia rules). He should be an "expert", defined only as "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Period. And that is perfectly the case for him, as evidenced here above in this section, or even also here below. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Just inserting a clarification of policy... the “whose work has been published” clause is NOT a definition of “Expert” - it is an additional requirement on top of being considered an “expert”. Not only must the author be regarded as an “expert” - that “expert” must ALSO have published works in the field. I do not have an opinion on whether the author in question is considered an “expert”... however, IF he is, then he meets the additional requirement of having published works in the field. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No matter how much bold text you use, my point still stands. If we should take this author as an expert in his field, we need objective criteria - eg. view of his peers. That is why I asked for reviews of his work. Pavlor (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

On « objective criteria - eg. view of his peers. » :

1/ “View of his peers”:

• As you write yourself (“ e.g.” ), peer review is just an example of the way to assess who is an expert. And in certain fields only. Indeed, peer review is also only used in certain expertise fields such as medicine or academic work. We are not dealing here about any field of that sort, but that does not exclude him to qualify as an expert in his field .
• An expert as defined by “peer review” is YOUR definition of an expert. And a limited one, which does not encompass all other definitions of the word “expert”.
• The fact that there would be no peer review is in any case neither enough nor a reason to exclude him as an expert, which qualification is not ONLY dependent on a such a restrictive definition.
• In any case, he has been assessed by his “peers”, before being allowed to publish as an expert on art in magazines such as De Correspondent. This is enough to qualify him as an expert in the field, even using your criteria of “peer review”.

2/ “Objective criteria”:

• View of peers belong to subjective criteria, not objective ones.
• If you want to take into account objective criteria , you should then take into account his books, their number and subjects, the fact that they are cited in dedicated Research Libraries on art, his publications, the fact that he regularly (since more than 20 years), publishes into newspapers or magazines about art and/or history. These are objective facts, which have qualified him for a long time as an expert in his field, not opinions/views which are subjective (be it from peers, yourself or myself).

--Emigré55 (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply no. There is no evidence he is really an expert in his field of study (sure, he may be, or not). Using his books published by respected publishers should be fine (at least for uncontroversial facts - note due weight), his blog is not a reliable source. Pavlor (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right on the fact that his numerous "books published by respected publishers should be fine", to qualify him as an expert, even if it is not your opinion about him. It is mine and the opinion of others, and your opinion is not enough to disqualify him as an expert, as per the mere definition of the word.

But you are wrong on his blog. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."A blog is a reliable source in his case as he fully qualifies by the rule. WP:RSSELF --Emigré55 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, you provided no evidence he is really an established expert on the subject matter and judging by your repeated "creative" reading of our guidelines I wouldn´t be surprised there is no such evidence at all. I don´t get what advantages (reliability-wise) has the use his blog over books by the same author. Pavlor (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"There are none so blind as those who will not see":
On the contrary, I provided enough evidences that he is an expert, through his books but also by his peers (e.g. at “De Correspondent”, as per your own and somewhat biased and limited vision of the word expert), which you simply ignore.
You only pursue your own opinion, according to the rule YOU want to establish, not the rule of Wikipedia (about reliability of a blog) which I reminded you, and who is or not an “expert” , simply ignoring the extensive definition of the word appearing in Wikipedia.
Simply read the definition of the word “expert” in Wikipedia, and your will find all reasons simply not to deny that Couwenbergh is/can be called an expert in his field, even if it is not your own opinion about him.
Please also refrain from accusing me of “creative” reading, and using words such as “nonesense” (sic! I guess you meant nonsense), which I could now see as personal attacks.
Because of the use of these words by you, and your totally negative attitude, even denying simple facts, it seems now to me that you only want to destroy this article, instead of bringing something positive to a couple of articles which were very poor before I started to contribute to them.
I would strongly advise you not to start an edit war based on your own opinion about Couwenberg not being an expert. For the reason here above explained, this discussion is now over with you as far as I am concerned.
Please consider that there are 6,887,903 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
--Emigré55 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, that's not a recommendation. Libraries are not so selective that merely holding a book is an endorsement by the institution. Vexations (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, and in this case, it is. And probably in the opinion of the curators of this Research Library, which is no simple library, but a Research Library; and the one of the most prestigious institution in the Netherlands.

And I don't know of any "recommandation" needed to be a reliable source; only several publications in several independent publications. Which is indeed the case for Couwenbergh, who was published independently numerous times, as evidenced here above.--Emigré55 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Related to his book on Vermeer's girls, Nederlands Dagblad in 2017 called him a 'kunstrecensent', which translates to art critic or art reviewer (article / archived copy). Eissink (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC).
• Comment De Correspondant, (circulation: more than 50,000 paying subscribers in the Netherlands) present him as a "journalist, specialised in art"--Emigré55 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable No evidence this author is really an established expert on the subject matter as defined in WP:RS (per FDW777). Pavlor (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you consider "the subject matter" here, Pavlor? Eissink (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Art history? If anyone provided any reviews of his books in a respected journal, my concern would be fully answered. Until then, I can´t reccommend to use this self published source (as I wrote above, his books may be fine). Pavlor (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hebbar Iyengar

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

Most of the contents of Hebbar Iyengar relies on this page from hebbarsabha.org, which seems to be the site of "The Hebbar Sreevaishnava Sabha" (congregation). Posting it here so someone more familiar with the subject area can review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Views on Central Tibetan Administration

While editing several pages concerning Tibet, reincarnated tulkus, Chinese religious persecution in Tibet, and Chinese sinicization policies, the governmental source Central Tibetan Administration has been challenged as being an "avocacy group". I differ, since it's an elected body which represents the exile community, and its press releases [138], statements and reports [139] [140] on Tibet are as valid as reports issued by other state governments regarding their own territories.

The CTA is cited by msm and RS including by the BBC UK [141], reported on by the NYTimes [142] and regularly cited by Indian newspapers, including The Statesman[143] and The Times of India [144] and the Economic Times [145], and the Hindustan Times [146] the Deccan Herald and by other RS internationally. It can be referred to as the "Tibetan government in exile" in sources, but that's not its proper name. Since it's formation in 1959, CTA evolved into a democratically elected body in 2011, as it is today.

For context and during the same time, it's been reporting on the brutal effects of China's policies in Tibet, called a cultural genocide since at least 2008 by observers (including here: "Dalai Lama: 'Cultural genocide' behind self-immolations" [147] ), underscored by the leaked Xinjiang papers that also exposed Chen Quanguo's role in Tibet, which it says shifted to Xinjiang, along with the expansion of Chinese reeducation camps (reported in Tibet in 2009 by ICT, and reporting monks abandonned their monastery to avoid a "reeducation center" [148] while a reeducation camp was identified by HRW as Ningtri in 2017 [149] ). Reports of the Tibetan genocide from common RS are difficult to locate since the access of foreigners is restricted. There hasn't been a leak in Tibet like the Xinjiang papers, making CTA reports more critical for citations. Most readily accessible reports come from sources like Tibet Watch, International Campaign for Tibet (has become increasingly trustworthy) and Free Tibet, some of which also cite CTA.

What are the thoughts here on using and citing Central Tibetan Administration as a reliable source? I am confident in their reports, especially given the precept of not lying [150] which is an integral aspect of Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetans, as well as the CTA. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The answer depends on what we're trying to use them as a source for and whether there are better sources for the information. China-Tibet relations, CTA should never be used for. No government should be used as a reliable source about political issues that government is involved in/interested in. US govt press releases can't be considered reliable for information about US and N Korea. About noncontroversial factual details, like how many people live in Tibet, we could use CTA, but generally we'd prefer to filter even that through a secondary source -- if the NYT reports there are 3M people, sourcing the data to the CTA, we'd prefer the NYT source. This is because we consider the NYT to be a source that fact-checks. We believe if the NYT quotes CTA, it's because they verified what CTA is saying. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

When foreign media report what the sources says, they attribute it in text. For example the BBC link says, "At least 80 people have been killed in unrest following protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule, the Tibetan government in exile says." It's not as if they copy and print articles from them in the same way newspapers across the world pick up AP, Reuters and other wire services. While there is no reason to doubt the CTA, there is no way of our assessing their reliability. I would only use them if reported in a secondary source such as the BBC and attribute the statement to them in text. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What's involved with assessing their reliability? Is that a process an editor is involved in by providing comparisons of reports with other RS? Can their reliability be evidenced by the citations in western newspapers (sorry, added a few diffs before I noticed responses, there are more I could provide) and in India's newspapers, as well as in other non-English papers? And, could CTA be cited inline, the way, for example, the BBC did? I ask since they are considered in Asia to be a RS, given the coverage they receive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Part of what Valereee is pointing out is that a government is not a reliable source for most statements of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE, whether it's a UN member nation or a government-in-exile. They can be reliable as WP:ABOUTSELF primary sources, but otherwise one would prefer a secondary source for statements made by a government as The Four Deuces also points out. For more general government documents (e.g. government agency reports), see this ongoing discussion for how government documents can vary in nature (primary, secondary, or tertiary; reliable or unreliable). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To use the example above, when the US makes a statement about a US decision regarding Korea, the statement can be used, as a statement of the US's position. Likewise, if the CTA makes a statement on its decision regarding China, we can use the statement as CTA's statement. The CTA also provides statements by the Dalai Lama, which we can likewise use as a reliable secondary source - reliability is not a concern there. Since the CTA represents Tibetans, wouldn't it follow that the CTA's general statements on what Tibetans are experiencing in Tibet would also be usable? Numbers of corpses could be a different level of statement, possibly. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll also look at the discussion. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the CTA represents Tibetans—No, it does not "represent" residents of the Tibet Autonomous Region or Tibetans in the other provinces. You need something such as Gallup polling asking the specific CTA / TGIE question, not your own viewpoints, to demonstrate otherwise. wouldn't it follow that the CTA's general statements on what Tibetans are experiencing in Tibet would also be usable?—That would be a statement of fact, which other editors have already explained to you is not an admissible use. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the CTA would be a reliable secondary source about the Dalai Lama, since the Dalai Lama is the former head of the CTA and the Dalai Lama was directly involved with the CTA until 2011. If the Dalai Lama says something in a CTA publication, then that's effectively a primary source. The CTA also isn't a reliable secondary source concerning the treatment of Tibetans by the PRC; that's an example of a controversial topic that should only use reliable secondary sources like academic sources (academic journal articles, academic books, etc.) and major publishers (e.g. Reuters, NYT, etc.). But yes, the CTA can be used as an WP:ABOUTSELF source about the CTA itself. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to @CaradhrasAiguo's concern of POV, I invite him to read edits by others editors at Central Tibetan Administration to become more familiar with the topic. That's where the information is located re the first quotation; the second quotation is from a question, not "a statement of fact" at all. Regarding the Dalai Lama's statements @MarkH21, it has been 9 years since he was directly involved; he has his own web site and spokespeople; the effective separation since 2011 could apply to a contrary position, but I hear you and understand your advice. Since we're discussing this generally, would specific cases be of interest in order to salvage usable edits, stop deletions, and achieve CON? I think it would be useful in this case. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21 A point I missed making is RS (provided above) cite statements from CTA on China, and cite statements/positions from the Dalai Lama found in CTA. The RS are confident in the reliability of CTA, as I would think that confidence should correspond with a confidence here. We don't know if, for example, NYT's bothers to verify info from CTA, to address an earlier point. We do know CTA is cited internationally, in the west and in Asia; CTA statements are cited as a counterpoint to PRC statements, and cited on their own merit, and cited about Tibetan exile affairs, and cited regarding the Dalai Lama. Therefore, the position of CTA not being usable in "controversial" areas, such as for the cultural genocide of Tibetans, is not supported by international press examples. They use CTA with attributions widely. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you messed up a ping for CaradhrasAiguo

What I explained regarding WP:INTEXT is that the CTA is not sufficient for a statement of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE, especially for controversial areas. If a secondary RS like the NYT says "A CTA report estimated that there were ___ in some place" regarding some controversial topic, a WP article could say that "A CTA report estimated there were ___ in some place" (with a footnote to the NYT article) but not "There were ___ in some place" outright. I.e. if the RS says something attributed to the CTA, then if a WP article should only mention that with attribution to the CTA too.

All this is saying is that CTA statements generally should not be used directly and generally should not be used un-attributed. Of course, whether it should be included at all depends on the context and consensus regarding WP:WEIGHT. The same general principles apply for statements from the United States Department of State, the Government of France, Amnesty International, European Union, or any other government, NGO, international organization, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Letting editors know I pinged @Usedtobecool and @Adoring nanny before any responses were posted. I later pinged @Newslinger since the editor's involved with RSN. All were pinged to build CON. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So there's CON that CTA can be cited as a governmental source @MarkH21. And that additional general use (and attributes) can be predicated by specific context in regards to WEIGHT. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

References

The Sword

I was referred here from a discussion on the spam whitelist regarding the reliablity of The Sword, a gay pornography news site. While the site has presently pivoted to publishing sensationalistic clickbait and is plainly not a reliable source, it was at one point a legitimate news source in its subject area. There is encyclopedic value in the site's archives, such as the final interview Erik Rhodes gave before his death (https://www.thesword.com/exclusive-the-erik-rhodes-interview.html) and this interview with the editor of the influential gay pornography zine S.T.H., which was the subject of the original whitelist discussion (thesword.com/billy-miller-interview.html). I believe the site is situationally reliable, with the archives of the site meeting the standard for Option 1 (generally reliable for factual reporting), while the present publishing of the site is an option 3 (Generally unreliable for factual reporting). Morgan695 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, TheSword.com doesn't have an entry or classification on the perennial sources list. It was placed on the Wikimedia global spam blacklist in December 2011 for being a "sex site". The question here is whether TheSword.com is reliable enough for one of its interviews to be used in an article within its area of focus (gay pornography). The result of this discussion will determine whether this interview is added to the spam whitelist, for which a request had been filed at WT:WHITELIST § The Sword. — Newslinger talk 02:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. — Newslinger talk 16:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• has good content I came here from WikiProject LGBT Studies. I checked some articles on the site and I am seeing some conventional journalism including investigation, interviews, background research, and narrative through general interest issues. We are in a chaotic time where many publications are folding or being purchased and changed to spam fountains, but if a publication has a mix of good and bad content, that is only a reason to be cautious. It is not a reason to dismiss all its articles as a block. Time passes and things change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Member of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry by Andrey Fomich Novatski

Is this report a reliable source. This is used in the context of [[151]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski, the author, was the prosecutor of the local Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry during the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi). The report broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. The source is [[152]] page 116. English translation here provided by the Heydar Aliyev foundation [[153]] (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mangauk

See https://www.mangauk.com/blade-of-the-immortal-interview-with-hiroaki-samura/ The site has been blocked for about seven years but they keep featuring unique interviews for manga authors.Tintor2 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• The result of this discussion will determine whether the interview will be added to the spam whitelist so that it can be cited in articles related to Blade of the Immortal. See WT:WHITELIST § Request to unblock article at mangauk for the original request. The mangauk.com domain is the official website of Manga Entertainment, and it was originally blacklisted for spam in 2011–2012. — Newslinger talk 15:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see no valid reason for it to be blocked. It's the official website of a large anime company in the UK, and (as pointed out) it contains sources that should be considered reliable. I support unblocking it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Nihonjoe: as Tintor2 has demonstrated, the site contains information relevant the project, and is the official website of a large anime company. It should be unblocked. — Goszei (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Views on International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet, Radio Free Asia

As related to the request for views on Central Tibetan Administration [154], there are other sources for which guidance is needed. Edits were deleted today on Yarchen Gar [155] with the reason stated as the sources are advocacy groups. The deletion of the sources creates a void in RS regarding the reported cultural genocide in Tibet. Similar deletions of text and sources occur in the 11th Panchen Lama [156] and in Sinicization of Tibet [157] where UNESCO information is characterized as "daft hackery". In Antireligious campaigns in China, sources and text detailing the sequence of events in the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists from 1989-present were threatened with removal [158].

The sources being challenged and deleted include International Campaign for Tibet/ICT, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, UNPO, Free Tibet, and Radio Free Asia. Verified RS also deleted include BBC UK, and The Statesman.

A list with links to sources' home pages, and to a few citations among others. (The diffs above contain the specific reports used from each source, and can be provided in separate diffs here if needed):

• International Campaign for Tibet [159]; cited by NYTimes by the BBC [160] [161] [162], and by the Washington Post [163] [164], among others. Its board chairman Richard Gere was invited to speak about Chinese censorship, and noted restricted access of journalists into Tibet, before a US Senate subcommittee in 2020 [165]
• UNESCO: [166]; cited internationally
• Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post: [167]; a recent report on Chinese travel restrictions to Tibet placed on foreigners and journalists [168]
• Tibet Watch: [169]; cited by NYTimes [170]
• Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, UNPO: [171], founded by Central Tibetan Administration; page in French Wikipedia [172]
• Free Tibet: [173]; cited by NYTimes [174] [175], by the Washington Post [176], and by the US State Department [177]. FT has also run an anti-propaganda campaign against Chinese state news reports placed in US media [178].
• Radio Free Asia: [179]; cited by NYTimes [180]

In the pages listed above and in other related pages, may these sources (all, most, exceptions) be used with inline citations? The diffs also illustrate the voids in information if the sources cannot be used in any form. Although these sources are offered together in this discussion, each can be separated into its own discussion/RfC if that's advised.

Hope the request isn't unnecessarily complicated or redundant, but what reports reveal is China's history of censoring information seems to include restricted access inside Tibet and therefore to RS from other sources. Thanks so much! Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Should be used, usually attributed. Since the Chinese smother any and everything that breathes a word against their compulsory utopia, claims originating inside Chinese-controlled territory is inherently suspect and needs attribution to make clear that it is the official line. Conversely, "anti-"CCP sources should always balance the Party line, to avoid giving the communists undue weight. Where statements originating from dissenting organizations conflict with official Chinese claims, and where such statements are reused by go-to reliable sources, I would say they need not be attributed unless extraordinary. (Claims of genocide in greater Tibet, inner Mongolia, and East Turkestan are not at all extraordinary and are a commonplace in all non-CCP media, and should be stated as fact.) GPinkerton (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The last sentence (Claims of genocide in greater Tibet, inner Mongolia, and East Turkestan are not at all extraordinary and are a commonplace in all non-CCP media, and should be stated as fact.) is instant disqualifying WP:SOAPBOX given Human rights in Tibet has plenty of academics refuting such claims as well as the WP:FRINGE East Turkestan name. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The day someone refutes the facts concerning Chinese colonialism is a day that has not, and will not, dawn. Academics may quibble and disagree, but the facts are unchanged and are very, very far from refuted. That claim is a bright red soapbox with stars on. GPinkerton (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The above strawman is deserving of a block, as is advocacy of violating WP:5P2: presenting contentious claims as fact (especially "Inner Mongolia genocide"), without any attribution whatsoever. You have been warned. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Let's calm down here, this is just a discussion about the named sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The only contentious claims being presented as fact is the bare-faced lie that there are plenty of academics refuting such claims, which demonstrates either bad faith or ignorance either of the meaning of the verb "to refute" or of the history of communism with Chinese characteristics. It is not my job to educate others on current affairs, but the incontrovertible fact of genocide in Inner Mongolia is a matter of history, not of dispute. Claims to the contrary are spurious face-saving attempts to rewrite the record. Brown, Kerry (2007-07-01). "The Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia 1967–1969: The Purge of the "Heirs of Genghis Khan"". Asian Affairs. 38 (2): 173–187. doi:10.1080/03068370701349128. ISSN 0306-8374. The Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR), sandwiched between the Mongolian People's Republic and the PRC, was to be one of the worst affected areas of China during the CR [[[Cultural Revolution]]]. While the impact of the CR came slightly late to the area, and extended mainly over the period 1967 to 1969, it was to result in over 22,000 deaths, and 300,000 injuries, according to official statistics. Demographic studies have shown that, based on the almost zero growth rate of the population from 1965 to 1975, the real level of casualties may have reached up to 100,000 deaths. Almost every person of Mongolian ethnicity in the region was affected in some way by the events of the CR. These have a claim to being acts of genocide, and are a wound that lingers to this day. I will not comment on the motives behind the wholly unreasonable suggestion of a block. If others see it as an attempt to silence, that is their own inference. GPinkerton (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC) [181] This message does show the calibre of the Chinese-controlled media's defensive and embarrassed posturing quite well, and illustrates the usual desire of that side of the argument to resort to personal attacks, being unable to engage meaningfully with the mountain of evidence. In short, a failure to refute evidence implicating the PRC ultimately leads to contentless ad hominems from its apologists. GPinkerton (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: These are all very different sources (including NGOs, advocacy groups, government-funded broadcasting corporations, and UN agencies) and can't be assessed collectively. Most should only be used with WP:INTEXT attribution, shouldn't be directly used for outright statements of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE, and should be only used via what independent reliable sources (e.g. NYT, BBC, academic sources, etc.) say about them. But there’s a gradient of reliability here, with UNESCO publications more reliable than say UNPO publications. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, @GPinkerton is saying use the sources with attributions, except when found in RS then no attributions are necessary. I would concur. And, it seems @MarkH21 is saying most should be used as sources only if they're cited in RS, but given the range of reliability, some are good to use with attributions and without RS cites.

GPinkerton's points about "refuting" genocide are also well taken.

So, can we say if the sources are used with attributions, they should not be subject to deletions and additional challenges? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• If they’re covered in independent secondary RSes but attributed to these sources (e.g. if the NYT says "According to ___"), the statements should still be attributed and not given in WP:WIKIVOICE.
  Also we can’t make any blanket statement that they should not be subject to deletions and additional challenges. Even material from RSes is subject to WP:WEIGHT considerations, since verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
  The use of these sources really depends on the context (e.g. which source you are trying to use, whether the topic is controversial, how is it covered in other sources, etc.). These sources are so different that we can’t really make a general statement about them all as a group. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Letting editors know I pinged @Usedtobecool and @Adoring nanny before any responses were posted. I later pinged @Newslinger since the editor's involved with RSN. All were pinged to build CON. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ok. Correct me if it's wrong, but it seems we have two separate readings: @GPinkerton's position of Should be used, usually attributed- use statements generally when also reused by RS, and inline citations needed only for extraordinary reports -versus- @MarkH21's position of Comments- only use RS that covers statements. Is this correct? (Includes an assumption of difference in the words "reused", as in RS inline citations or as generally used as accepted statement of fact, and "covered", as in from RS inline citations only.) If the understanding is correct, then are we still looking for CON? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see the position of inline citations needed only for extraordinary reports anywhere here. Inline citation (required for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space by the verifiability policy) is not the same as in-text attribution (required for biased sources by the neutrality policy).
  Again, these are 8 very different sources that can be used very differently in different contexts. We don't need to find a global consensus on a rule that simultaneously applies to all 8 sources across all articles, besides the existing policies and guidelines (particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS). If you have a content dispute over a particular statement being added to a particular article, then find consensus for that content on the talk page of that article.
  In general, these policies and guidelines will require you to use any other source that may have clear biases or unclear reliability with care, generally in-text attributed, and usually backed by separate RS coverage. Furthermore, if a source is making a statement that you can't find in any independent reliable source, it's probably not of sufficient due weight to be included in a particular article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Per We don't need to find a global consensus on a rule that simultaneously applies to all 8 sources–I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21 the "inline citations for extraordinary reports" was based on GP's assessment. This topic is not ready to be closed, since @GPinkerton has been pinged earlier to establish if CON has been achieved, since it seems we have two different assessments. For the record, I concur with GP's assessment, if that's allowed by the submitter of the request. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• You are not in any position whatsoever to close this discussion or assess whether it should be, especially in light of your blatant canvassing and subsequent blatant deception of my warning against that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

*The statement about closing was made by @CaradhrasAiguo:"I suggest this section be closed henceforth." The CON issue between @GPinkerton & @MarkH21 makes closing premature. (Posting notice of pings should remove CANVAS concerns (policy understood after pings were posted, have previously and duly clarified the pings and intention, as suggested by policy) ). Let's work towards consensus. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• GPinkerton said it may not need in-text attribution if the claim is not extraordinary and is backed by other sources (Where statements originating from dissenting organizations conflict with official Chinese claims, and where such statements are reused by go-to reliable sources, I would say they need not be attributed unless extraordinary), not that it may not need inline citations. They’re different things.
  There’s no CON issue here, because RSN isn’t expected to make blanket judgments for 8 very different sources across all contexts. This is becoming incredibly repetitive. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• It seems evident that Pasdecomplot isn't learning, and what constitutes WP:EXTRAORDINARY isn't a usable standard, given GPinkerton's own disruptive claim of genocide in Inner Mongolia (when his own source does not state that it definitively is) and accompanying personal attacks of apologists for the PRC. Time for the block hammer to fall on both of these two. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks @MarkH21 for the clarification. Sorry for the repetition, but was looking for solid CON to cite in editing disputes. Hopefully a non-involved editor can make the closing remarks.
• The text (added bold) still disputed by @CaradhrasAiguo is"...over the period 1967 to 1969, it was to result in over 22,000 deaths, and 300,000 injuries, according to official statistics. Demographic studies have shown that, based on the almost zero growth rate of the population from 1965 to 1975, the real level of casualties may have reached up to 100,000 deaths. Almost every person of Mongolian ethnicity in the region was affected in some way by the events of the CR. These have a claim to being acts of genocide, and are a wound that lingers to this day." I will not comment on the motives behind the wholly unreasonable suggestion of a block. If others see it as an attempt to silence, that is their own inference. GPinkerton, where the claim to genocide can also signify a stake. In Tibet, diffs (here/in CTA) state unequivocally that PRC policy is ethnic cleansing.
• Compare Kerry Brown's careful consideration of the topic to Robert Barnett's, as introduced here by CaradhrasAiguoGiven there is recent scholarly opinion (Robert Barnett) under "Debate on the intention of the PRC" refuting the unfounded cultural genocide claims, adding the category Category:Human rights abuses in China is spurious at best...[user] CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[182]. The link on Barnett leads to, In 2008, [Barnett] said that it was time for accusations of cultural genocide to be dropped: "I think we have to get over any suggestion that the Chinese are ill-intentioned or trying to wipe out Tibet."[79] Barnett voiced his doubts in a review in the New York Review of Books: "Why, if Tibetan culture within Tibet is being 'fast erased from existence', [do] so many Tibetans within Tibet still appear to have a more vigorous cultural life, with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan, than their exile counterparts?"[80].
• The words "appear to have a vigorous cultural life" are not a refutation of PRC cultural genocide in Tibet, contrary to CaradhrasAiguo's quoted opinion and POV. And contrary to the editor's opinions here.

As an unfortunate aside, the words ...but nevertheless it does appear to have happened. is used for a mischaracterization of pinging editors that had recently reached out to be helpful. Likewise, the use of "appear" mischaracterizes the ping to the editor closely involved in RSN, as it was suggested. Canvassing didn't happen; an allegation of CANVAS was already addressed with a ping notice; and it's unnecessary that the mischaracerization was again brought into a RSN thread, now by an involved administrator @Valereee, since policy recommends such things belong on editor's talk, not in the page's talk, and I would imagine certainly not in RSN discussions.

Thanks again @MarkH21 and @GPinkerton. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• PDC, that was a note to the closer, which any interested editor is free to make. It was a new comment, not a reply to anyone, so I didn't indent it as if it were a reply. When you indented it, you made it look like it was a reply to someone. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• And another comment about Barnett's rather absurd opinion @CaradhrasAiguo which does not refute the cultural genocide in Tibet: ...with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan. Are independent publishing houses in Tibet publishing the literary magazines without oversight or editorial control by the Chinese state controlled media? Given the preponderance of RS on censorship in China, and on the ongoing cultural genocide, Barnett's opinion that the number of literary magazines is evidence there's not a cultural genocide should qualify Barnett as an unreliable academic source. Furthermore, Barnett's opinion comes from a review for NYBook Review - it's not published in a scholarly peer reviewed journal, nor in a book. An opinion written for an unvetted book review by an unreliable academic source does not support claims that scholars have refuted cultural genocide in Tibet. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one. WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• [Note by @Valereee below shifted to bottom of page from its original position in responses. Pasdecomplot ]
• As a note, this discussion likely will need a formal close with a very direct statement of conclusion that doesn't depend on knowledge of policy to understand. Also note there does seem to have been attempts at canvassing; the editor probably didn't know that wasn't kosher, but nevertheless it does appear to have happened. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

um, okay. I have no objection to this being moved to the bottom of the discussion, but why? It's just a note to the closer. It doesn't even opine on this discussion. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Countere.com

Is Countere.com a reliable source? It doesn't look to be at first glance but first glances can be misleading and I didn't see it in the archives here. A citation was added at Jessica Krug, which is a BLP and a bit of a sensitive topic in general. Want input from the greater community as to whether we should consider this website RS or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have grave doubts about a site that has a story with the headline "I Responded to 30 DMs With My PayPal Link and Nobody Sent Me Any Money" as the second story on its homepage. The tagline on their Facebook page is "The magazine for the dystopia. Founded 2020" and they brag about causing chaos. Not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lucien Merlet

• Merlet, Lucien (1852). "Biographie de Jean de Montagu, grand maître de France (1350-1409)". Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes Année. 13. Librairie Droz: 248-284.

Lucien Merlet appears to be a French historian and paleographer. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Author and journal highly reputable; 1852 publication date makes it unlikely it reflects the latest scholarship. What article would it be used in and to support what statement? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Adams & Adams, university press source

• Adams, Tracy; Adams, Christine (2020). The Creation of the French Royal Mistress: From Agnès Sorel to Madame Du Barry. The Pennsylvania State University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Is this a reliable source for french royal mistresses? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic books like this should have academic-level reviews written which should help gauge its reliability in the field, though it is recent. If, by contrast, it's more a popular market overview with minimal footnotes, then sources dealing with specific kings and their mistresses, or with relevant aspects of French political history, would be a safer bet than a work dealing with all the mistresses over a broad sweep of history. Without looking at the book itself or reviews of it, it seems appropriate based on subject matter, publisher, etc., but perhaps check whether it's not been criticized before leaning too heavily on it. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of most-disliked YouTube videos § Am I missing something?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of most-disliked YouTube videos § Am I missing something?. Discussion about whether linking individual YouTube videos is reliable sourcing for determining the most-disliked videos, or is the selection of videos by editors original research? Sundayclose (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Unreliable sources at Democratic Union Party (Syria)

At Democratic Union Party (Syria) there are two editors who defend the inclusion of several sources that are not on topic and also try to conceal the source Harun Yahya (pen name of Adnan Oktar) as a source for the page, who is a well known Turkish conspiracy theorist. They claim that I remove a phrase about the PKK-PYD-KCK relation by my edit, which I don't.

The involved editors in the dispute are:

The editors who want to keep Harun Yahya (who they disguise as "Bill Rehkopf") and several sources that do not mention the KCK for a phrase mentioning the KCK.

1: Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم

2: Thepharoah17

The editor who wants to remove Harun Yahya and irrelevant sources that do not mention the KCK.

3: Paradise Chronicle

The only admin mentioned in the dispute.

El C

They claim an Admin was involved in the wording of the phrase regarding the relation between the PKK and the PYD and therefore they revert me.

Most of the 9 sources don't even mention the KCK, so they force the inclusion of the sources in dispute by edit war and at are claiming Admin support. I don't remove the phrase. I just spilt and move the phrase according to their relevance and the relevance of the sources. According to the talk page Ibn Amr also agrees on the KCK part, but only on the talk page, his edits are an edit war. It is hard for me to believe that an Admin agreed to the use and concealment of Harun Yahya as a source (I am pretty sure they didn't, they weren't involved anymore, as I pointed out who Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is) and the use of other sources that don't even mention the KCK for a phrase that focuses on the KCK. They agreed on the wording, yes. But they can't back it up with multiple high quality sources as demanded from the Admin.

Here the diff for it.

Here is my first improvement of the page from the 1 September 2020 (onwards I only mention the month, the edits are all in 2020)

diff In which I removed some of the sources which didn't mention the KCK and split and moved the phrase in two. The KCK part went to the section Ideology and the other part about the foundation into History. I also clarified the sources like adding the author/publisher of an article to the source. The edit was reverted on the 1 September by Ibn Amr with the edit summary "the sentence you removed is very well sourced (10 or more) and took us (...) weeks to reach consensus on it. See Talk page, use it and seek consensus BEFORE removing this sentence"

diff

I then used the Talk page repeatedly on the 2 and 3 September,

diff

diff

diff

but there where no answers about Harun Yahya by anyone. ThePharoah17 and also Ibn Amr re-included Harun Yahya and the sources not mentioning the KCK. The Harun Yahya source is difficult to find as at first sight, he appears as Bill Rehkopf. In my opinion Harun Yahya is not a good source for a controversial phrase which I also stated at the talk page. Also sources that do not mention the KCK should not be used to source a phrase about the KCK.

Both, the KCK part of the phrase as well as the PYD-PKK connection would still be sourced with 3 sources. But as there is no founder of the PYD mentioned by name in any source but it is claimed that it was the PKK who founded it, as to me it is better to move this to the history part instead of the lead. A source with no name of a founder is no high quality source for a foundation. (Turkish sources would very probably deliver the names of the PKK-members amongst the PYD founders of 2003, but they don't and it would also not be a quality source) Nor is Harun Yahya. After my edit I did on the 16 September

here the diff,

the sources would have been clarified and not just a link as it is currently sometimes the case. The others prefer the current version with the unrelated sources.

For transparency: Before I came here with the dispute, the dispute was discussed at the ANI, but there I was told this is the wrong forum, and to go to another Noticeboard like RSN. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for deciding who made correct or incorrect allegations on a talk page. It is an appropriate forum for discussing whether a source is reliable or not. But I'm not clear from the way this question is framed which sources are contentious here. Can you specify the sources we need to discuss, and what claims they are being used as sources for? Is it specifically this source (an opinion blog by Harun Yahya in The Hill, removed in this edit and restored in this edit but with the author inaccurately given in the citation as Bill Rehkopf)? My view is this is an inappropriate source for a factual claim as it is an opinion piece, and that "Harun Yahya" (Adnan Oktar) is not a reliable source for anything other than his own views as he is very much FRINGE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The sources I view as unreliable are the following:

The very Harun Yahya source you found (source No. 8 in the PYD article states it is from Bill Rehkopf),

this anonymous one of the

International Crisis Group (Heiko Wimmen is not the Author of the piece, he wrote another article on top of the link. The article sourcing the foundation of the PYD by PKK members is located below and is anonymous. It's the only source I read which mentions a founder of the PYD, and the article does not disclose the name. No Author nor a name of a founder. No high quality source to source something controversial in the lead.

another anonymous one of the

Carnegie Middle East Center it is a general article about the PYD. But nothing in depth. Also no high quality source. I also tried to show who the publisher is, but they reverted me.

another anonymous one of the

Council of Foreign Relations which doesn't mention the KCK but is used to source the KCK. The piece is a general timeline about Kurds. No high quality source worth for the inclusion of controversial content in the lead.

then a

Jstor/Atlantic Council piece which would be a better source but it doesn't mention the KCK as well (for which is used as a source) nor the foundation of the PYD in 2003 for which it is also used as a source. It focuses on the PYD from 2012 onwards (page 3-8)

a Reuters source which does also not mention the KCK for which it is also used to source, nor does it mention the foundation of the PYD in 2003 by the PKK, for which the piece is also used as a source for.

and a Hoover Institute piece of Fabrice Balanche who they also try to conceal. I tried several times to make his name seen, but everytime I was reverted. The source doesn't mention a founder of the PKK by name, nor mentions the KCK for which it also used as a source.

Most of the sources don't even mention what they are supposed to source.

This source from the Middle East Policy is an acceptable one for the KCK and has authors like Michael Gunter etc. It mentions the foundation of the PYD in 2003. But the PYD is not portrayed as a Syrian branch/offshoot of the PKK. According to this source it was only founded by Kurds with a sympathy towards the PKK, and it also has no name of a founder to show. This source can stay for the KCK. But it is also not a good source for a foundation of the PYD as a Syrian branch of the PKK.

I hope, it is now better to understand. It is a long edit, but there are also many sources in dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Asianexpress.co.uk

Hello everyone, any idea if asianexpress.co.uk is a reliable source? I tried, but can't find anything that satisfies WP:RS and sound like a WP:QUESTIONABLE source to me. Thank you, GSS ^💬 10:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. The Asian Express has the appearance of a red top tabloid with a sloppily designed website that shows a copyright footer with the year 2019. None of the articles have a byline, and the publication does not publish a list of staff. However, the Asian Express managed to win the 2015 Asian Media Awards, although I'm not convinced of the award's significance. Taking everything into consideration, I would consider the Asian Express generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Mark Durie as a source for Criticism of Islam okay?

I came across following write up and YouTube link about Mark Durie. Would those be considered reliable source for Criticism of Islam article

• https://www.meforum.org/61522/mark-durie-on-islam-crisis-of-apostasy
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R47R8P6cY1s&feature=emb_logo

Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is he a recognised expert in Islam?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have published academic articles in the field of Acehnese linguistics (Mark_Durie#Journal_articles), but they don't seem to be a scholar on Islam.VR _talk 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Mark Durie as a source for Criticism of Joe Biden okay?

I came across following write up about Mark Durie. Would that be considered reliable source for Criticism of Joe Biden article (I am contemplating for).

https://www.jns.org/opinion/joe-biden-courts-islam-not-muslims/

Bookku (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it, why is his opinion worthy of note, who is he?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No way, most "criticism of living person X" have been deleted for NPOV and BLP reasons. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. — Newslinger talk 13:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Taslima Nasreen as a source for Religion and health okay?

I came across following write up of Taslima Nasreen. Would that be considered reliable source for articles Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion and/or Religion and health ?

• https://theprint.in/opinion/mecca-to-vatican-covid-19-proves-when-human-beings-are-in-peril-gods-flee-first/382851/

Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

:What write up?now addedSlatersteven (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a provocative opinion piece written from the perspective of someone who criticizes religion in general. I think both of these Wikipedia articles should be citing sources that are more academic than this. — Newslinger talk 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Nicolaus Olahus, István Szamosközy

LordRogalDorn has been trying to add quotes from the works of two 16th-century historians, Nicolaus Olahus and István Szamosközy in the article about the Origin of the Romanians. Two editors made several attempts to explain him that the two books could not be cited without a reference to a peer-reviewed secondary or tertiary source. He debates our opinion. Do you think we can quote 16th and 17th-century historians' views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis without establishing their relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

TheyWorkForYou

The website summarises the voting record of MPs in England and Wales using a transparent process. Would it be reasonable to describe an MP's voting record using material from TheyWorkForYou? E.g. Craig Mackinlay#Parliamentary voting record. 92.40.186.147 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• N.B. the site in fact tracks the voting record not only of MPs for England and Wales, but all British MPs, MSPs, MSs, MLAs, and peers. The scope is by no means limited to one part of Britain. GPinkerton (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 (even though no RfC template has been added). The last controversy as described by RSs here on Wikipedia dates to 2007 and earlier, relating to the content reproduction of Hansard (the UK Parliament's record). They were described by The Telegraph, an established (even if deried in some circles as the Torygraph) WP:RS, in 2008 as 41st in their list of "Top 100 most useful sites". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Dubious as it in part seems to use Wikipedia, thus three is a anger of circular citing. And there is this [[183]], I begin to lean towards not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: per my comments below, there is no evidence the site takes information from Wikipedia. The Times say no such thing, so an unreferenced claim someone has added to the article should be dismissed with prejudice. FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but a claim they may not cover all the facts is. This [[184]] also says much the same.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, they cover all the facts. The article says that the Scots ministers were just unhappy with how this made them look, and how some people were specifically targeting them for criticism. So they added a caveat to the website. Which is what a reliable source does. Lots of people disagree with how certain reliable sources portray them, it doesn't make the source unreliable. Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, Reliable. The criticism mentioned above by Slater still starts with "While the facts on this site are true, there’s vital context missing" and ends with "TheyWorkForYou might be clumsy in their attempt to do so, but at least they’re trying" which suggests this is far from a takedown, and rather just demonstrates that the utility of the website is as a reliable source for facts. It's just not very good when it comes to providing the full context of parliament. The idea James Heappey says lots of nice things about climate change is great. However he still votes party line. If he doesn't agree with the party but is willing to vote with them in order to keep his job this is in and of itself very telling despite GQ handwaving about the complexities of Parliament and his personal assertions; to quote

We will have to trust his word on this; tracking every single bit of secondary legislation related to climate change that went through the Commons without a vote since 2015 would be theoretically possible, but immensely time-consuming (and dull). There is also the minor issue of the chamber having no attendance records, so we’d find out what passed, but not who was there when it happened, which would bring us back to square one.

To summarise the article "Heappey says this, we can't prove it's true, nor that he was in attendance, and we're not about to do the looking into it thing... so TWFY it is." Any circular sourcing to wikipedia I would need to take a look at; unfortunately the source for the claim is the Times which is both paywalled and the article appears to have been removed? Maybe an archive exists. Koncorde (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The Times changed website, the current article is here. There's no mention in the article (or the archived version) of content being copied from Wikipedia, I will remove the claim from the article. FDW777 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Interesting, the author isn't even the person cited in the TWFY article. Jenny Booth in the article, James Knight on The Times archive. Koncorde (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• comment In case it is relevant, TheyWorkForYou is cited by some reputable news sources: The Guardian [185][186][187], The Independent:[188], The Financial Times:[189] (paywall), The Times [190], BBC News: [191] 92.40.186.146 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the foregoing reasons - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 reliable site, reliable information. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Good source, though the summaries of the voting record aren't as useful as the voting records themselves. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Removed "RfC" from the section heading, as this discussion lacks a {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to convert this discussion into a formal request for comment, please follow the directions at WP:RFCST and then restore "RfC" to the section heading. — Newslinger talk 00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Masala!

Is Masala! a reliable source for south Asian entertainment news? There is a discussion about this at Talk:Ismail_Hussain_(singer)#Masala.VR _talk 20:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: lostarmour.info

Should lostarmour.info be blacklisted? 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The site is a Russian image board that claims to count the number destroyed military equipment in modern conflicts (Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan etc.) by using Twitter images of the purportedly destroyed military equipment (Twitter is a non RS on Wikipedia). I think this source, currently being widely used in modern combat articles should immediately be blacklisted/deprecated due its unreliability. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily blacklisted, but just ignored, that is not used. Simple non-RS issue. Zezen (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

National Geographic and Adam Weishaupt (the Illuminati guy)

Is the National Geographic so reliable that Wikipedia needs to accept elements of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory based on an NG article that iself lacks any reliable sourcing? See the history of Adam Weishaupt and the talkpage section titled "Was Weishaupt Jewish?" for background. --Hegvald (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It should mention this claim, qualifying it by citing this RS by name and maybe the opposing ones, if any, for DUE. Why not?

BTW, I have removed the hat tag there, for easier finding the discussion that you highlighted here: I have not and will not otherwise touch this article.

Zezen (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What do mean by "this RS"? --Hegvald (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hegvald, there is an extensive critique of Hernández' article for the National Geographic here. Vexations (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for "why not," see Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, which is ultimately the source of claims that Weishaupt was Jewish. Notice that there's a lack of Jewish or Masonic sources saying "ok, he had Jewish ancestors BUUUT." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2015 Rupert Murdoch bought 73% of The National Geographic Society's assets, including the magazine, books, maps, and all other Media assets. Then 1n March 2019 The Walt Disney Corporation acquired that 73%,

The magazine is now published by "National Geographic Partners" (AKA Disney) instead of of The National Geographic Society, which retains 27% ownership but has no control over content.[192]

Since then the magazine has become an unreliable source.[193][194][195] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)While NatGeo as an institution is generally not unreliable, specialist sources would outweigh them. Christopher L. Hodapp is more of an authority on these matters and he has endorsed two similarly weighty (though not notable) authors' rebuttals of that article. One of those authors (Josef Wages) was the editor for the English translation of the Illuminati rituals, the other (Terry Melanson) is cited throughout our articles on Illuminati. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Of the discussions linked in RSPS for National Geographic, one is pre-2015 (see what Guy Macon wrote) and the other seems ambiguous, leaning towards "against". I don't think the current green status has a solid basis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the online article that Vexations (talk · contribs) mentions above, and it is telling that the NG has already corrected a claim about Mayer Amschel Rothschild that had originally been in the Hernandez article (see box at the bottom of her article). In either case it would appear that the best secondary sources on Weishaupt's origin are most likely to be the two articles by Brökel and Hausfelder that deal specifically with Weishaupt's family and are published in German regional historical periodicals, neither of which, alas, is available to me. Somebody with access to a good German university library could probably find them. (Gerhard Brökel "Adam Weishaupt: der Gründer des Geheimbundes der Illuminaten und seine Vorfahren in Brilon", Jahrbuch Hochsauerlandkreis 2004. Edmund Hausfelder, "Die Familie des Adam Weishaupt und seine Schwiegereltern Sausenhofer", in Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Ingolstadt 120 (2011), p. 215-245. Both are mentioned by JevaSinghAnand (talk · contribs) in a comment from 2015. (Jeva Singh-Anand also appears to have been an authority on the illuminati and a collaborator of Josef Wages, mentioned above by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs).) --Hegvald (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)